A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
December 30th, 2007
The last straw: The death of Benezir: The death of Mrs. Bhutto at the hands of terrorists should cause the world to stand up and finally confront terrorism and those who support it and those who excuse it. We are tired of watching as U.N officials in Afghanistan meet with the Taliban and then having Ban Ki Moon say the murder of Bhutto was merely a ‘crime against stability’ and having the headlines read “Bhutto dies” rather than “Bhutto was murdered.”
The Ethiopian and Japanese model and what we can learn from them: When Muslims demanded that Ethiopia allow them to build a Mosque in the holy city of Aksum Ethiopia responded that they would allow it when an Ehtiopian church is built in Mecca. When the Jesuits tried to convert Japan to Christianity and asked for special rights the Japanese emperor declared them a security threat and expelled them all. We could learn from both their countries and how they confronted pushy religious people.
Legacy of blood: the U.N, Israel and the Jews: The day the Nazis were defeated and European Jewry was destroyed the world decided to defend human rights and human rights organizations and the U.N have waged an unending war from that day forward against Israel and the Jewish people accusing them of violating human rights. Irony?
Gaydamak and the Segev Phenomenon: Tom Segev demands Israelis apologize for the Kfar Kassem massacre, but it is he and his generation that should apologize, not the average Israeli whose ancestors weren’t in Israel at the time. Furthermore the leftist-establishment hatred for Arcadi Gaydamak smacks not only of racism and xenophobia but also shows how the elite hates people who made their own money and scoffs at those who haven’t worked for the government their whole lives, like Mr. Olmert or Mr. Al Gore.
The last straw: The death of Benezir
Seth J. Frantzman
December 28th, 2007
The death of Ms. Bhutto in Pakistan at the hands of a terrorist bomb is the last straw. The Islamists hung her father. Now they have murdered her while the world sits by and human rights organizations complain about the government of Pakistan.
We have had enough.
In Lebanon Human Rights Watch cancelled its report on Hizbullah’s war crimes because they feared they might offend Hizbullah. In Afghanistan two weeks ago two high ranking U.N officials met with the Taliban, and were subsequently thrown out of the country by Hamid Karzai. The U.N said “we must talk to all sides for their to be peace.” It turns out that the U.N official, Mervyn Patterson, an Englishman, and the EU official Michael Semple, from Ireland (a country that collaborated with the Nazis) met with Taliban officials in Musa Qela in Helmand province. The Al Quieda official accused of ordering the murder of Bhutto turns out to be Baitullah Mehsud, one of those the U.N officials may have met with, thus illustrating the nefarious connection between the U.N and terrorism and the U.N’s attempt to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.N conception of peace, no doubt, was under the Taliban. In Israel a leftist scholar receives a degree for writing a thesis that claims Israeli soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women because the soldiers are racist and view Palestinian women as sub-human. Thus the leftist implicitly claims that the raping of women should be viewed as tolerance and an act of coexistence.
We have had enough.
After Sept. 11 every leftist in America claimed it was ‘blowback’ and that America deserved what had happened to it because of America’s role in the Middle East and America’s support for Israel. Leftists excused the deaths of 3,000 civilians by claiming that the civilians were not innocent but were really ‘little eichmanns’. In subsequent years leftists the world over blamed terrorist attacks in London, Madrid and elsewhere on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One wonders, will the leftists blame the death of Bhutto on the ‘conflict’ and the ‘occupation’?
We have had enough
Under the guise of free speech leftists and human rights activists invited Ahmadinjed of Iran, a dictator and Islamist, to speak at Columbia University. Leftists scoff at the ‘war on terror’. Leftists in every country work with Islamism under he guise of human rights and free speech, always giving free legal advise to Islamists and protesting on their behalf.
We have had enough.
