Help Fight Judonia!

Please help sustain EAAZI in the battle against Jewish Zionist transnational political economic manipulation and corruption.

For more info click here or here!

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Gary Rosenblatt: Noah Feldman and the Confrontation of American with Jewish or Zionist Values

Gary Rosenblatt of The New York Jewish Week starkly frames the issue of Harvard Professor Noah Feldman's erasure from the ranks of graduates of Brookline's Maimonides School.
What Feldman's essay points up is that intermarriage is the irreconcilable issue for those who argue that American and Jewish values are compatible. "We've sold a lot of Jews a bill of goods when we've told them there are no contradictions between being a good Jew and an American," noted Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. "In America you are taught you can marry anyone you fall in love with, but Judaism argues that we are a minority culture and will only survive if Jews marry other Jews."
Rosenblatt's analysis probably applies even more strongly to Zionism than to Orthodox Judaism. American and Zionist values are simply completely contradictory in many serious ways, and when someone claims that America and Israel share the same values, many Americans and non-Americans become very uncomfortable.

Because American Jews exercise such strong influence over US society and ME policy, non-Jewish Americans have to start paying serious attention to the fundamental disconnect between American principles and fundamental beliefs of Zionists and many if not most Jewish Americans.

[Noah Feldman's essay can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin. Rosenblatt's commentary thereon comes after the following backgrounder.]

Some Background on The Maimonides School and Noah Feldman

Joseph Soloveitchik, who founded Maimonides School was intensely racist, and the school has followed his tradition slavishly. A Hebrew language circle in which I took part asked me to videotape a series of Motza'ei Shabbat lectures given by Rabbi Schacter at the Maimonides School. Schacter used to be the Dean of the School's Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute.
 
Schacter misrepresented the history of Jewish and Christian attitudes toward Jerusalem, but when he started to discuss Muslim attitudes he turned viciously racist and spewed lots of essentialist primordialist nonsense.  He claimed that Muslims and Arabs were completely hypocritical liars to feign interest in Jerusalem now that it was once again rightfully in Jewish possession. Eventually, he made me stop recording because he did not want any electronic record of the talk.

Despite Schacter's claims Muslims have esteemed Jerusalem intensely since it first came under Islamic rule, and the city was an intellectual, spiritual and pilgramage center for the whole Muslim world. In contrast, since the 10th century at least (probably earlier) Jerusalem has had much more importance for Jews as a spiritual concept than as a physical place.

Vilna was the Jerusalem of Lithuania. Thessalonika was la chica Yerushalayim. Amsterdam was the Jerusalem of the North. While for Palestinians there is only one Jerusalem, it probably would not be hard to come up with 50-100 cities that Jews called Jerusalem over the last millennium.

I could write a nice coffee table book with several interesting chapters on some of the most picturesque of these "Jerusalems."

The actual physical Jerusalem became, especially for ethnic Ashkenazim, sort of a dumping ground for trouble-makers or eccentrics and not a place of tremendous emotional significance or attachment. A young woman, the Virgin of Ludmir, is getting uppity and trying to play the role of a Tzaddik or Rebbe. The community sends her to Jerusalem in Palestine, and for the most part no one hears of her again.

As for Noah Feldman, he was a junior Harvard fellow and has a D.Phil. (Oxon) in Islamic Thought. The Bush administration sent Feldman to Iraq in the early days of the occupation.  He was to oversee the proper incorporation of Islamic principles into the Iraqi constitution.  He was to take into account the Shiite and Sunni sectarian differences. I doubt that many Iraqis considered such issues so important before Feldman (and thus the Bush administration) told Iraqis that the differences were so critical. Feldman only lasted in Iraq for about a month.  He needed an Iraqi Arabic phrase book to get around. He probably bears some responsibility for subsequent sectarian carnage.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14347

[Note that Rosenblatt's article has vanished from the Jewish Week website.]

(07/27/2007)
Modern Orthodoxy Under Attack
Gary Rosenblatt - Editor And Publisher

However tempting, it would be a mistake to dismiss Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman's personal and pointed critique of Modern Orthodoxy in The New York Times Magazine last Sunday ("Orthodox Paradox") as merely The Big Kvetch.

His essay, sure to provide fodder for numerous sermons this Shabbat, is a long and bitter complaint that despite his numerous and remarkable professional accomplishments, he has been snubbed by the Brookline, Mass., yeshiva high school from which he graduated with honors in the 1980s.

Despite the fact that Feldman was valedictorian of his class at Harvard, a Rhodes Scholar and Truman Scholar who completed his doctorate at Oxford in record time and went on to help craft the Iraqi constitution, he and his then-girlfriend were literally cropped out of a reunion picture of Maimonides School graduates published in the alumni newsletter some years ago, and none of the personal updates he has sent in since have been published. Why? Because the girlfriend — now wife — is Korean-American. Not Jewish.

And Feldman, who aptly describes the yeshiva's goals of "reconciling the vastly disparate values of tradition and modernity" as seeking to combine "Slobodka and St. Paul's," maintains that he has been rejected by his community despite the fact that he has "tried in my own imperfect way to live up to values that the school taught me, expressing my respect and love for the wisdom of the tradition while trying to reconcile Jewish faith with scholarship and engagement in the public sphere."

Poor Noah, one may think on first read. How primitive and unfair for his former yeshiva to refuse to publicly acknowledge his successes.

But as one continues to read Feldman's essay, we see that it is he who is unfair in expecting to be lauded by a community whose values he has rejected and in crafting an intellectually dishonest case for himself.

Still, the implicit and more lasting question raised by the essay is how should the Jewish community in general, and the Orthodox community in particular, deal with Jews who have married out?

Sending a message to our children that we deeply value in-marriage for social, religious and communal reasons is all well and good, but what do we do after the fact, once they've chosen a non-Jewish partner and conversion is not a part of the conversation?

Unfair Arguments

As for Feldman's arguments, in insisting that Maimonides himself, the 12th century rabbinic scholar and philosopher, believed that knowing the world was the best way to know God, he ignores the fact that it was Maimonides who codified Jewish law, established the 13 principles of faith, and insisted on adherence to halacha.

