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!
Showing posts with label Daniel Pipes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Pipes. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2008

Islamobolshevism: Zionist Copies Nazi Propaganda

Russian Jewish Academic Spreads Disinformatsia
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

In case
Zionist propaganda efforts like Obsession, Radical Islam's War on the West, do not produce enough traction for the Islamofascism accusation among the American public, BU Professor Anna Geifman is covering all bets by laying the groundwork for the concept of Islamobolshevism.

The Bolsheviks of Gaza | Features | Jerusalem Post reports:

Anna Geifman's cappuccino is getting cold as she talks about Hamas and its motives. The energetic professor makes one point that leads to another, and then to four more.


Anna Geifman.
Anna Geifman
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski

"I can talk about terrorism from today until doomsday," Geifman says with a laugh, catching her breath and then adding, more seriously, "or until they stop."

In Jerusalem, discussions of Palestinian terrorism do seem as if they'll go on until doomsday, and the academics doing the talking are a dime a dozen. What makes Geifman different is that her expertise lies in another field, even in another era: revolutionary Russia. It's a subject she teaches her students at Boston University and one that, she says, is strikingly similar to modern times.

"Everything you see today - every single aspect of terrorism - you can see it in the Russia of a century ago," she says.

Before our lives were changed by the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, Geifman notes, Russian society was devastated by rampant violence, from the turmoil leading up to the peasant revolt of 1905, through the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the establishment of the Soviet Union. Political violence in Russia - what we call terrorism today - developed primarily in Moscow and was perpetrated by "combat organizations" whose first targets were government officials.

"This was old-time, traditional terrorism - targeting people very carefully, assassinating people who were senior members of the government, people who affected policy," Geifman says. "But then, they basically killed whoever they could attack, and very often there was no connection. Anyone who wore a uniform became a target - being a mailman was a very dangerous occupation, for example."

Geifman's CV indicates that she has absolutely no qualifications to make such a judgment beyond her grant and fellowship from the

  • John M. Olin Foundation, which has been a mainstay of support for Zionist David Horowitz, who heads the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and
  • The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which is a Zionist "Think Tank" originally named EMET as a sort of joke because emet is the word for truth in Hebrew.
At a recent Harvard event Zionist Neocon Daniel Pipes worried that comparable Saudi support for scholars might influence academic discourse.

Because Zionist pseudoscholars like Geifman have already thoroughly infested American academia, any Saudi effort to provide college students with alternate analysis can only be helpful because it is hard to be more mendacious or incorrect than Geifman and her ilk.

A rational analyst of the political situation in Gaza would at least note that Zionists have been trying to manipulate Palestinians into fratricidal strife for decades. Except perhaps for German funding and assistance to the Bolsheviks to undermine the Russian state, there simply is no activity comparable to Zionist efforts to ruin Palestinian society in the history of the Russian Empire during the period between 1905-1917.

An intellectually honest discussion of violence in the Palestinian territories and Iraq would address the issues both of external subversion and also of resistance to murderous brutal occupations of the sort that Zionists and the US government (under Zionist Neocon manipulation) run today and that the German Nazis maintained during WW2. In Western and Eastern Europe the anti-Nazi resistance often attacked local policemen as collaborators.

A better parallel to the Palestinian situation might be the fracturing of Jewish society as a result of attempts at reform by Tsar Nicholas I during the period from 1823-1855. By the end of his misguided and possibly in some cases malicious efforts, Russian Ashkenazi Jewish society was fragmented with a nascent Jewish intelligentsia and revolutionary class that began to lead terrorist movements, undertake targeted assassinations and wage campaigns of sabotage. (See Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry.)

Geifman has shown the true Judeonazi nature of her belief system in
'...And the Children Shall Return to Their Border...', in which she eulogizes Philip Musko a Russian Jewish immigrant IDF soldier killed while he took part in a criminal IDF operation in Lebanon. The article is a sort of prose version of the Horst-Wessel-Lied.

For the most part Musko got what he deserved for emigrating from his native Russia to participate in ongoing Zionist crimes against the native Palestinian population, but the real villain of Geifman's piece is his grandfather Israel Musko, who filled Philip's head with delusional and perverted Zionist ethnic fundamentalist ideology.

