Being Critical of Jews Is the Ultimate Taboo

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


Nobody – or hardly anybody - ever talks about how Palestinian Christians are treated in Israel. The reason is very probably what I found out for myself when I published an article on my blog about how Israel is not such a haven for Christians and received abusive comments from a couple of (anonymous) usual suspects.

As these positions deserve to be exposed, I decided to reply to them in a new article: this.

The first comment is in answer to the point I made that what happens to Christians in Israel is usually favourably compared with what happens to them in Islamic countries. But is that the right comparison? Isn't Israel supposed to be democratic and Western?

Therefore, Israel should be judged by that standard and the way Christians and Christianity are treated in Israel compared with the way minorities and their religions (including Jews and Judaism) are treated in Western countries.

The first anonymous commenter says:

It's the opposite the aggression in Israel is done by arrogant antisemites, the cameras only roll when a Jew gets angry enough to respond, Christians set Jews up in Israel just like they do everywhere else. Where do you think Muslims learned these tricks?

The second anonymous commenter maintains (I’m reproducing the comment with all its mistakes):

No western standards , you are soi wrong about this it's scary. 300,000 antisemites marched through France last year, what about the treatment of Jews in your beloved Italy, proof Jews have been there for 2300 years such as caves, where are the Jews of Ita;y, how many vilent antisemitic incidents in Italy/ I think it is nearly 2 billion at this point in histopry. They have accused orthodox Jews of spitting everyone and they never actually do it. If you are so evil and blind that you can't see the media and many individuals lie about Israel, you shouldn't be alive. Then you falsely claim that Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post are standard papers, something you would not do for any other subject except to selectively prove your antisemitic thievery and lying point. haaratz has a daily article about how evil any religious Jews are and the the Jerusalem Post does too. You are wrong on this, the Western countries has and does treat Jews especially in Europe, worse than all other peoples combined. You are just bullying thye Jews with oibvious antisemitic bias and the same types of tricks Muslims use, in the media. Christians are treated better in Israel by infinity than Jews were in any Western country. Definitely Italy.

My dear anonymous friends (both of you), I wanted to answer you but I realise that you've done it very well by yourself.

By skipping arguments and launching into vituperative attacks without substantiating the wildest claims ("almost 2 billion anti-Semitic incidents" in Italy alone! I suppose it could be right if you consider anti-Semitic anyone who disagrees with you), you have demonstrated that my point was correct.

There is indeed a real question that dares not speak its name.

And it doesn't dare because you try to silence all criticisms of Israel or Jewish culture or behaviour with tired, old accusations of anti-Semitism (when not out-and-out neo-Nazism).

This reminds me of something. Oh, yes, your favourite people. Muslims try to silence all criticisms of Islam in the same way. Just replace "anti-Semitic" with "Islamophobic" and "neo-Nazi" with "racist".

I've read a very apt epigrammatic definition of anti-Semitism: "Once anti-Semitism was hate of the Jews, now it has become saying anything that Jews hate."

This is the ultimate taboo, an extremely fierce one. Anyone can be criticised except Jews. I know that I can write unfavourably about Muslims (that is actually easy these days), black people, homosexualists, Third World immigrants, non-whites in general. But on the rare – albeit very recently increasing – occasions I have criticised anything to do with Jewry, I have been insulted.

It's highly disingenuous of you to talk about anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe when you know very well that this is not due to the native Western people but to the immigrant Muslims. And immigrant Jews in the West have always been at the forefront of support for unlimited immigration and multiculturalism. Now they don't want to lie in the bed they've made for themselves. They move to Israel. Too bad indigenous, Gentile Europeans haven't stolen Arab lands to go to and establish an ultra-nationalist state where the "other" is treated as a second-class citizen.

It doesn't matter how long you've lived in a country (even 2,300 years as you say), if all this time you've cultivated your separateness, as Professor Kevin MacDonald documents, and considered yourself part of a group of superior humanity, the chosen people.

I've heard before all these stories of all sorts of people who set up the Jews, and I must say that sometimes I've fallen for them. But you can't fool all people all the time.

Interesting how neither of you could answer the documented fact that Israeli legislators have ripped up the New Testament and called for its burning, or the attacks on churches and writings of "Death to Christians". Are they all set-ups?

For letting people know about these truths you think I deserve to die: "You shouldn't be alive", as you nicely put it. So much for considering yourself victims. Now I know even better what must be like to be a Christian in Israel.