Leftists are there in the Sudan volunteering to teach the children of the country’s Arab elite who are running the Sudan. In Chad leftists kidnap children and label them ‘Darfur orphans’. They accuse those resisting the genocide of committing ‘war crimes’ which would be tantamount o calling the Warsaw ghetto fighters ‘war criminals’. Leftists were there in Rwanda and leftists crafted Clintons infamous ‘acts of genocide’ speech where he refused to call the Rwandan genocide a genocide. Leftist professors such as Prof. McCarthy are hired by the Turkish government to white-wash the Armenian genocide. Leftists defend Holocaust deniers in France and Germany and under the guise of free speech invite them to speak at the Oxford student union. Leftists were there with Pol Pot, the only two Europeans in the country during the genocide were two French leftist journalists who called his country a ‘socialist utopia’. Abroad leftists such as Noam Chomsky white washed the genocide in Cambodia and claimed it was a right wing conspiracy. In Cuba the leftists helped Castro overthrow the government and thus helped enslave the Cuban people for 50 years so far. In Venezuela the leftists cheered as Chavez shut down independent paper sand television as part of his ‘socialist revolution’. Leftists have been there at every genocide. Leftists objected to the hanging of Adolph Eichmann, claiming that he should have been tried by the U.N.(a twist of irony considering leftists claimed the victims of 9/11 deserved to die because they were ‘little eichmanns’. The leftists protested the hanging of the real Eichmann more than they did 9/11).
We have had enough.
We are tired of Leftist support for Islamism. We are tired of watching good decent leaders be assassinated by Islamists and have leftists come in and accuse the government of ‘human rights violations’ and never condemn Islamism for its crimes. Leftist organizations from the U.N to amnesty international to Human rights watch to the Red Cross have never condemned terrorism. It doesn’t matter if its 3,000 dead Buddhists in Southern Thailand or 3,000 dead in the Philippines or hundreds killed in India and 100,000 Hindus cleansed from Kashmir, or 1,000 Israelis dead or 300 children at Breslan murdered, or the genocide of 300,000 in the Sudan or the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, or the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas or the murder of people in Bali and Algiers and Morocco and Buenos Aires and London and Madrid and Beirut. It never matters. The millions dead at the hands of Islamism have never been condemned by human rights organizations. Leftists only criticize the governments that are fighting this genocide, they critique the U.S, Israel, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Uzbekistan, the Philippines. Everywhere that a government says “no thanks, we do not want terrorism, we do not want Islamism, we do not want the Taliban, we do not want genocide and ethnic-cleansing’ that government will be attacked by leftists and will be forced to have ‘free speech’ so that Islamists can spout their hate and it will be forced to have ‘democracy’ so that Hamas and Hizbullah and the Muslim brotherhood can come to power. Leftists expect the Algerian government to apologize for daring to fight a war against Islamism in which 100,000 died. Leftists have always target the governments that are being victimized by terrorism, while the terrorist governments such as the Taliban or Khartoum or Saudi are left alone. Ethiopia is indicted by the Human rights mafia, but not Eritrea or Somalia or Sudan. The U.N met with the Taliban between 1992 and 2001 and aided them. Then after they fell from power the U.N refused to help Hamid Karzai create a free Afghanistan, instead the U.N meets with the Taliban and gives them aid, hoping to bring them back to power.
We have had enough.
The U.S won’t allow the democratically elected Hindu governor of Gujarat to visit the U.S under allegations that he allowed rioters to hurt ‘religious freedom’ but America allows the Saudi king, a dictator who forces women to cover their hair and faces, to visit the U.S. England welcomes Saudi dictators and French leaders welcome Quaddafi and cry at Arafat’s grave. Meanwhile the same England that welcomes dictators and gives holocaust deniers a prime venue at the nation’s top universities, is the same one that forbids Israeli generals from visiting the country lest they be charged with ‘war crimes’. Oddly enough Sudanese politicians, whose genocide has killed 300,000 people are welcomed with open arms in England and allowed diplomatic status. While academics in the U.S bemoan the Jewish ‘Israel lobby’ they allow their university’s Islamic studies departments to be funded by the Saudis.
We have had enough.
The war against terror is not just a war against Islamism, it is an international war against the internal leftist enemy. It is a war against the U.N and the Red Cross and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. There is no difference between these NGOs and the terrorists themselves because the human rights organizations and leftists provide shelter, financing, moral support and justification for terrorism and always excuse its acts. They use free speech and democracy as weapons.
Legacy of blood: the U.N, Israel and the Jews
Seth J. Frantzman
December 30th, 2007
In April of 1945 the United States, Russia and the U.K sat down and sought to create an organization that would prevent wars of the kind just experienced in the future. At the same time they sought to prevent future genocides. The logic of the creation of the U.N was, in short: now that the European Jews are all dead and Europe has completed its ethnic-cleansing we should have an organization to protect human rights and prevent war. Since those heady days in 1945 the U.N has succeeded in defending the human rights, primarily, of the one people who have sought to kill as many Jews as possible in the last 60 years; the Arabs.