Not only is Geifman perpetrating the exact same harm on BU students as Philip Musko committed on his grandson, but by emigrating to the State of Israel she will also be taking part in the exact same sort of criminal activities that Philip Musko perpetrated as a citizen of the Zionist state.

Yom Kippur approaches. It is time for Geifman to atone, and as the tide turns against Neoconservatism, Zionism, Jewish racism, and Jewish fanaticism, all decent people can hope that she will one day be tried before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.



Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Followup: Subjugating American Muslims to Israel

And Connection to Columbia Unbecoming
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
Kate Frazer was the Political Affairs Officer at the Israeli Consulate when Charles Jacobs and the David Project led a conspiracy against the rights of American Muslims to assemble freely to practice their religion. (See Subjugating American Muslims to Israel.) On July 5th she replied to a LinkedIn message I sent her when I was investigating David Project activities.

Kate Frazer wrote:

Hello Joachim,

I no longer do consulting for political writing.

Also, I googled your name and found that you are the author of a blog with all kinds of misinformation about me and my so called involvement with the David Project. I did what was no more than a summary of articles for them five or so years ago as a freelancer - a far cry from the "conspiracy" you say I was part of ! I do not appreciate being attacked in such a way or to have personal information about me posted.

I pretty much only write about the environment now because that is the issue closest to my heart. It really saddens me that extremists on both sides of Israeli/Arab issues derail all hope of progress - so much that I pretty much want nothing to do with writing in that arena anymore. It also saddens me that people would post utterly false information about others without checking the facts.

Please take the content referencing my name and my personal information down from your blog. Is the whole ISB vs. David Project stuff even going on anymore? Frankly, I don't know and could care less. I helped the DP summarize some newspaper articles years ago - who knew it would be blown so far out of proportion! I want nothing to do with any of it - please respect this request to remove the content from your site. If you have questions, I am happy to give you honest answers after you remove the untruths.

Sincerely,
Kate

On 3/8/08 3:43 AM, Joachim Martillo wrote:
--------------------
Kate,

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. I may need a consultant for some political writing in the near future.

-Joachim

 
Frazer's connection with the David Project, with the Israeli Consulate and with the conspiracy appears to have become a sensitive issue for her.

While Frazer's full profile no longer references the Israeli Consulate, the (Israeli) public entity that employed her certainly cannot be the David Project, which is a relatively small Boston outfit. There is no evidence that Frazer ever worked on Jacobs' dime. If she were contracting at the Consulate, and the Consulate lent her to one of Jacobs' racist projects, she would still be a member of the conspiracy albeit on a "work for hire" basis.

Her email to the David Project was sent from the Israeli Consulate Political Affairs Account during working hours on Sept. 24, 2004 and is critical evidence of racist Jewish Zionist activity against Muslims, and I certainly won't take it down off the web.
 
I have to assume the Boston Israeli Consulates's Guide to Speakers on Israel 2004-2005 correctly identified her as Political Affairs Officer at the Consulate General of Israel to New England.
 
While Frazer's involvement in Zionist misdeeds seems minor, American Jewish Zionist intelligentsia and the Israeli government have been putting the basic framework both to normalize Islamophobia and also to marginalize Arab and Muslim Americans in place for a long time.
 
In his Acknowledgements section (September 1989) to The Rushdie Affair, Daniel Pipes, who comes from the same extremist Zionist Newton Jew subcommunity as Charles Jacobs, references Floyd Abrams and Steve Emerson:

When the ayatollah posthumously induced the original publisher of the book to cancel the contract (on which, see the Appendix), I depended heavily on Floyd Abrams, Steve Emerson, Paula Roberts, and Judith Shapiro for counsel.
Steve Emerson (mentioned in Frazer's email) and Floyd Abrams played important roles in the David Project's anti-Muslim activities. The publisher was Basic Books and was owned by Rupert Murdoch, who suddenly found obtaining business loans and locating co-investors for his media ventures much easier once he changed his approach to Muslim and Arab issues.
 
In his April 4, 2005 Response to Ad Hoc Grievance Committee Report, Joseph Massad describes Floyd Abrams' approach to the accusations made by the David Project in the movie Columbia Unbecoming.