NOTE
The author of the YouTube video above introduces it thus:

"It is becoming a common occurrence in Israel to hear about Jews burning churches, spitting on Christian clerics, burning Christian Bibles and intimidating and harassing other Jews who believe in Jesus. Unfortunately this is almost unheard of from the Western media. If it was not for the internet this would be unknown to millions of people around the world.
Here I am presenting one example of the rampant discrimination and xenophobia against Christians that exists in the "Jewish state". Please feel free to copy and post this video in other sites."

Legalising Man-Dolphin Marriage Is Next

Why shouldn't this man be (or have been) allowed to marry his dolphin sweetheart?

After all, it's only "love" that matters in holy matrimony, not building a family and a safe environment in which to raise kids.

It's all to do with "feelings" these days, little else is important, and obviously we are here talking about the feelings of adults. (The feelings of children of anomalous families carry little weight.) Love in particular, however defined. For some people, like paedophile Oscar Wilde who was paying to have sex with working-class rent boys, the definition of love is lust.

A man says he fell in love with a female dolphin, Dolly, in the 1970s and had a sexual relationship with her for a year.

In addition to this, there is the terrible reality of the captivity of Dolly at Floridaland amusement park (now fortunately defunct), where she was a "performing dolphin".

He claimed the encounter took place because Dolly seduced him.

Malcolm Brenner, 63, claims that he fell for Dolly, a bottlenose dolphin who lived at the now-defunct Floridaland theme park in Sarasota, after her amorous advances.

Brenner told the story of their year-long affair relationship again in Dolphin Love, a new film which premiered last week at the Slamdance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Slamdance, which takes place at the same time as the more famous Sundance film festival, is seen as its edgier alternative and hosts more niche films.

In the fifteen-minute video, Brenner describes in detail the sexual relationship, which he claims was consensual.

Brenner's acts would be illegal today. But Florida only enacted a law banning bestiality in 2011, so the encounter he described in 1971 would not be covered.

I suppose such a law was not necessary then, but nowadays we are much more "progressive" and zoophiles have become a common occurrence.

"Charity" Age UK Hates Christianity

The insurance company of Age UK (supposedly a charity) has threatened to void the policy of a Christian minister in Wales because she put Christian stickers on her car.

Reverend Wena Parry, 75, was told that stickers saying "Christ Must Be Saviour" and "Christ For Me" could be regarded as "modifications" and could invalidate her insurance policy.

She told BBC Wales that she believes she has been treated unfairly because of her religious beliefs by Age UK insurance.

Reverend Parry said she spent £120 on the red-and-black-lettered messages. "Every opportunity I have I want to tell people about Jesus. I reckon there must at least a million people who have read the texts on my car," she added.

Age UK has denied the existence of a religious motive behind the move, but hasn't provided any other explanation.

The company first became aware of the messages when the reverend submitted a claim on her insurance after thieves damaged her exhaust and stole a piece of the engine, and thus company officials saw the car's photographs.

Age UK told Reverend Parry in a letter: "These modifications do not fit our acceptance criteria for motor insurance and cover would have been declined if we had been made aware of these at the time of purchasing your policy."

Why on earth? It's difficult to think of what the word "Christ" on someone's car has to do with insuring the car in case of an accident.

Reverend Parry has wisely changed insurance company.

"There might be somebody within that company that hates Christianity." she said.

Indeed. And, considering that Britain is not only historically but still now constitutionally a Christian country - the Queen before being crowned had to swear allegiance to the Christian faith and the Church of England -, these anti-Christian attitudes are nothing short of subversive and anti-British.

Age UK should be boycotted.

A 10-Year-Old Is Smarter than Obama

I don't know how the media could get away with constantly describing Obama as a little genius. Maybe they think that because he'a Marxist and a black, and for those reasons the misrepresentation has been accepted more uncritically than it should have been.

He's not even very intelligent.

In this video, Obama shows that he doesn't know the basics of American history, and - what is particularly serious - of American presidential history.

Interviewed on NBC by Savannah Guthrie, Barack Hussein says: “We make beer. First president since George Washington to make some booze in the White House”.

He's never even taken a tourist tour of the White House, otherwise he would know that this august building hadn't yet been constructed at the time of Washington's presidency, and the first president to live in it was John Adams, the second President of the US.

The White House was built between 1792 and 1800, when, although incomplete, it became livable.  In 1800 John and Abigail Adams moved in when the rooms were still unfinished.


When the third president, Thomas Jefferson, went to live in it in 1801, most of the outside structures were finished.

Perhaps Barack Hussein doesn't feel enough loyalty for America to experience the need to learn this great nation's history at primary school level. Perhaps it's not even his nation.

Italy's New President Defies Stereotypes

My friend, Italian journalist Alessandra Nucci, has written and sent me this article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Italy has a new president, Sergio Mattarella, the first President to come from Sicily, and the brother of a lawmaker who was murdered by the mafia. The picture above shows the scene of the crime, where Mattarella, then a young university professor, is holding in his arms the body of his dying brother, Piersanti, Governor of Sicily.