Feldman then goes on at some length to cite Jewish law's tensions over violating the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew. But he fails to mention that the dispute is Talmudic, not practical; no Modern Orthodox doctor would hesitate to treat a non-Jew on the Sabbath.

Perhaps most upsetting, and unjust, the only allegedly Modern Orthodox Jews Feldman describes in his essay besides Sen. Joseph Lieberman are Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzchak Rabin, and Baruch Goldstein, the American-born physician who murdered 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994. The two are cited as examples of men who took Jewish imperatives to their logical conclusion by committing murder.

"That's like judging the peacock by its feces," noted Rabbi Saul Berman, a scholar and former head of Edah, an organization that promoted Modern Orthodox values.

Indeed, no serious Modern Orthodox Jew is unaware of the tensions between upholding the Torah law and recognizing the values and benefits of Western democratic ideals. Rabbi Berman credits Feldman with pointing out the need to explore such tensions, which when unrecognized or out of balance can produce an Amir of Goldstein, "but it's not fair to judge the system" by such aberrations, he maintains.

Psychic Pain

In the end, Feldman's essay is less about Modern Orthodoxy than about his own psychic pain over being rejected. He wants it all: to be embraced if not applauded by the Jewish community whose values he has discarded by marrying out.

As Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter, senior scholar at Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future, noted in a letter sent to The Times, "fealty to Jewish tradition requires more than a 'mind-set' expressing 'respect and love' for its teachings; it presupposes certain fundamental normative behaviors. America is a country of choices, but choices have consequences and not every choice is equal. It is unrealistic for Mr. Feldman to expect to maintain good standing in a community whose core foundational behavioral — as well as value — system he has chosen to reject."

Judaism is not alone in this attitude. Witness, for example, the Catholic Church's discomfort with former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a divorced Catholic who favors abortion rights, or any religious faith's attitudes toward members who publicly violate its tenets.

But Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author and television personality ("Shalom in the Home"), cautions against alienating some of our best and brightest Jews who marry out. Rabbi Boteach has been a friend of Feldman's since he served as a rabbi at Oxford University where Feldman studied for two years in the early 1990s. In an essay in the Jerusalem Post this week, Rabbi Boteach says that in addition to the "ethical and humanitarian considerations" regarding ostracizing those who intermarry, the approach is ineffective, with intermarriage rates so high.

He argues that the community has a far better chance of winning over the non-Jewish spouse and the Jewish partner through welcoming behavior rather than shunning the couple.

This inreach vs. outreach debate has been part of the American Jewish landscape for a number of years, but there are those who suggest a more nuanced approach.

"There is a difference between a personal and a communal response to intermarrieds," noted one Jewish educator who knows Feldman from Maimonides School. It's one thing, he said, to have a personal relationship (and one wonders if Feldman would have felt less hurt if someone from the alumni office had explained the decision not to print his picture). "But for the school not to crow about a graduate who married out — how could he think otherwise?"

Cropping Feldman and his wife out of the photo was "unconscionable," according to Steven Bayme, national director of contemporary Jewish life at the American Jewish Committee and a graduate of Maimonides School. But he noted that even Feldman acknowledged every minority group requires boundaries to maintain and preserve its own identity and that marrying out is viewed with disfavor by every denomination of Judaism.

"The price for the individual may be tragic," Bayme said, "but the loss is far more destructive for the community in terms of cultural distinctions and communal cohesion if you remove the boundaries."

Irreconcilable Issue

What Feldman's essay points up is that intermarriage is the irreconcilable issue for those who argue that American and Jewish values are compatible. "We've sold a lot of Jews a bill of goods when we've told them there are no contradictions between being a good Jew and an American," noted Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. "In America you are taught you can marry anyone you fall in love with, but Judaism argues that we are a minority culture and will only survive if Jews marry other Jews."

Sarna chairs an American Jewish Committee task force on attitudes toward non-Jews in the community, and asserts that with an estimated 1.7 million non-Jews living in Jewish households — to put it another way, about 23 percent of those living in Jewish households are not Jewish — this is "a very important debate" for the community to engage in.

Citing the "magnitude" of the issue and the "bitterness that drips out" of Feldman's essay, Sarna suggests that perhaps it is time for the community to reconsider ways to draw people in rather than ignore or shun them, especially when there are indications that many non-Jews are supportive of raising their children as Jews.

Others would argue that the community already has tilted so far toward outreach and acceptance of non-Jews that there is little incentive left for them to convert to Judaism.

What Noah Feldman has done, consciously or not, is raise some important issues, less about his old yeshiva and Modern Orthodoxy per se than about dealing with Jews who do not see marrying out as leaving the fold.

Conversion is the most obvious and desired solution, but for those who eschew that option, we need to explore ways to encourage their positive exposure to Jewish life.

Feldman would argue that just because he intermarried does not mean he chose to separate himself from his heritage. But being Jewish means not only incorporating the values and traditions, but also remaining part of a community.

For all of Feldman's candor in the essay, he has nothing to say about where he fits into the community, if at all; whether he wanted his wife to convert; whether they are raising their children as Jews or not; or his feelings about all this. He only owes us such information if he wants our understanding and empathy, which clearly he does.

He does owe Modern Orthodoxy an apology for pinning it with his anger over rejection, knowing full well the rules of engagement. But we in turn owe him a sense of gratitude for a wake-up call, however unpleasant, about the need to struggle more deeply and honestly with the moral and religious tensions and contradictions in Modern Orthodoxy that can never be reconciled, and about learning how to deal more sensitively with those on the outside who may be calling out — in anger and loneliness — for a way back in.