Before the creation of the U.N, the League of nations ensured that the Second World War would take place and helped to seal the fate of European Jewry. European nations helped in the efforts to keep the Jews in Europe where they would be murdered by preventing their emigration to other lands. The Prime Minister of Australia noted ‘we have no racial problem here and we do not wish to import one.’ But in case the Nazis could not finish their efforts in time another international organization run by Europeans stepped in to lend a hand, the Red Cross not only whitewashed Nazism and stole packages intended for Jews in the camps but it then set about running the concentration camp of Thereseinstadt for 18 days (22nd of April to the 8th of May, 1945) after the Nazis abandoned the camp in 1945 and before it was liberated by the Red Army. It is certainly an irony that the Soviet army had to liberate the Jews, not only from the clutches of the Nazis, but also from the clutches of an NGO, from the Red Cross, whose cross is reminiscent of the crusader cross. Since 1948 the Red Cross, in collaboration with the U.N has sought to give aid and comfort to the Palestinians, sponsoring competitions for people in the Middle East to write essays about why Israel’s occupation is ‘illegal’ and condemning Israel each year as one of the greatest abusers of Human rights. In short the Europeans discovered in 1945, the very year that European Jewry became extinct, that human rights were suddenly an important value and since that date have made sure that the people who deserve the most human rights are the very people in conflict with the Jews, i.e. the Palestinians. In short, the Europeans managed after 1945 to continue to wage their war against the Jews, except they have done so in the guise now of defending human rights. They have done so by labeling the Jewish people racists and Nazis and fascists.
Sitting atop the highest hill in Jerusalem, aptly named the ‘hill of evil counsel’ is a colonial fort called Government house. This is the headquarters of the U.N’s colonial army in the Middle East and since 1945 it has served as the nerve center for planning, funding and organizing the murder of as many Jews as possible in the Holy Land, otherwise known as Palestine to Europeans or Eretz Israel to religious Jews.
The first campaign the U.N waged against Israel was the 1948 war. The U.N decided that it, a collection of European nations, had the right to partition Palestine into two states, one for Arabs and one for Jews and Arabs. How the U.N decided it had this power is not exactly clear, but beginning with the passage of the partition plan on November 29th, 1947, Arab rioters began to kill Jews in Palestine. All in all more than 5,000 Jews, a full 1% of the Jewish population in Palestine in 1947 would die at the hands of Arabs in the next year while the U.N did nothing to prevent the bloodshed.
Next, when the war was over, the U.N set up refugee camps for the Arab refugees and registered them. In cooperation with the Red Cross it set up tent cities throughout the Middle East, cramming the Palestinian refugees into the most terrible places to ensure that they would become and as poor and wretched as possible. This ensured that they would not only demand a ‘right of return’ but that they would make wonderful photo opportunities for those who wanted to claim that the “Jews have become like the Nazis”. Furthermore it ensured that they would yearn for revenge and would form terror bands to begin the ‘armed struggle’ against Israel. The U.N provided education for the Arabs and selected nationalist and Islamist educators to fill the Palestinian children’s heads with propaganda. The U.N paid for maps to be printed that showed ‘one Palestine, complete’ without Israel or the Jews.
In 1967 when Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded that U Thant remove the U.N observers from the Sinai, who had been stationed there to prevent war between Egypt and Israel, the U.N complied. This was the height of the U.N’s collaboration with Arab regimes to aid them in their war against Israel. The U.N had a mandate to prevent war and in the end made sure to help Nasser with his invasion plans by removing the U.N troops who were supposed to be an obstacle to just such an invasion. When, a month later, Israel was winning the 1967 war the U.N made sure to pass resolutions to stop the war.
In 1976 when Israel rescued Jewish hostages held at Entebbe in Uganda the U.N made sure to condemn the rescue and support the German-Palestinian terrorist team who had not only hijacked the plane but separated the Jews from the non-Jewish passengers. It may have been no surprise since the same U.N had condemned Israel’s execution of Adolph Eichman some 12 years previously, making sure to condemn the execution of a Nazi. Some 20 years later the same U.N would begin to demand prosecution of Israeli generals as ‘war criminals’.