The Committee makes no attempt to relate Shanker's allegations to two of its own findings: first, that those testifying before the Committee agreed that I conducted my class in an inclusive manner, both in terms of allowing everyone to ask questions and that I set no limitations on the questions that could be asked. How then was the allegation that I sought to exclude, whether directly or through a heated exchange, a student who disagreed with me found credible? And, second, that I and my class were already the target of an organized attempt at espionage and intimidation when Shanker claimed to recover her memory suddenly because of hearsay by another student interviewed in "Columbia Unbecoming." Let me move now to the report's attempt to establish facts. The report never claims that it established Shanker's claim as true beyond a reasonable doubt, rather that it found it "credible." What this suggests is that at best the evidence was not persuasive enough to establish the claim as a solid incontrovertible fact but rather as "credible." Still, the report never explains the basis on which the committee found Shanker's claim and her witnesses more "credible" than my denial and that of my witnesses. Floyd Abrams, the advisor to the committee, responded to my public query by telling the Chronicle of Higher Education "That's what juries do all the time."10 Mr. Abrams seems to elide the fact that the ad hoc committee is not a court and that unlike the ad hoc committee, a real court and a real jury listen to real testimony, not from volunteers, but from all who were determined to be present when an incident occurred, and that the witnesses are subjected to cross-examination. These important elements, which escaped the attention of our esteemed lawyer, did not apply to the Ad Hoc Grievance Committee, as it is not a court of law, evidenced by its failure to accord me due process. Indeed, the committee's conclusion of the credibility of Shanker's claim stands undefended by facts, logic, or argumentation, all of which are absent in relation to this finding.
Abrams has effectively been an unofficial collaborator in Zionist anti-Muslim anti-Arab activities that go back almost 18 years and certainly should not have been on the Ad Hoc Committee because of his close association with people connected with the David Project or Charles Jacobs.
 
The Zionist program to subjugate American Muslims and Arabs to Israel (really to Judonia) has been in effect a long time with many covert participants.
 
 
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Contrasting New Yorker Caricatures

None of the New Yorker covers below are particular satirical.

Because they constitute charicatures that try to drive home a certain truth by exaggeration, no one should be surprised at the anger of the Obamas.

If the cartoonist had drawn the Obama cover as an overhead slide in a lecture given by someone looking suspiciously like Robert Spencer, Martin Peretz, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, John Hagee, James Dobson or some other ideological scare-monger, the cartoon might have served as clear satire, but the effort would have been tricky.

Dobson might have worked best if the cover had been captioned with the Dobson figuring blithely stating, "So what if I distort the facts? Obama distorts the Bible," but it would have been old news, and I am not sure it would have worked.

Barack might benefit from The New Yorker cover if the controversy proves sufficiently cathartic to drive this nonsense out of the consciousness of the American body politic before September.



Michelle as Angela Davis; Barack as Muslim cleric


George W. Bush as Nero


The Real Boss


George W. Bush as Cowboy with Blinders


Cheney as an Incendiary Device
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Executing Apostates: Christianity, Islam, Judaism