In our system, it’s the Prime Minister who heads the government and gets to make the decisions, but it’s the President who is head of State and gets to decide who can be Prime Minister. Sort of like the monarch in a constitutional monarchy, but with a lot more leeway for making independent decisions.

This important figure today, because of the tragedy in his family, which he has never capitalized on, never playing the victim, can stand for the 99% of Italians who are NOT linked to the mafia and for the vast majority of the country who are even, directly or indirectly, VICTIMS of the mafia, down to even losing their lives.

So please, world, do away with your unfair stereotypes. Please realize that prejudice becomes rooted and indestructible when it is confirmed by an endless line of tv series where the noblest Italian trait is the gravity of Godfather Marlon Brando.

Not only is our real-life new President a symbol of the honesty and resilience of the average Italian, but he also disproves the loud and uncouth behavior depicted as being typical of Italians. Whatever else he may turn out to do, President Mattarella is honestly soft-spoken and dignified, a man of few words whose aplomb marks him out as more similar to an archetypical Englishman than a Sicilian.

I am sending this out because the international press very rarely says anything about Italy and if it does speak it is usually to register something that draws ridicule and scorn.

Objective Reality Thoughts

How do you know that a door was objectively there (unless you are a solipsist)? When you moved into another room and didn't bang your head against a wall.

How do you objectively know that the calculations on which a bridge was built are correct? When the bridge doesn't collapse.

Israel and Indigenous Palestinians

My latest article on Israel, Israel Is Not Quite What the Propaganda Machine Says It Is,was one of my first ventures into a territory about which I've read a lot but written little.

What has stopped me from writing about the subject of the controversial legitimacy of Israel is that I know that many of my friends and readers support Israel and would likely be offended.

But I decided that, since my purpose in writing is to tell the truth as I see it and hopefully help others in seeing it too, and, in addition, since I believe that everything is interconnected and there are no important parts of the whole picture we can ignore without distorting our vision of other parts, I had to take this step, although not very easy or pleasant.

The comments and reactions have been a mixed bag of favourable and unfavourable, but many more of the former than I expected.

I suspect that many people have begun to realise that Israel is not the saint and victim in the Middle East conflict - and that Jews are not the saints and victims in the history of Europe either -, but are afraid to say so explicitly, because the "anti-Semitic" slander is much more powerful these days than the "Islamophobic" one.

This post is the first part of my answers.

Giuseppe Gigliotti wrote a very long comment on my Facebook profile page in which he seems to fuse his opinions on this and a previous article of mine, Israel Not Such a Haven for Christians. I doun't doubt his good faith, only some of his claims, which I'll examine quoting them as they are, mistakes and all. He says:

"Maybe, if among conservatives (included people that you love quoting, like Oriana Fallaci), there is support for the Jewish State, it is not because of a supposed lobbist pressure, but because of other reason."

I love Oriana Fallaci and I like quoting her because she's among the first who opened my eyes on Islam. This doesn't mean that she can make no mistake.

In one of her books, though, Oriana Fallaci says that Lebanon was the most beautiful and European country in the Middle East until it was invaded by the Palestinians, who did to it what the Jews had done to their lands. She spent many years in the Middle East as correspondent for the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera. So she had seen many things first hand, including the displacement of Palestinians by Israel.

Why she supported Israel can be explained by her focus on opposing Islam, the same reason that applies to most of the counterjihad movement. If we have a common enemy, the general way of thinking goes, we must be friends or at least allies.

This is not a safe judgement, especially considering that the West would not even have the problem of the enemy, Islam, inside the gates if Jewish organisations, Leftist and politically correct in the diaspora as much as they are ethnonationalist when it comes to Israel, hadn't promoted mass immigration, multiculturalism and "tolerance" to Islam in Europe and America, where, supported by a Jewish-dominated media industry, academia, education system and Hollywood, they had a great influence in pushing - along with Cultural Marxism, one of their creations -  policies that are greatly damaging the white, gentile, indigenous populations.

And they are still at it.

"Have you ever bothered to visit the country or to read about Zionism? It seems no."

I've read a lot about Zionism. I haven't visited Israel. I dispute the fact that you can understand a country's politics better if you've been there. In many cases it could even be counterproductive, for example if you go on one of those escorted tours to Israel for MPs and journalists organised by the Israel lobby during which you are presented only with the reality that they want you to see.

The following part, in which Giuseppe describes Israel as full of energy and mentions that he helps the local Christians there, is interesting but irrelevant to what I'm saying. Good for him to do that!