E-mail: Gary@jewishweek.org
Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 27, 2007

Fighting Hegemonic Blocking on Campus -- Ousting Summers at Harvard

I have no real way to gauge how critical my anti-Summers campaign was to driving Summers out of the Harvard presidency, but here is an opinion from within Harvard University.  If I helped create an environment at Harvard that forced Summers to resign, I accomplished something useful.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/joachim-martillos-e-mails.html

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 ...
Joachim Martillo whose e-mail is ThorsProvoni@aol.com has been one of the major external sources of tension during the so-called Summers controversy in 2005. The subtlety is that Martillo promotes anti-semitic opinions. For example, today, many people received his e-mail "Summers' latest outrage". What is the outrage? It is the largest
that is planned for February 10 and will become the largest Shabbat dinner that ever took place at Harvard. Why is Mr. Martillo so offended by the dinner? It is because he believes that the Hillel Society is a racist organization that moreover promotes zionism - namely the idea that the state of Israel has the right to exist (which Mr. Martillo obviously considers to be a heresy). The Wikipedia page above makes it clear that Hillel is the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life. It's the most correct Jewish campus organization you can get.

Mr. Martillo also claims that some distinguished professors at Harvard add an anti-Slavic racist aspect to the activities of Hillel. As a Slavic person, I declare that the contacts we had with the people whom Mr. Martillo accuses of racism have shown no evidence supporting it. In other words, as a member of a hypothetically discriminated group, I must say that according to all evidence I have, Mr. Martillo is not saying the truth to us.
 
Posted by Lumo at 8:56 PM

[It is hard to determine from the webpage description but Shabbat 1000 is a Lubovitcher event. Anyone that has spent much time around the Lubovitchers at their main headquarters in Crown Heights quickly realizes that they are quite racist.  Harvard should not be giving a Lubovitcher event an official Harvard imprimatur.  If Summers wanted to have some sort of Jewish-exclusionary get together, he should have arranged to do it unofficially and off-campus possibly with the Bostoner Rebbe.]

Wednesday, March 08, 2006 ...
At yesterday's FAS faculty meeting, some academics have decided to launch a coordinated and distasteful attack against Prof. Ruth Wisse, a brave and decent woman whom I deeply respect. Prof. Wisse has simply hinted in the media that the anti-Summers attack also had an anti-Semitic dimension.

Yesterday, Prof. Wisse had no efficient way to defend herself against the attacks of the "majority" and Prof. Laurel Ulrich even proudly said there are occassions when meetings have to be in camera, which reminds me of the Central European history of the 1940s when many things took place in camera.

I, for one, have absolutely no doubts that Prof. Wisse is right. It may be that some people only criticize her because they don't know the actual reality which is why I decided to post this comment. What do I mean by the anti-Semitic dimension? It is not just about the clearly high correlation between being anti-Israel on one side and the attitudes directed against Harvard's first Jewish president on the other side: most anti-Summers professors had also decided to support the anti-Semitic divestment campaign several years ago. More importantly, there have been quite many e-mails influencing the controversy whose character is explicitly anti-Semitic.

Let me repost excerpts of one of these e-mails that the people known to be involved in the controversy received on March 16, 2005, one day after the no-confidence vote. In my opinion, the e-mail is as anti-Semitic as it can be. Moreover, this class of e-mails was apparently determining the character of the future strategies to attack Summers. As you can see, the e-mail below mentioned Prof. Shleifer almost a year before he became a part of the algorithms of the anti-Summers warriors.

When we received these e-mails 1 year ago, most of us were already ready for everything but nevertheless, I was scared even more and thought that al-Qaeda had joined the anti-Summers league. I did not have the courage to speak about these things for half a year.

Disclaimer: the pen name as well as the real name of the author of the anti-Semitic e-mail below is known to The Reference Frame

...

Summers has been much to cozy with Professor Shleifer and his wife even though this couple may have exposed the university to millions (maybe at worst hundreds of millions of dollars of financial liability).

...

Summers has a double standard that amounts to racism.

...

Apparently, ethnic Ashkenazim on the faculty may make outrageous and extremist statements in the support of Zionism and the State of Israel, but an African American like Cornel West may not engage in relatively ordinary political activism.

Summers' commitment to racist ethnic Ashkenazi tribalism takes precedent over his commitment to free academic discourse.

He condemned the Divestment movement at Harvard for being anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. Yet he did not give a clue to the Harvard community how to express criticism of Israel without being anti-Semitic in effect. Obviously, Summers is unwilling to tolerate criticism of Israel or of Zionism.

Summers panders wealthy racist ethnic Ashkenazim.

[Name removed] is an extreme racist ethnic Ashkenazi, who believes in the superiority of Jews over Arabs because he asserts that the historical, ethnic or national rights of Jews to Palestine are superior to the human rights (including residence rights and property rights) of the native population and because he assumes that the Jewish settler population should be privileged over the native population.

... [Attacks against Prof. Wisse removed.]

Summers effectively prevented Sheikh Zayed from contributing to the University because of right-wing racist ethnic Ashkenazi Zionist complaints that a Larouchite had given a talk at a think tank (apparently one of many) funded by Sheikh Zayed.

Larouchites have occasionally given talks at the Pentagon apparently by invitation of ethnic Ashkenazi Neoconservative advisors to the President.

...

In summary, I believe that all people who have said bad things about Prof. Wisse because they were unaware that she is completely right and she has been a target of nasty anti-Semitic threats should immediately apologize to her. Although she is a brave woman, she definitely needs a protection instead of scary attacks "in camera" and anonymous threats.
Posted by Lumo at 3:23 PM

Some Comments

Why did faculty members have to vote no confidence in Summers?

1. There have been far too many hints of financial impropriety.

Harvard Fund managers have been overcompensated.

Summers has been much to cozy with Professor Shleifer and his wife even though this couple may have exposed the university to millions (maybe at worst hundreds of millions of dollars of financial liability).

Is Summers getting kickbacks? In view of some of the malfeasance that has occurred in recent years at BU, it is not an unreasonable question. He either is or is not. The numbers of dollars involved are so large that one might have to consider Summers stupid if he is not getting a payoff of some sort. In any case, the questions about fiduciary propriety since Summers became Harvard President have to make all potential contributors concerned that their largess might end up in somebody's pocket instead of benefiting Harvard.