Historical Religion Versus Religious History
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
Vacuousness has characterized most of the articles discussing whether Barack Obama practiced Islam as a child.
Here are the most important of the crop:
None mentioned the important distinction between abangan (apathetic) and santri (devoted) Islam in Indonesian Islam. Santri Muslims can take conservative, moderate, modern, liberal or radical positions with regard to Islamic theology or practice.
Disappointed in Obama
Obama's reaction to the discussion has been disappointing. He should have just responded to the question of childhood practice of Islam with something like "So what if I practiced Islam?"
Applying a religious test for office is simply un-American.
At one time Zionists might have worried that Obama was anti-Israel, but at this point Obama has sworn fealty so much and so often to the Jewish state that he has been conditioned reflexively to believe he loves Israel even if he had no such feelings before the start of the campaign.
The Jewish Bigots
Watson's article looks like an expression of genuine interest in the biography of a presidential candidate, but the two articles by Pipes expressed ignorance that can only be explained by lying or conscious misrepresentation.
Pipes writes:
Further, all children born with an Arabic name based on the H-S-N trilateral [sic] root (Hussein, Hassan, and others) can be assumed to be Muslim, so they will understand Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, to proclaim him a born Muslim.
Despite the assertion, Arabic Christians and Jews just like Arabic Muslims commonly used names like Hussein, Hassan and other variants of the H-S-N trilitteral root.
Many Muslim groups and practically all Arabic speakers use their father's personal name as a middle name (ibn, son, and bint, daughter, are implicit).
Because Pipes is supposed to have studied Islamic thought and history at Harvard, he should know that quoting Islamic law codes often gives little indication of the actual historic practice.
In theory Christian and Jewish religious legal systems punish apostates with death just as Islam does, but the requirement has long been honored more in the breach than in the observance (but see Honor Killing in Iraq?).
When Christian or Jewish apostates have been executed, they were usually perceived as traitors joining the enemy in a time of war or communal crisis.
In his article, Luttwak confuses Islam with the Jewish religion in which he grew up. He claims incorrectly:
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.
Islam like Christianity but unlike Judaism is not inherited at birth but instead requires a declaration of faith.
By publishing Luttwak's nonsense, NY Times is indicating that it has reached the point of no longer doing any elementary fact checking in the case of an Islamophobic op-ed.
The world is changing, and yesterday's noble decision by the Times editors was in fact licensed by us, by Jimmy Carter, by Walt and Mearsheimer, by the stirring shifting spinning tectonic plates of the discourse...
Yet NY Times Panders Jewish Prejudice points out the Times is placing MEMRI propaganda on the front page.
Weiss may be overinterpreting exceptional individual editorial initiative made possible by a split in Zionist opinion both within Israel and also among import American Zionists.
Internal Zionist division may result from a need to regroup because of the antipathy that Jewish Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest have evoked throughout the American public.
Zionist Realists Replacing Jewish Neocons in Government
The appearance of a Luttwak column in the NY Times may presage an attempt by the Jewish political economic elite to replace Jewish Neocons in the American political power structure with Jewish Zionist faux-realist foreign policy scholars.
Descriptions of Luttwak are careful to point out:
  • that he is an ex-friend of Norman Podhoretz,
  • that he dislikes not only the corporatist military but also humanitarian interventions in general, and
  • that he has little interest in Friedmanite neoliberal business or economic considerations.
Because Luttwak is of Eastern European Yiddish background without the more circumspect tendencies of a German Jew like Henry Kissinger, he has been quite open in his Zionist Jewish bigotry.
In Give War a Chance! (Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999) he argues:
Refugee Nations

The most disinterested of all interventions in war—and the most destructive—are humanitarian relief activities. The largest and most protracted is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was built on the model of its predecessor, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA), which operated displaced–persons' camps in Europe immediately after World War II. The UNRWA was established immediately after the 1948–49 Arab–Israeli war to feed, shelter, educate, and provide health services for Arab refugees who had fled Israeli zones in the former territory of Palestine.

By keeping refugees alive in spartan conditions that encouraged their rapid emigration or local resettlement, the UNRRA's camps in Europe had assuaged postwar resentments and helped disperse revanchist concentrations of national groups. But UNRWA camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip provided on the whole a higher standard of living than most Arab villagers had previously enjoyed, with a more varied diet, organized schooling, superior medical care, and no backbreaking labor in stony fields.
They had, therefore, the opposite effect, becoming desirable homes rather than eagerly abandoned transit camps. With the encouragement of several Arab countries, the UNRWA turned escaping civilians into lifelong refugees who gave birth to refugee children, who have in turn had refugee children of their own.

During its half–century of operation, the UNRWA has thus perpetuated a Palestinian refugee nation, preserving its resentments in as fresh a condition as they were in 1948 and keeping the first bloom of revanchist emotion intact. By its very existence, the UNRWA dissuades integration into local society and inhibits emigration. The concentration of Palestinians in the camps, moreover, has facilitated the voluntary or forced enlistment of refugee youths by armed organizations that fight both Israel and each other. The UNRWA has contributed to a half–century of Arab–Israeli violence and still retards the advent of peace.