The U.N went further however. It elected a former Nazi and SS trooper, Kurt Waldheim, who had been known as the ‘expert’ in his supervision of the gassing of Jews in Eastern Europe and the creation of ‘gas vans’, to head the U.N. Thus a Nazi became head of the U.N and a few years later he presided over the U.Ns resolution to define Zionism as racism. Thus a Nazi, whose entire belief system was based on racism, became the head of the leading NGO and condemned Israel for being a ‘racist’ state.
The U.N went further. It established an occupation throughout Israel and on its borders. It aided Hizbullah in Lebanon and provided cover for Hamas rocket launchers in Gaza. Its schools continued to drill hate in the heads of children and it passed a resolution that declared that the grandchildren of any Palestinians would be considered refugees, despite the fact that international law requires that people stop being refugees after the third generation. The Palestinians became permanent refugees, and the U.N continued to house them in concentration camps in order to make them as hateful as possible.
The U.N created a human rights council with the sole intention that its one permanent investigation would be Israel crimes against the Palestinians.
This is the U.N. It is an instrument of hate, an organization whose roots are in Nazism, which has been run by former Nazis and which acts as an occupation force in the Middle East and throughout the world, colonizing countries and excusing genocide.
The Ethiopian and Japanese model and what we can learn from them
Seth J. Frantzman
December 27th, 2007
Xenophone observed that the one word those oppressed by the Persians did not seem to possess was the word ‘no’. It was not a word that was lacking in Greek society and certainly not among the Spartans. Had Xenophone lived today he might very well have made a similar realization about western society, it does not have the word ‘no’. Whenever people are willing to beg or kill enough, westerners inevitably grant them whatever they wish. (Dr. Vijay Sazawal has noted in regards to India that “this is one of the most common mistakes made by outside observers who customarily equate violence with severity of demands.”)
The west might do well to learn from others who have had the courage over the years to say ‘no’ to the demands of religion upon society. In Ethiopia the city of Axum (Aksum) is one of the holiest cities of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. It is a site of pilgrimages and for many years the emperors of Ethiopia were crowned there. Inevitably with the birth of Islam the city was immediately attacked by Muslim invaders who traveled across the Red Sea in order to kill off the non-Muslim Ethiopian Christians. As with all sites holy to non-Muslims, such as Jerusalem, Hebron, Nazareth, Bethlehem Ayodha and Constantinople, Muslims invented a tradition that claimed that Mohammed’s companions had visited an area near Axum when they were on the run. Inevitably the Christian king of Axum had supposedly given them aid and Mohammed had said “Leave the Abyssinians in peace, as long as they do not take the offensive.” But as in all Islamic history the Ethiopians were perceived as ‘taking the offensive’ merely by existing and not wishing to convert to a new religion and not wishing to have all of their children and women sold into bondage by Arab slave traders. So Axum resisted. Islam suceeded in destroying much of Ethiopia, but it did not conquer Axum. However over the years Muslims managed to become 25% of the population of the city. As with every Muslim demographic invasion they then demanded that a large mosque be built in this city that was holy to Christianity. The emperor of Ethiopia agreed that a mosque could only be constructed in Axum if a church were built in Mecca. This was quite an original proposal and it is one all nations can learn from. As Muslims request access to ancient mosques in Spain that are now churches the Spanish can request that old Churches in Damascus and elsewhere, holy to Christians but not taken over by Muslims, be returned to Christianity. If Muslims want more mosques in India Hindus and Sikhs should request that temples be built in Islamabad in Pakistan. If Muslims want special prayer rooms and foot baths in airports in the west then Muslim countries should have special synagogues and churches in airports in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Muslims in Greece demand mosques and in exchange Turkey should return stolen and ruined churches to the Orthodox and Armenian faiths. Palestinians want a special prayer room at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem so there should be a synagogue at Al Quds University in Jerusalem. There should never be another mosque or another special prayer room constructed in any western country unless more churches, temples and synagogues are constructed in Muslim countries in exchange. The Saudis complain that Muslims are not ‘free to practice their religion’ in Europe, so Saudi should grant freedom of religion to non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Muslims want reserved slots at universities in India and they want the year of the pig banned in China and they want to be able to slaughter lambs in public in an inhumane manner in Europe, all of these things should be countered with requests such as giving special slots to Hindus and Chinese Buddhists in Malaysia and banning the certain foods in Muslim countries. Islam should never be given an inch, not even a centimeter. It is a religion that thrives on denying others precisely the rights it wants for itself. Muslims say “do not judge all Muslims by the acts of a few terrorists” when Muslims judge all Christians for the words of the Pope or they judge all Jews for the acts of one Israeli. Muslims treat others as Dhimmi and grant affirmative action to themselves in their countries and trade in slaves, they deserve to treated in the exact same manner by others. Muslims want westerners to learn about Islam then they should learn about others. Only through the prodigious use of the word ‘no’ can the creeping Islamization of the world be stopped. But if ‘no’ does not work then the west might do well to learn from the Japanese how to deal with pushy religions.