2. Summers has a double standard that amounts to racism.

He had a problem with some of the nonacademic activities of Cornel West but had no similar problem with comparable activities by virulent anti-Arab anti-Muslim activists like Ruth Wisse and Alan Dershowitz. Apparently, ethnic Ashkenazim on the faculty may make outrageous and extremist statements in the support of Zionism and the State of Israel, but an African American like Cornel West may not engage in relatively ordinary political activism.
 
3. Summers' commitment to racist ethnic Ashkenazi tribalism takes precedence over his commitment to free academic discourse.

He condemned the Divestment movement at Harvard for being anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. Yet he did not give a clue to the Harvard community how to express criticism of Israel without being anti-Semitic in effect. Obviously, Summers is unwilling to tolerate criticism of Israel or of Zionism.

4. Summers panders wealthy racist ethnic Ashkenazim.

Martin Peretz is an extreme racist ethnic Ashkenazi, who believes in the superiority of Jews over Arabs
  • because he asserts that the historical, ethnic or national rights of Jews to Palestine are superior to the human rights (including residence rights and property rights) of the native population and
  • because he assumes that the Jewish settler population should be privileged over the native population.
Ruth Wisse is a second rate Yiddish scholar, who litters her published works with anti-Arab and anti-Polish comments. She has accused one of the preeminent Yiddish scholars of the 20th century of thinking with his dick because he wanted to develop Yiddish studies in Poland.

Yet it was okay for Martin Peretz to fund a professorship for Ruth Wisse.

In contrast, Arabs may not contribute to fund a professorship in Islamic studies at the Harvard Divinity School. Summers effectively prevented Sheikh Zayed from contributing to the University because of right-wing racist ethnic Ashkenazi Zionist complaints that a Larouchite had given a talk at a think tank (apparently one of many) funded by Sheikh Zayed.

Larouchites have occasionally given talks at the Pentagon apparently by invitation of ethnic Ashkenazi Neoconservative advisors to the President. Larouchites may be looneys, but they are often well-informed looneys, and sometimes knowing what the lunatic fringe is saying is worthwhile.

In effect, Summers allows racist ethnic Ashkenazim to contribute to the University and therefore have an effect on University policy, but apparently wealthy Arabs may not.

Because contributing gives influence, we can expect that during the Summers administration, Harvard will become a preserve of wealthy racist ethnic Ashkenazim. The rest of the world (especially Blacks, Poles, Arabs or Muslims) need not apply.

5. Summers does not have a clue about scientific thinking.

Even though he is supposed to know something about statistics, mathematics, the social sciences and science in general, his beliefs about gender differences in the sciences seem based on irrational prejudice and bigotry.

Not only will Summers create a University environment explicitly hostile to women in the sciences, but Summers' complete lack of understanding of scientific reasoning underscores the ridiculousness of his attempt to reform Harvard education to increase the amount of science training that Harvard undergrads receive.

Harvard undergrads need to learn to think scientifically (something that Summers apparently never learned). Taking more science courses just means that Harvard undergrads will have a large body of knowledge that will be obsolete within a few years of graduation.

6. Summers can't manage Harvard.

Not only is the mere presence of Summers at Harvard exceptionally divisive, but the presidency of Summers also threatens the ability of Harvard to raise funds and to attract the best of students and scholars throughout the world. A vote of no confidence is the first step to end the Summers era of darkness and bigotry at Harvard University.

Summers is confused about the nature of the job. Because he wants to be the chief intellectual, he is ineffective as the chief manager. It is time for him to go.

 
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Neocons, John Podhoretz, being Jewish, and incinerating the Arab world

Hi,

Author and former New York Observer blogger Philip Weiss, who has taken to the pages of The American Conservative to detail how he felt after he was forced out by Observer owner Jared Kushner and his former Harvard friend, Observer editor Peter Kaplan, for writing incorrectly about Israel, has been trying to open up the discussion about the connection between US ME policy and the influence of American Jewish Israel supporters on American politics and culture.

After the signature is a recent exchange between John Podhoretz, son of Norman "Bomb Iran" Podhoretz, who is the editor of Commentary, and Phil. For more info on Phil's departure from the New York Observer, see http://gawker.com/news/the-jews/why-philip-weiss-left-the-observer-266393.php .

Best,

Joachim Martillo

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/07/learning-to-l-2.html

July 26, 2007

Learning to Love the Web (Including Jpod?)

A year ago I freaked out when neocon John Podhoretz, angered by something I wrote about the neocons, sent me an email saying, "We know where you live." I got very upset about it and raised a stink in my blog. In retrospect, I think I was wrong. Though it is famously hard to read emotion in emails (thus emoticons and other literal signals of intention, like LOL), I think Jpod as he is known was actually the more sophisticated player, and there was even something respectful in his attention: the internet is actually truly about a conversation, and I was dropping the ball. All this to say that I got an email from Jpod today headlined, "So much anger" and the body of the email said "...just because you married a shiksa?" Which I admit is pretty funny. I responded, "No because you incinerated the Arab world and called it 'being Jewish.'" Jpod then responded, "Ding. Time to take your Xanax." Oh well, Homer nods.
Sphere: Related Content

Newspaper Report on Cold Fire

My wife wrote a slightly different version of the Cold Fire story, which will appear in The Muslim Observer.

Cold Fire, a Muslim Innovation
Karima Friedemann, Boston
 
The Cambridge, Massachusetts Fire Department decided to evaluate the environmental advantages of an innovative break-through in safety technology called "Cold Fire," promoted by AIM International, Inc., a Boston-based corporation. Sudanese-American retired Boston University professor of Mass Communication, Dr. Abdel Rahman Mohamed, PhD, is CEO and Director of Safety Technology for this corporation.
 
On Saturday, July 23, TMO attended a demonstration of this new fire extinguisher in a towing yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Cold Fire" put out magnesium, wood, tire, and fuel oil fires. Unlike conventionally extinguished conflagrations, the presenters could not rekindle any of the fires no matter how hard they tried. 
 