If each European war had been attended by its own postwar UNRWA, today's Europe would be filled with giant camps for millions of descendants of uprooted Gallo-Romans, abandoned Vandals, defeated Burgundians, and misplaced Visigoths — not to speak of more recent refugee nations such as post-1945 Sudeten Germans (three million of whom were expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1945). Such a Europe would have remained a mosaic of warring tribes, undigested and un-reconciled in their separate feeding camps. It might have assuaged consciences to help each one at each remove, but it would have led to permanent instability and violence.
In Luttwak's world view only Jews are allowed to maintain resentments over long time periods, and the belief that Jews should be able to plunder and kill with immunity appears to act as a basic principle of his foreign policy "realism."
In The middle of nowhere (Prospect, May 2007), he works even harder for a synthesis of realism and Zionist prejudice. First Luttwak belittles the importance both of the conflict over Palestine and also of the consequences of attacking Iran. Then to make sure all bases are covered, he adds some traditional Orientalist Islamophobia:
Softliners make exactly the same mistake in reverse. They keep arguing that if only this or that concession were made, if only their policies were followed through to the end and respect shown, or simulated, hostility would cease and a warm Mediterranean amity would emerge. Yet even the most thinly qualified of middle east experts must know that Islam, as with any other civilisation, comprehends the sum total of human life, and that unlike some others it promises superiority in all things for its believers, so that the scientific and technological and cultural backwardness of the lands of Islam generates a constantly renewed sense of humiliation and of civilisational defeat. That fully explains the ubiquity of Muslim violence, and reveals the futility of the palliatives urged by the softliners.
The Defensive Reaction
Luttwak's anti-Muslim nonsense inspired Ali Eteraz to make a reply that gets the main point correct: "Luttwack's article is solid fear-mongering."
Eteraz continues:
Third, people that appear to be Muslims, but don't follow Islam and choose another religion, are permitted under Islamic law to leave Islam without penalty. A major case in Malaysia recently handed down -- a woman who was Muslim for some time in order to marry an Iranian was permitted to go back to Buddhism -- is an example. Obama, unlike the Malaysian woman, didn't even make a profession of faith to Islam, so it makes even less sense for him to be considered an apostate.
...
Those who actually study Muslims see that there are millions of inter-religious marriages -- between Muslim men and Hindu women for example -- in which the children are being raised as pantheists, or even, Hindu. When these children grow up, they aren't killed for being apostates (though some Muslims do thumb their noses at the father for "allowing" his children to be raised non-Muslim).
In Eastern Europe (Poland), the Balkans, and the Czarist Empire, where Muslims and Christians have long coexisted, the situation has been similar except during time periods when confessionally Christian governments have undertaken programs of ethnically cleansing Muslims as part of some sort of nationalist or expansionist agenda often quite similar to that which Jews from those lands have been carrying out in Palestine since the end of the nineteenth century.
Unfortunately Eteraz misses the real issue when he concludes, "I recommend that we begin calling the Islam smear what it really is: smearing immigrants."
The Lies of Israel Advocates
The real goal of Islamophobes like Pipes and Luttwak is even more sinister. They are desperate to disqualify Muslims as legitimate participants in American society by scare-mongering because they fear that Arab and Muslim Americans might successfully open a discussion whether the US should continue to maintain an alliance with a racist Jewish state in the ME to the detriment of fundamental US interests.
Zionist racism is implicit in the American Jewish Committee attack on progressive Jews and explicit in the ongoing effort of Israel advocacy organizations
The Mission Statement of an Israeli Advocacy organization named the David Project makes the issue clear:
The David Project develops and strengthens Jewish leaders who will mobilize the community to effectively advocate for Israel and support the Jewish people; take back the campus by diminishing the impact of Israel's detractors, increasing the support of Israel on campus, and reclaiming the moral status of Zionism; strengthen the pro-Israel and pro-Jewish forces within the churches; and partner with Jewish schools across the country to incorporate Israel advocacy and leadership skills into their core curricula.
The historical record of African and Arab Islam shows the shamelessness of lies that Israel Advocates use in pursuit of their mission.
The Historical Truth
"Salme (later known as Emily Ruete; 1844-1924) was the daughter of the Sultan of Zanzibar. After his death she participated in an ill-fated conspiracy for control of the island, then fled to Germany and married Heinrich Rudolph Buete.*" She converted to Christianity on the way to Germany in the English Christian Church at Aden.
Nineteen years later Emily Ruete returned to Zanzibar with a German mission. She writes (on pp. 295-297 of the Ghani translation) in her memoirs:
When I arrived at Zanzibar I was doubtful of the reception I should meet with there, but confident, too, that my brother would not delay in carrying out the expressed wishes of Germany, and I was not mistaken. He would, at all events, out of respect for Germany, tolerate me. But the bad treatment that my other brothers and sisters had experienced at his hands could hardly lead me to expect any friendly advances on his part; and, as for the rest of the inhabitants, it gives me the greatest pleasure to state that they gave me tokens of their kindly feelings only. Arabs, Hindoos, Banyans, and natives repeatedly entreated me to remain in Zanzibar for good, which could only strengthen my belief that there was no religious aversion felt to me. One day I met two Arabs, with whom I entered into conversation. Hearing from a third person that they were relations of mine -- I had not recognized them -- I told them afterwards. I should not have addressed them had I been aware of this, as I knew my relations were not all inclined to be friends with me. But they both replied at once that, whatever happened, they could never forget that I was the daughter of my father. And when I touched upon the religious question, one of them said "this fate had been destined to me from the beginning of the world." "The God who has served you and us from our home is the same God whom all men adore and revere. His mighty will has brought you back to us, and we all rejoice at it. And now you and your children will stay with us henceforth, will you not?"
Proofs of affection and love like these, and the deep and indescribable joy of beholding my native land once more, will always associate that voyage with some of the sweetest hours of my life.
But an hour for parting came at last and found me oh! so loath to say a long farewell once more to the few but very dear friends I had still. They fully shared my grief, and perhaps I could convey its expression best to my readers, and thereby put a fitting close to my book, by giving the English rendering of a letter that they jointly sent to me after I had reached Germany again. But its sweet tenderness and originality I cannot reproduce: --
You went from us without a word at parting;
This has torn my heart, and filled my soul with sorrow.
O! that I had clung to your neck when you departed hence,
You might have sat on my head, and walked on my eyes!
You live in my heart, and when you went
You poured grief into my soul such as I ne'er felt before;
My body is wasted, and my tears fall fast
One after one down my cheek like the waves of the sea.
O Lord of the universe, let us meet again ere we die!
Be it only one single day before death.
If we live, we meet again;
When we are dead, the Immortal One remains!
O! that I were a bird to soar to thee on wings of love;
But how can the bird soar whose wings are clipped?
Note
* Summary from the back cover of Memoirs of an Arabian Princess from Zanzibar written by Emilie Ruete in German and translated by Rula Ghani. The complete Lionel Strachey translation of the German edition is available online as is another translation by an unidentified translator.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