In 1542 the first Christian missionary arrived in Japan (although earlier evidence points to the first arrival being an Assyrian Nestorian missionary in 199AD). For forty years Portuguese missionaries converted local Buddhists and pushed themselves upon the Japanese, establishing trading stations and requesting special rights for their church. However beginning in 1587 Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the leader of Japan, declared Christianity to be seditious and prohibited Christianity. In 1597 official persecution of Christians began. By 1638 Portuguese traders had been banned from Japan and from that date Japan is said to have entered its period of ‘isolation’ or ‘closed door’. But it was not so much a closed door to foreigners as it was a demand by the Japanese to not have their culture, values and religion meddled with. The Japanese shoguns understood all too well that Buddhists were easily tempted to convert due to the structure of Buddhism. Perhaps understanding, without having seen for themselves, the fate that Buddhism had experienced in Afghanistan and elsewhere when Muslims had simply killed all the Buddhists after Buddhist nations had been pleasant enough to allow Muslim traders access to their towns, the Japanese set out to be rid of foreign influence.
Historians see this in a negative light. This is defined as being ‘exclusionary’ and having a negative attitude towards the ‘other’. But Japan didn’t so much hate the other as it resented the pushiness of the other, the ever increasing demands of the other. While the Portuguese were eager to bring Catholicism to Japan there was no talk of allowing Shinto Buddhist missionaries access to Portugal. It was to be a one way street whereby Japan was to be ‘opened’ and foreigners were supposed to be tolerated in Japan while no Japanese were to be tolerated in Europe. While modern day leftist liberal historians would have encouraged Japan to ‘open herself up’ and be ‘tolerant’ to foreigners the evidence shows that had Japan done so she would today be a poor third world country, exploited, raped, colonized and eventually Christianized and Islamisized by the world, like Africa. Japan wished to be left alone, to have her own unique culture and language and heritage and history. When Japan did decide to ‘open herself’ she did so on her own terms when the Meiji decided to invest heavily in bringing western know-how to Japan without bringing western religion or western culture. This has saved Japan and it is why Japan is unique. Japanese women do not dress like Indonesian women, whose culture was long ago ripped away from them so that they could have their hair covered and become good Muslims. Japan still has her temples and her pagodas unlike other countries such as India where the local temples were ripped up and the people sold into slavery by the Mughal Muslim conquerors. Japan is a model of how people can preserve their society against foreign domination and the insidious creeping foreign cultures of intolerance and terrorism that are being visited upon all cultures in the world. Leftists point out that Japan is a ‘racist’ society. Surely Japanese are known for their racism. Be that as it may would it be preferable that Japan was instead like everywhere else in the world? Would it preferable that Japanese culture had disappeared long ago and been replaced by the globalized culture that much of the rest of the world is suppressed by? The same people who complain that Japan is ‘racist’ are the same ones who oppose globalization. The same moral relativists and multi-culturalists are the ones that complain about globalization. But Japan successfully prevented globalization in the 17th century by requesting that foreigners leave her soil. Modern historiography resents this expulsion of the ‘other’ but what law in the universe says that all countries must have the yoke of the ‘other’ hung around their necks? It is good that some countries can be diverse melting pots, such as the United States, but it is also good that we have some countries where unique cultures still exist. All the obsession with diversity ignores the fact that multi-culturalism and assimilation and intermarriage and tolerance and coexistence is a killer of diversity. In America every city may have their plethora of cultures, but within a generation each unique culture of immigrants that emigrate to the United States is slowly ground into dust. This is why there is no longer a Yiddish theatre in New York. The Yiddish culture has been smashed and crushed under the wheels of assimilation. All the multi-culturalism aimed at preserving some tiny reservation of Yiddish culture is exactly that, preserving a tiny reserve of it where people can see a tiny little bit of it in a museum. It is not a genuine preservation. It is like most of the Indian reservations in the United States which are too small and have too few people to actually preserve the cultures that call them home. Outside of the largest Indian reservations there is little authentic preservation of Native American language, religion or culture. So which is better for diversity? Japan’s model or the model of the United States? Which is better in terms of diversity, the relics of Buddhism that are ground into dust by Islamists in Afghanistan or the real live Buddhism practiced in Japan? Which is better, the fake adherence to diversity in Europe that grinds minorities into hard hateful slum dwellers, or the true decency and pride felt by a Kurdish villager in his mountain stronghold in northern Iraq?