Cold Fire is an EPA-listed ecologically friendly solution of complex organic compounds derived from naturally fire-retardant chemicals found in plants.
 
Cold Fire was able to extinguish a tire warehouse fire in 15 minutes and reduced the building's heat-collapse factor below risk temperature.
 
Cold Fire absorbs vaporized fuel to act as an anti-catalyst. Because it contains massive organic molecule chains, Cold Fire absorbs the energy that could sustain combustion before more fuel can transition to the gaseous state in order to take part in further oxidation reactions.
 
A car soaked with five highly combustible flammables and burning for five minutes, was extinguished by Cold Fire in only 17 seconds. Non-flammable, biodegradable, non-corrosive, safe, non-toxic, non-allergenic, and ecologically safe, Cold Fire demonstrates tremendous thermal insulating as well as heat absorbing capacity.
 
Cold Fire prevents the spread of fire and re-ignition by rapid cooling. It reduces the density of smoke, increases visibility, and eases breathing as it enhances water penetration to extinguish the fire faster with less water. It helps prevent heat exhaustion in firefighters and extinguishes fires faster than anything else. Cold Fire costs the same as conventional fire extinguishers. 
 
Fire & Safety Consultant, Mr. Holtzclaw, 13 year Cambridge Fire Department veteran, who was injured in the line of duty and for the past 2 years has been working with AIM, said, "Everybody, especially fire-fighters MUST know about Cold Fire to stop senseless death and injury of so many of us. I wish Cold Fire was available when I was injured."

NASA, the U.S. military, Florida Police, NY/NJ Port Authority, the automobile racing industry, Michelin, oil refineries, and power plants have used Cold Fire. 

Cold Fire was tested and approved in New York, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, China, Philippines, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.

Sphere: Related Content

Updating "The AJC attacks"

Because this week's issue of Newsweek included a special report about Islam in America (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876834/site/newsweek/) without mentioning the conflict over Palestine or the ongoing attempts of racist ethnic Ashkenazi Americans both to squelch any discussion of Zionist crimes and to impose a test of loyalty to Israel on Muslim American before they can "officially" be moderates, I decided it was worthwhile to send out an updated version of the following article.


The real significance of the AJC attack on "progressive" Jews
 

[Hillel] was accustomed to say:
If I am not for myself, who is for me?
And when I am for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?
 
1:14 פרקי אבות

The American Jewish Committee ignores the second question.
Joachim Martillo
ThorsProvoni@aol.com
February 13, 2007

Numerous Zionist or Jewish organizations and individuals are slandering former President Jimmy Carter as a Jew-hater in order to invalidate his new book Palestine Peace not Apartheid. In response Carter has correctly pointed out that all prominent critics of his book are Jews that refuse to engage any of the issues that his book addresses. Because the public might as a consequence infer that opposition to Carter's analysis results purely from ideological bias or Jewish tribalism, Haaretz correspondent Shmuel Rosner writes in "The Carter Trap" (http://tinyurl.com/2fqd88) that

[this observation] is the only card left in [Carter's] hand, but it is a strong one, which embodies a trap from which there is no escape.

On one hand, this problem, too, could be solved: All it needs is one well-known, well-respected, non-Jewish critic to come out publicly against Carter. If such a person does emerge, it will be possible to completely undermine the legitimacy of this miserable book. But on the other hand, what lies behind the assumption that such a critic is needed? Is this not a disturbing admission that even in America, when it comes to Israel, the word of Jews is still not, and may never be, completely sufficient?

Rosner does not even address the issue that many Carter supporters are Jewish and that many prominent American and Israeli Jews have criticized the former president for whitewashing the history of Israel and for an overly generous appraisal both of Zionism and also of the conditions under which Israeli Palestinian citizens live, but David Harris, who is the executive director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) specifically confronts such Jewish critics of Zionism in his preface to Alvin Rosenfeld's essay, "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" (http://tinyurl.com/ygnw2q).

The American Jewish Committee, from its founding a hundred years ago, has seen its mission as the protection of Jewish rights worldwide and the strengthening of Jewish security. Today that mission centrally includes assuring the right of Jews to a national collective self-expression through the existence of the State of Israel. Those who oppose this basic right—whether Jew or gentile—must be confronted. Prof. Rosenfeld is to be thanked both for exposing the vacuousness of their arguments and for alerting us to the threat that arises when a Jewish imprimatur is given to the questioning of Israel's legitimacy. Note that those he calls "proud to be ashamed to be Jews" are ideologists who deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence, not critics of specific Israeli actions or policies. There can be healthy disagreement and debate within a family or a country as to what the right course of action is—but never of the fundamental rightness of its being.

When progressive or non-progressive Jews denounce the State of Israel, the AJC and other Zionist organizations are effectively blocked from defaming opponents of Zionism or the State of Israel as anti-Semites (if only in effect but not in intent as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers phrased his version of the standard accusation).

Rosenfeld's article represents an attempt to neutralize or so marginalize Jews with any negative opinions of Israel that well meaning people will shun them and their opinions. If Rosenfeld's attack is successful, the AJC will once again be able to defend Israel by slander in those situations where no rational ethical, ideological, or pragmatic argument can justify continued American support for the State of Israel.

Rosenfeld's argument has generated so much controversy within the American Jewish community (http://tinyurl.com/yozlcs) that on February 6th, the WBUR On Point host Tom Ashbrook moderated a discussion entitled "American Jews and Israel" (http://tinyurl.com/33eu5h). The guests included:
  • Alvin Rosenfeld, who is director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Indiana University as well as the author of the opinion piece in question,
  • Alan Wolfe, professor of religion at Boston College,
  • Tikkun Magazine founder Rabbi Michael Lerner, who recently published his essay entitled "There is no new anti-Semitism" (http://tinyurl.com/3aa629), and
  • Haddassah-Brandeis Institute founding director Shulamit Reinharz, who recently published "Fighting Jewish anti-Semitism" (http://tinyurl.com/2b5gkq) in the Boston Jewish Advocate.
The participants have some serious misconceptions about the Eastern European Jewish/ethnic Ashkenazi intellectual culture (see http://tinyurl.com/3bpcr6 for a brief discussion of Jewish ethnography). 