His next sentences puzzle me:

"So which is your point? You declare to be concerned about the fate of christians. Well, sorry but your concernes sound hollow to me. If you were moved by real angst, you wouldn't have quoted Younab. You know, a man on payroll of Abbas, that has nver condemned the muslim persecutions in Gaza or PA areas is not a source i will quote. But, it iz your own problem."

There is no quotation from "Younab" (or Younan, which is probably what Giuseppe meant) anywhere in those two articles under examination.

"Now let's pass to your scandalous theory about a supposed palestinian indigenousness. Even here, have you a vague idea of the jewish state law? It is meant to restate the obvious. Israel has always been the jewish people national home, without denying aocial or political rights to its minorities. That you, a woman who condemns multiculturalism , have objections only to the jewish selfdetermination sounds hilarious."

I am not objecting to Jewish self-determination, only to the method of stealing other peoples' lands used to achieve it. Palestinian indigenousness is not "scandalous", "a theory" or "supposed".

Even one of the heroes of Zionism (therefore yours), David Ben-Gurion, candidly admitted:

Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it… We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

And in his 7 June 1938 Address at the Mapai Political Committee, quoted in Simha Flapan's Zionism and the Palestinians (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , he said:

In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.

The United Nations recognised Israel on December 11 1948 with Resolution 194, but Article 11 of the latter declares:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. [Emphases added]

So, Israel's recognition by the UN included that Israel let dispossessed Palestinians return (the “Right of Return”), which Israel hasn't done and for which the UN has issued various resolutions against Israel. I suppose the UN suffers from the universal disease of anti-Semitism.

"But, let's move to the next step. Where is the proof of the indigenousness of palestinians? You haven't quoted a single source, except that idiotic map. And, for your perusal, that images disprove your thesis. If you knew israeli history, something that you don't know, you would know that the borders of Palestinian Mandate were designated by britons. An indigenous people doesn't use a colonial map for defining its own homeland. And infact the Lehi was against this demarcation, since it was arbitrary. Yet, this indigenous people that you love so much uses an invented map... The truth is that until 30s there was no palestiniannation."

Giuseppe is contradicting himself, as by his own admission there was a Palestinian nation from the '30s, therefore before the birth of Israel.

Elsewhere, Giuseppe is confusing "nation" with "state".

To be a nation, a people doesn't have to be represented by a state. A good example is the Jewish people: before Israel, they didn't have a state, but Jewish nationalism existed, and that's what led to the establishment of the Jewish state.

From this initial confusion stem his misunderstandings about the maps: they don't portray country borders, they depict where Palestinians lived before dispossession and where they live now.

I doubt that Giuseppe has read my article under discussion, or that he has read it carefully, otherwise he wouldn't write that I don't "know that the borders of Palestinian Mandate were designated by britons", because I describe that situation there.

Proof of the indigenousness of Palestinians? There's plenty. I did cite a respected source, historian J.M. Roberts. I also quoted a Zionist source, Moshe Dayan, who said:

We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here... Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages... There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.

Where's Giuseppe's proof that Palestinians were not indigenous to those lands?

Here's some more that they were, in the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples about the current Gaza Strip and West Bank, in co-operation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), saying:

Main indigenous and minority groups: indigenous Palestinians...

Giuseppe' reference to the Lehi's opposition to my map's demarcation as arbitrary is a bit self-defeating.

The Lehi (aka Stern Gang) was a violent and terrorist Zionist group whose objective was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by force, to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the constitution of a Jewish state, a "new totalitarian Hebrew republic". Hardly a reputable source.

As is well known, they were not the only Jewish terrorist group:

In the aftermath of World War II, Britain still played host to a number of groups sympathetic to Fascism and racial nationalism. These groups, together with the growing prominence of vocal politicians like Enoch Powell, alarmed the Jewish population. Of course, this was the same Jewish population which had repaid British war-time assistance by supporting, in every conceivable way, the Irgun terrorist campaign against the British in Palestine. One Jewish historian has remarked that Jews in Britain lavishly funded “the purchase of arms for Jewish underground armies fighting against British troops.”[1] Jewish terrorism against the British had culminated in 1947 with the kidnapping of two British army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice. Martin and Paice were beaten and bloodied by their Jewish captors, before being hanged in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. Their bodies were booby-trapped with mines, causing them to be torn to pieces when efforts were made to retrieve them. The brutal and sadistic slayings comprising the ‘Sergeant’s Affair’ had followed the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel (British headquarters in Palestine) a year earlier. The new atrocity sparked a wave of revulsion throughout Britain. More specifically, the actions caused the British people to re-think Jewish loyalty.

My answers to comments continue in another article.