The west’s model for diversity and multi-culturalism is as bad as the Muslim model. Islam kills off all the indigenous people and makes everyone dress the same and speak the same and act the same. It is why honor killings exist in Jordan and London and Afghanistan. It is why the headscarf of Muslim women is identical today in Zanzibar, India and New York City. The western model celebrates fake diversity and slowly kills off every culture and boils every culture down so that each culture gets one day to express itself and the rest of the year it is crushed under the boot of multi-culturalism and forced to learn about other cultures. By contrast the Japanese-homogenous- exclusive culture says “I would like to have my culture and you can have your culture and I will stay on my island and you can live in your place. Thank you for being interested in bringing your religion, which you love, to my doorstep but I would prefer if you left now.” The best way to deal with an ever shrinking world is to say to it what one says to Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘thanks, now please go away.” Or, in the words of Xenophone, ‘no’.
Gaydamak and the Segev Phenomenon
Seth J. Frantzman
December 27th, 2007
Tom Segev’s lies
Tom Segev penned an oped in Haaretz on Tuesday, December 26th, arguing that Israelis should apologize en masse for the killing of a 47 Arab citizens of Israel in 1956. The Kfar Kassem massacre was a real massacre. The Arab citizens had been ordered to stay home due to a curfew along the border because of the approaching 1956 war with Egypt. They had gone out nonetheless and were returning from field work when Israeli border came upon them. Even though it was obvious they were farm hands and not fighters the police shot them all.
Subsequently the officer in charge of the massacre was sentenced to prison and the soldiers were punished. No history book, whether western or Israeli, denies what took place. A dozen soldiers took part. According to Tom Segev of the 18,000 members of the village today some 15% are related to the massacre victims and "they live with the heritage of the massacre as a key element in their identities." According to Mr. Segev "ceremonious apologies for historical injustices…have become a rather common phenomenon everywhere in recent years, from South Africa to Argentina." But Tom Segev is ignorant regarding world affairs (just like when he claimed that 'arrogant' Israel had dared to establish a different holocaust memorial day than the U.N and that Israel should 'conform' to the world communities day of remembrance.) It is true that the Afrikaners were supposed to collectively apologize for Apartheid. It is true that an American president did apologize for interning the Japanese in the Second World War. Argentina's depth of apology stemmed from the fact that a new regime simply apologized for the crimes of an old one, which wasn't really an apology but a condemnation of the political party that carried out the Argentine disappearances.
Tom Segev is like so many white European westerners who want everyone to apologize for things they themselves had no part in. In the United States this takes the form of asking all 'white' people to apologize for slavery and the destruction of the Native American, regardless of the fact that 60% of those deemed 'white' immigrated to the United States after the end of slavery.
The irony of Segev's complain that Israelis don't collectively apologize for Kafr Kasem is the fact that while he and his family were resident in Israel at the time, many of today's Israelis were not. Mr. Segev wants the million Russian-Israelis to apologize for a crime they didn't commit when those same Russians have never received an apology from the Soviet leaders for 50 years of state sanctioned anti-Semitism in that country. No doubt the Red Cross would like the Jews to apologize, when the Red Cross has never apologized for its roll in white-washing the Nazi death camps and collaborating with the Nazis during the Holocaust and even running a concentration camp for 17 days.