Freedom of thought is not a characteristic of traditional Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi culture but of the breakdown of that culture, and to this day American Jewish communal organizations put a lot of effort into keeping American Jews all on the same page with regard to the State of Israel and Zionism. The AJC publication of Rosenfeld's paper looks like just another attempt in the long history of sometimes successful sometimes unsuccessful efforts by the ethnic Ashkenazi communal leadership to crush intellectual deviance within the American Jewish community, which today is almost entirely ethnic Ashkenazi. 

As the American Jewish community has incorporated more Russian Ashkenazim, whose anti-individualism has both Soviet and Eastern European Jewish roots, the narrow range of allowed opinion within the organized Jewish community has become even smaller as Boston AJC Director Larry Lowenthal recently experienced during his conflict with Alex Koifman (http://tinyurl.com/296emj), who is the Russian Jewish head of Boston for Israel as well as one of two Russian Jews on the board of the Boston chapter of the AJC. 

Nowadays successful communal suppression of divergent American Jewish opinion often includes the purging of the historical record. Even relatively recent (not very) dissenting Jewish organizations like Breira (See Torn at the Roots, The Crisis of Jewish Liberalism in Postwar America, by Michael E. Staub) and New Jewish Agenda as well as their leaders have vanished from award-winning histories of the American Jewish community like American Judaism by Brandeis Professor Jonathan D. Sarna. 

In his article Rosenfeld attempts a similar rewriting or erasing of Zionist history. He states on page 14: "By no reasonable standard of historical comparison or legal judgment can one show that Israel is intent on genocide; nor are the Israelis engaged in a "race war" against the Palestinians." 

One can only be completely amazed that director of the Institute for Jewish Culture at Indiana University either is completely mendacious or is totally ignorant that primary Zionist literature is almost uniformly racist, extremist organic nationalist, colonialist, biological-determinist, or social Darwinist. The eminent Zionist leader Max Nordau, who is probably second in importance only to Theodor Herzl, did not introduce eugenics to the German-speaking world, but he was probably the most important popularizer of eugenic ideas in the German language (http://tinyurl.com/39r54o). Zionist leaders and writers since Moses Hess's publication of Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question in 1862 have supported the ideal of racial revitalization through racial purity and purification. 

No major Zionist thinker from the 1880s through the 1940s would have disagreed with the proposition that Zionism is a Blut und Boden or la terre et les morts form of Romantic nationalism. It certainly belongs to the same class of ethnic fundamentalist parties and ideologies, of which the Polish Endeks, Greater Serbianism and German Nazism are examples. Ideologically Zionist scholars are at least as relentlessly primordialist and essentialist as German Nazi and proto-Nazi scholars. (Some of the latter were, in fact, German Jews, who later became Zionists.) 

If Rosenfeld is not consciously lying about the "race war" inherent in Zionist ideology, one must wonder what he thinks the preeminent Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann meant on September 19, 1919 by declaring the following to the English Zionist Federation (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, http://tinyurl.com/2zl5n3, p. 41).
"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, http://tinyurl.com/2zl5n3, p. 41.)
The Zionists achieved most of that goal in 1947-48 by committing genocide as defined by The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://tinyurl.com/ypb4xv), which states the following in Article 2.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
...
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

The ongoing immurement of Palestinian population centers in the Occupied Territories is an obvious continuation of the genocidal Zionist program and a clear violation of the above article of the International Genocide Convention. This form of Zionist genocidalism has strong similarities to Soviet genocidalism, in which Soviet ethnic Ashkenazim played a leading role (http://tinyurl.com/3y7mmh). 

In his article as well as in the radio discussion, Rosenfeld followed the Zionist party line when he asserted that rejection of the legitimacy of the Zionist or Jewish state results from bigotry or anti-Semitism simply because there is only one Zionist or Jewish state. Apartheid South Africa was the only Afrikaner state in the world, and the world is much better off for its absence. Likewise after March 12, 1938 there was only one German state on the planet, and vast numbers of people supported its destruction for perfectly valid and legitimate reasons after the start of WW2. 

Reinharz also parroted Zionist propaganda and completely ignored all modern scholarship on ancient Judaism (or Judaisms as Jacob Neusner would write) to project modern Zionism back to the Judaism of the Greco-Roman period or before. This sort of nonsense is particularly important in conning Christian Americans into supporting Zionism but has no connection whatsoever to the facts. 

Rabbi Lerner and Professor Wolfe generally opposed the extremism, fanaticism and racism of Professors Rosenfeld and Reinharz, but they were also guilty of some serious misrepresentations. Despite Wolfe's belief, German Jews and ethnic Ashkenazim have never been particularly strong defenders of free speech outside of the Jewish community and have historically tried to control the discourse of the larger non-Jewish society whenever the means have been available. The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany by R. S. Levy describes in detail how German Jewish advocacy organizations like the Zentralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith) used the legal system
  • to force perceived enemies into bankruptcy,
  • to attack members of the academic community believed unfriendly,
  • to ban books or
  • to force publishers to change offending passages.
Like Rosenfeld and Reinharz, Levy often tends to conflate possibly legitimate criticism with anti-Semitism. 

While Rabbi Lerner basically agreed with this article and with careful scholars like Norman G. Finkelstein (see Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism? and the Abuse of History) that Zionists and Zionist organizations generally refuse to answer the content of critiques of Israel but strive to switch the discussion to the legitimacy of the critic, he himself acts as a sort of gatekeeper by limiting the discussion to a superficial aspect of the AJC attack on progressive Jews. 
 