From Anti-Semitism to Islamophobia

It only took Germany 60 years
Are extremist Zionist American Jews enabling and empowering German Hate?

watch video
Video Description
Hagen Rether: Scheibenwischer Jahresrückblick 29.12.07

The video says it all (unfortunately in German).

Steinberg Recherche provides an excellent discussion of the response of Der Spiegel star-writer Henryk M. Broder to Rether's J'accuse (also unfortunately in German).

The congruence of the Islamophobic incitement of Der Spiegel with the vitriol of the most extreme racist ethnic Ashkenazi Americans like Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Ruth Wisse, Charles Jacobs, and Martin Peretz is striking. Unlike anti-Semitic incitement, Muslim-baiting modeled on the anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century and of the Nazi period is not illegal in Germany. (See The Boston Globe's Problem with Muslims and Updating "The AJC attacks".)

Broder also regurgitates the standard Dhimmi-shtik of Zionist propaganda.

In point of fact, the Ottoman Empire, which was, until its vivisection at the end of World War I, the most advanced Sharia state, eliminated dhimmi status in the middle of the nineteenth century well before many European countries (including Germany) removed legal discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities from their law codes.

Hebrew University Professor Haim Gerber provides some of the results of his research into the Sharia-based legal system of the Ottoman Empire in State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective.

Gerber's data and analysis indicates that in a comparison of the courts of the core Ottoman Bursa/Istanbul region with those of core English region of the UK, the Ottoman State was far closer to the ideal of a Rechtstaat and achieved far greater legal equality among members of different religious groups or economic classes than the contemporary UK at all periods that Gerber studied.
Sphere: Related Content