The Arabs demand an apology, the same Arab Muslims that always say "not all Muslims should be judged for the actions of a few fanatics on 9/11". We should learn from the Arabs and Muslims. Muslims have never apologized for any of the crimes they have committed over the years in the name of their religion. There has been no apology from Turkey for the Armenian genocide. There has been no apology from Islam for its colonization of Spain, Eastern Europe, East Africa or India. There has been no apology for the salve trade that took 11 million Africans away from their homes in chains to be sold as soldiers and sex slaves in the Muslim world. There has been no apology from Islam for any of the Muslim terrorism that has taken the lives of tens of thousands. There has been no apology from Islam for the slaughter of Jews in Hebron in 1929 of Kfar Etzion in 1948 or for the destruction of the Jewish Quarter in 1948 or for keeping Jews as dhimmi for 1400 years.
We should all take a lesson from Islam and never apologize for anything. The past is the past and as Muslims like to say "one should not judge all of us for the actions of a few." But if white people want to apologize for some perceived wrongdoing then they should go ahead and do so and stop telling others to apologize. Instead of telling everyone else to apologize he should apologize, for it was his generation that engaged in the massacre. Mr. Segev should apologize.
But leftist Ashkenazi Israelis find it impossible to recognize their crimes. They enjoy calling the occupation 'illegal' while they themselves live on lands taken from the Arabs in 1948.
Today's target of the leftist Israeli elite is Arcadi Gaydamak, a Russian born Israeli millionaire who is running for the mayoralty of Jerusalem. Wealthy leftist Israelis hate him as is evident from the headlines in Haaretz. The reasons are quite diverse. They accuse him of being a 'foreigner' who is usurping Israel. They claim he is corrupt. They claim he is rich and thus should not be allowed to 'buy' his way into office. Each insult and slanderous comment smacks of hypocrisy.
They hate him for being a foreigner and yet most leftist Ashkenazi politicians were not born in Israel up into the 1970s. It takes quite a lot of chutzpah to claim that a 'foreigner' is coming to Israel to steal an election given the fact that David Ben-Gurion was born in Eastern Europe and Golda Meir was also not from Israel. They claim he is corrupt but every single Ashkenazi politician in Israel is corrupt in one way or another. They accuse him of being rich and 'buying' votes. But what of the other leaders of Israel. Ehud Olmert was born to a rich family in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Jerusalem. He never worked a day in his life and yet he has managed to get wealthy through donations from 'friends'. Gaydamak, by contrast, was born poor and once lived on the streets. He worked his whole life to achieve his wealth, despite the anti-Semitism of his home country. But like John Edwards and the left's love for him, it turns out that self made men are not welcomed by the left, in fact 95% of all leftist candidates for high political office come from the elite sectors of society and were born wealthy and most never worked for the money they have, living off a trust fund instead. It is quite a lot of chutzpah for the wealthy leftist elites to complain that a 'rich' usurper is coming to buy votes away from them. The most glaring hypocrisy is when Gaydamak has distributed his money to charity to help the victims of the Lebanon war and Sderot. The politicians complained that he was buying votes, but he was doing what the government should have done, taking children out of a combat zone and giving them peace and quiet. It may be no surprise that people who are born wealthy rarely give money to charity, preferring to spend the money that others give by working for the government, while those who make their own money (like Rockefeller and Henry Ford and Bill Gates) are the biggest givers. Compare the giving of men such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet with the giving of the Kennedy family or Ariana Huffington or any other people who were born wealthy and one will always find those who are born rich rarely donate money, but they are always happy to accuse others of 'buying influence.'
There is a common theme between Tom Segev claiming that all Israelis, including the Russian immigrants, should apologize for Kfar Kassem and the hatred with which Haaretz views Mr. Gaydamak. Segev doesn't want to apologize. He wants everyone else to apologize, despite the fact that it was his generation who caused the massacre. He wants the Russian Israelis and Mizrachim to apologize, when it was not they who participated. By contrast when it comes to elections suddenly the Mizrachim and Russians become 'foreigners' who are slandered for not having the correct culture (read: corrupt) to assume an office in Israel. This is a perfect study of how an elite Bourougise culture works. It demands of others that they make up for the wrongs of the elites. Thus everyone must apologize for things carried out by members of the elite. But when it comes time to divvy up the tax money and take the well paying government jobs suddenly those who were asked to apologize are then considered 'outsiders' who do not deserve to have a say in managing the affairs of the nation. This is how the elite has always managed to govern, by dividing people and by insinuation and slander. It should be the other way around. The Tom Segev’s and John Edwards types who represent 1% of society are the ones that should apologize, it is their families who carried out the crimes of the past. The recent immigrants and poor should be the ones who should be elected to office, it is they who make up the majority of the country.