Commentary Magazine, which the AJC only just spun off as an independent entity in January 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/3xbxj7), presented the larger picture in its January issue, which contains the article "Jews, Muslims and Democrats" (http://tinyurl.com/2g3ye4) by Gabriel Schoenfeld, who writes:
...in the judgment of the political scientist Peter Skerry, we may now be witnessing the emergence of a new force in American politics. Writing in Time, and citing a whole range of such convergent interests, Skerry calls this a "Muslim-liberal coalition" (more accurately it might be called a Muslim/Arab-liberal coalition). If he is right, and if this coalition can be organized to act with any degree of coherence, it could indeed end up, through sheer numbers alone, wielding a disproportionate influence on American politics [my emphasis], to the clear detriment of the interests of American Jews.



In theory the USA is supposed to be a democracy. Normally, a political group, whose power comes from sheer numbers alone, is described as wielding a proportionate influence on American politics. Schoenfeld and those American Zionists that agree with him have a clear anti-democratic un-American agenda. 

Of the Jews attacked in Rosenfeld's article, only Noam Chomsky has much name recognition among American Muslims collectively, but Rosenfeld and the dominant group at the AJC seem to fear that the situation might change. Only this concern explains the inclusion of Rabbi David Weiss, who is not progressive, and Adam Shapiro, who does not identify with the American Jewish community (http://tinyurl.com/22lpf7), in an article entitled "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," for unlike the other targets of the article, they have both made extensive outreach efforts to American and non-American Muslims. 

Marginalizing progressive Jews with accusations of anti-Semitism is simply not enough from the standpoint of the AJC, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the David Project, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Stand with US, and other Zionist groups. 
 
In order to be truly certain to block this "Muslim-liberal coalition," of which there is yet actually little evidence in the USA (it is more developed in the UK), these Jewish communal and Zionist organizations are trying to incite a form of Islamophobia on the model of Central and Eastern European Judeophobia or anti-Semitism of the late 18th through the middle 20th century. Here are some of the activities associated with this ongoing and expanding program.

  1. Robert Spencer, who is author of Islam Unveiled as well as a frequent speaker at meetings and lectures to incite Islamophobia (see http://tinyurl.com/2uqqo8), and his ilk, who are generally well-funded by fanatic Zionist and Jewish Neocon organizations like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, are scribbling these ridiculous books that are poor imitations of Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judentum (Judaism Unmasked) or Rohling's Der Talmudjude (The Talmud Jew).    
  2. Too many (often Jewish) pseudo-scholars are babbling ignorantly about taqiyya (prudence), which is a permissible form of dissimulation in certain life threatening situations according to certain Shiite jurists. The concept has an exact counterpart in the thinking of the Rambam (Moses Maimonides or Musa bin Maimun, see his Letter on Martyrdom/Forced Apostasy, whose original Arabic uses the word taqiyya to describe exactly the same form of deception permitted to Jews subjected to certain forms of mortal danger).

    The concept of taqiyya also has a very close analogue in Roman Catholic ethics.

    The accusation that Muslims practice taqiyya to justify lying to non-Muslims is essentially equivalent to the common anti-Semitic slander that asserts that Jews never keep their contracts with non-Jews because the Kol nidrei prayer, which is part of the ceremony of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) nullifies all such agreements.
       
  3. Articles like Alain Besançon's "What Kind of Religion is Islam?," which appeared the May 2004 issue of Commentary, argue for a fundamental opposition between Islam and Judeochristianity. Such scholarly and non-scholarly literature represents a phenomenon essentially identical to the extensive 19th and 20th century literature that claims an unbridgeable gulf exists between Judaism and Christianity (Judentum und Christentum or sometimes Judentum und Deutschtum) in order to assert that Muslims today or Jews then are/were fundamentally alien to mainstream Western culture and must be removed. (See http://tinyurl.com/3yhv2m for a much less sinister hypothesis of the relationships among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.)
     
  4. Racist Neocon Islamophobes portray Islamic finance as something sinister just as 19th and 20th century anti-Semites depicted Jewish bankers as malicious and exploitive. "Playing by Islamofacist rules" (http://tinyurl.com/yuyex2) by Alex Alexiev is typical of this sort of defamation. Alexiev is the VP for Research at the extremist Neocon Zionist Center for Security Policy.
     
  5. Arabophobes are using the international imperative to decrease consumption of fossil fuels to engage in a form of anti-Arab incitement that is modeled on traditional 1890s-1930s anti-Semitic cartoons, which gave the viewer a choice between trading at a small neighborhood shop belonging to a virtuous German Christian and buying from a giant department store owned by a sinister German Jew (see The Economist, "Green American," Jan. 27th - Feb. 2nd, 2007, p. 24, http://tinyurl.com/2lpeg2).
[Note how much the above billboard advertisement depends on reflexive racism. Maybe the guy on the left is some price-gouging Texas oil billionaire while the guy on the right is an Arab American humanitarian that is farming in Missouri.]
  1. Jewish Neocons model phrases like the "War on Terror" or "Islamic terror" on 1920s - 1940s anti-Semitic terminology like jüdisch-bolschewistische Terrorbanden (Judeo-Bolshevik terror groups).
     
  2. Zionist pseudo-scholars and media pundits try to stigmatize fundamental aspects of Islam like the umma (the Islamic community) just as Jew-haters of the past tried to make basic Jewish concepts like the kahal or kehillah (the Jewish community) seem sinister. The predominance of Jews in crafting the modern anti-Islamic polemic has meant that today's Islamophobes tend to avoid demonizing those Islamic practices like halal slaughter that even an relatively uninformed public would quickly analogize with Jewish kashrut.
  3.  Anti-Islamic conspiracy theorists use two minor historical footnotes, to wit,


    1. Egyptian Kings Fuad I's and Farouk's flirtation with the idea of inheriting the Ottoman Caliphate and

    2. the angry reaction of the Ali brothers and other Indian Muslims



      i. to the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate and
      ii. to the indifference that the British government showed toward the opinions of Muslim subjects
as the basis for crafting an Islamophobic fantasy comparable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or to the German Nazi propaganda about the jüdisch-bolschewistische Weltverschwörung (Judeo-Bolshevik world conspiracy).

In reality, polling data consistently shows the vast majority of Muslims (from the least to the most religious) have about as much interest in a restored Caliphate (or Imamate from the Shiite standpoint) as Jews have in being ruled by the Davidic House, for whose restoration Orthodox Jews beseech God daily according to the traditional Jewish prayer book.

In general, whereas Schoenfeld and the AJC as well as Abraham Foxman and the ADL (http://tinyurl.com/2753nw,
http://tinyurl.com/2csatr) advocate restrictions on democracy and freedom of expression in the USA, American Muslims oppose the antidemocratic aspects of the Patriot Act, and Muslims outside the USA desire democratic reforms for their countries along with greater scope for freedom of expression.

  1. Islamophobic Zionist organizations reward both ex-Muslims like Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://tinyurl.com/2mn43z) and also self-described Muslim reformers like Irshad Manji for writing exposés of Islam or for lecturing on the need for Islamic reform in exactly the same way that Czarist Russian organizations used to pay government-anointed Jewish reformers to encourage change within the Russian Jewish community or would support Russian Orthodox Jewish converts, who were willing to tell "the truth about Judaism."
  2. Fanatic Jewish Zionists like Melanie Phillips (author of Londonistan), Nidra Poller (author of "Betrayed by Europe: An Expatriate's Lament," http://tinyurl.com/2plbab), Giselle Littman (author of Eurabia under the pen name Bat Ye'or), and Bernard Lewis (see http://tinyurl.com/2bm9bp) are scare-mongering the Islamization or Arabization of Europe just as Henry Ford ranted about the Judaization of the USA in The International Jew and just as numerous Central and Eastern European anti-Semites denounced the Judaization of Vienna, Berlin, Warsaw or Łódź.
  3. The organized Jewish community is attempting to make the denial of the Holocaust of popular discourse today the equivalent of denying the divinity of Jesus within traditional Christian Judeophobic discourse. The similarity of these two cardinal "sins" is particularly striking because scholarly discussion of the mass murder of Jews during WW2 like scholarly discussion of the historical Jesus during the 19th and 20th century differs massively from the popular conceptualization in both cases (see http://tinyurl.com/3dj6ob).

  4. Various groups within the organized Jewish community or sponsored by it are churning out Islamophobic and Arabophobic movies that look more and more like German Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda films. Obsession, radical Islam's war against the West (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/) and Columbia Unbecoming from the David Project (http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/) are examples of this growing cinematic genre designed to incite anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.

  5. The media and legal persecution of Muslim Arab Americans like Sami el-Arian (see http://tinyurl.com/3doa6g), Muslim American organizations like Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (see http://tinyurl.com/ysp5gt) or the Islamic Society of Boston (see http://tinyurl.com/yayd4n), and Muslim American converts like former US Army Captain James Yee (see his book For God and Country: Faith and Patriotism under Fire), José Padilla (see http://tinyurl.com/2v6mya, http://tinyurl.com/2nkrck) or Daniel Maldonado (see http://tinyurl.com/2rvwgs) is beginning to look like an attempt to create the sort of suspicion and hostility against Muslims that the Dreyfus Affair engendered specifically against French Jews and then contagiously against all Jews in general.

  6. Not even a reworking of Nazi biological determinist or social Darwinist anti-Semitic arguments has been beyond the pale in the oeuvres of today's Islamophobes. Edward Rothstein, who often serves as a Jewish Zionist media gatekeeper at the New York Times, used the publication of  Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett as an excuse to equate Muslims protesting vicious anti-Islamic xenophobia with ants whose brains have been eaten by parasites. His February 20, 2006 article is entitled "History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims." (See http://tinyurl.com/yrjncm).

  7. Classic anti-Semites in the past and today's cutting-edge Islamophobes have striven for a normalization of their hatred via a form of deflection. When criticized by Americans for mistreatment of Jews, German Nazis and their supporters would refocus the discussion onto Jim Crow in the American South. Today, Zionists and their supporters set up organizations like Save Darfur or the American Anti-Slavery Group (see http://tinyurl.com/344gxh) to distract Americans and other Westerners from Zionist crimes against humanity (see http://tinyurl.com/2d6gey). Before Zionists thought of using current human rights issues to manipulate discourse about the conflict over Palestine, they tried to obfuscate the discussion of the Zionist genocide of Palestinians by referencing the mistreatment of native Americans by European colonists and their descendants.
The pattern outlined above is not only despicable, but it is also shamelessly clear. The purveyors of this sort of Islamophobia on steroids have a very clear goal to marginalize Western Muslims so drastically that no respectable political group and especially no progressives would ever have any association with American Muslims whatsoever — except, of course, for those vile and contemptible Jewish anti-Semites so graciously identified by the AJC.  


Because professional Islamophobes in the organized American Jewish community or among US Zionist groups would certainly not mind and would probably be overjoyed if their incitement against Islam led to the expulsion or even to the genocide of American Muslim communities (see Note below), these fanatic Muslim haters are probably guilty of the crime of fomenting genocide and should be indicted at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Concerned Americans must begin seriously to consider whether fanatic and extremist Jewish Americans, more committed to Zionism than either to their fellow Americans or to basic human decency, should continue to play important roles in US media, academia and politics. Certainly, the AJC and its spin-off Commentary are crossing the line into the sort of un-American and subversive activities not seen to such a degree since the pro-Soviet subversion of the 20s, 30s, and 40s.  


Note 


Mark Steyn, who is a Canadian political commentator of mixed Jewish ethnic Ashkenazi and Catholic Belgian ancestry and who is often associated with Neoconservatism, has already somewhat obliquely opened up the discussion of genociding Western Muslims in his recently published book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, in which he states the following.

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out - as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em [my emphasis]. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.
Mark Kleiman discusses Mark Steyn's final solution to the Muslim problem at http://tinyurl.com/3b6hw3.
 
Rabbi Yaakov Salomon of Aish Hatorah (http://www.aish.com) proposes the final solution to the Palestinian problem in a video that can be watched at http://tinyurl.com/3xl7jm.

Sphere: Related Content