Trevor Noah – another enemy of Israel gets the late night TV spotlight despite toxic tweets against both Jews and women
Algemeiner, America’s fastest growing Jewish newspaper, according to CNBC, once said Jon “Stewart” Leibowitz is correct on one thing:
“The Jews who “helped” the Nazis did so because, in their mortal peril, they’d abandoned their moral principles for the glimmer of hope of personal survival. “Stewart” – a pampered, self-centered, deluded king of his world – is nothing like those wretches in his attacks on the Jewish state and its defenders. He is incomparably worse.”
Being Jewish and against Israel’s survival is common among many American celebrities. They don’t consider themselves traitors, just liberated thought polluters. So when Stewart announced he was stepping down, I welcomed a possibility that a Jew opposed to Israel might be replaced, at least, by a Gentile opposed to Israel, or even that rarity from the Comedy Central honchos, someone objective.
Enter Trevor Noah, who said in 2014 in an interview with an Australian newspaper:
“My mum doesn’t fit into any category, she’s a black South African woman who’s half Jewish.”
Now, suppose he said his “Mum” was half Lutheran without saying what was the other half? He mentions his father is Swiss. Does Trevor believe being a Jew is a racial aspect, a nationality or religion? And what are his opinions of women (Mum)? Trevor’s posts on Twitter clarify this:
Trevor Noah @Trevornoah
South Africans know how to recycle like israel knows how to be peaceful.
9:45 AM – 2 Jun 2010
Trevor Noah @Trevornoah
Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road. He didn’t look b4 crossing but I still would hav felt so bad in my german car!
11:54 AM – 18 Sep 2009
Trevor Noah @Trevornoah
Messi gets the ball and the real players try foul him, but Messi doesn’t go down easy, just like jewish chicks. #ElClasico
5:10 PM – 25 Jan 2012
Trevor Noah @Trevornoah
A hot white woman with ass is like a unicorn. Even if you do see one, you’ll probably never get to ride it.
1:57 PM – 28 Nov 2011
Trevor Noah @Trevornoah
So I must make my woman fear my penis? RT @UberFacts: The more you fear something, the bigger it appears.
2:55 PM – 17 Jul 2012
Substitute the phrase “African-American” for “Jewish” and Trevor would be consigned to Dubai and other clusters that have welcomed his comedy and viewpoint. Good news is that he also tweeted something bad about fat women and Roseann Barr is on the warpath, and that’s never funny.
1,709,900 Arab full voting citizens in Israel. Meanwhile, 12 Jews alive in Egypt, 45 in Yemen, 50 in Syria and 0 in Saudi Arabia.
While the U.S. White house is moaning about why one political party in Israel complained about “droves” of voters being driven by foreigners to polls in a “get out the vote” effort, the racist, apartheid policies of the Promised Land’s neighbors go unspoken.
Forgetting Gaza and the West Bank – where there have been no elections for a decade – and ignoring American apologists, who complain that Israel is never sufficiently democratic, looking around the Mideast one learns that the “Juden Free” movement did not die with our victory in World War II, but has continued unabated in many Arab nations.
For example, Mexico has 1.5 times the population of Egypt, and 5,618 times as many Jews. Even more unbelievable, Afghanistan has one. And there is probably not one Jew alive in either Saudi Arabia or Iraq, except some brave U.S. soldiers entrusted with protecting local human rights that don’t exist in much profusion.
Whenever there is a natural disaster and Israel sends the Israel Defense Force and others to help neighboring nations, even 100 Jewish Israelis would eclipse the Jewish population of places like Bahrain (36 Jews), Lebanon (40 Jews), Yemen (45 Jews), Syria (50 Jews) or Algeria (50 Jews).
Lest you think that Jews live in large numbers only in the U.S. and Israel, justifying these tiny numbers in Arab countries, look at other populations of Jews in not the most Jewish-friendly countries: Turkey (17,300 Jews), Panama (10,000 Jews), Columbia (4,500 Jews), or Costa Rica (2,500 Jews). For a complete list go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country.
Where is the outrage when a country with 26.5 million people – Afghanistan – has one Jewish resident, or 0.00000314239% of the population? Instead, the pundits at George Soros’ J Street, NYT and the Christian Science Monitor are obsessed with Israel, where more than 20% of the population are Arabs with full rights as citizens.
If you want the President to treat Israel with the same respect it treats racist Arab nations, end his bickering with Israel, and explain these statistics to his errant State Department, please write:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Netanyahu opponents in the United States interfere in Israel’s election with far left free “Haaretz” offer from New York Times
The New York Times gives away a free digital email subscription, and while many of the articles seem one-sided or just obtuse, who can refuse another free daily email? I realize that this costs the Times money, but their goal is to add paid subscribers and increase circulation. Selling newspapers is a subject I adore, having once worked on rewrite for a newspaper with more weekday print circulation than the NYT’s current 680,000.
Besides trying to make money with new subscribers and advertising, The NYT considers itself wonderful, as most newspapers do, and for many years it has been a publication with an honest reputation.
That changed for sure on March 2, just last week, when the NYT sent not just one, but two emails. The first was the digital subscription, which I guess that they count as circulation, even if it’s no cost, and the second was a strange offer.
Exclusive offer for New York Times readers:
two months FREE on Haaretz.com
Dear New York Times reader,
As a valued reader of NYTimes.com, we are delighted to offer you free unlimited access for two months to Haaretz.com.
This entitles you to all the breaking news and quality commentary that make Haaretz the premier news source for news and views on Israel and the Middle East.
With your free trial, you’ll receive unlimited access to Haaretz.com and our mobile apps, including:
In-depth coverage and analysis of the upcoming Israeli election
Breaking news from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world
Behind-the-scenes exclusives and analysis of U.S.-Israel relations
Opinions from Israel and the international community’s most influential commentators
Exclusive interviews with leading Israeli and international figures
TAKE ADVANTAGE NOW OF THIS SPECIAL OFFER
FOR NEW YORK TIMES READERS!
You can cancel at any time. Offer valid until March 31, 2015 and available to new subscribers to Haaretz only.
You received this email because you are a registered user of The New York Times.
What is Haaretz.com and why was I offered a subscription that lasted until the elections for Prime Minister were completed in Israel on March 17? What benefit would come to NYT for giving me a free two week subscription – a costly operation that would add me to records and then remove me – and who would want to continue a paid subscription to one of the smallest (4.8%) of the Israeli dailies? There were newspapers about ten times the paid print circulation of Haaretz, so why wasn’t I offered one of them?
If someone wanted to influence American opinion in favor of defeating Netanyahu, Haaretz is the perfect weapon. Google places its reports very high, considering its small circulation, but that may be a function of paying for placement, not popularity.
I opened Haaretz today to see how one-sided election coverage was at this newspaper and was greeted by:
A Special Place in Hell
by Bradley Burston
On March 17, it will be a mitzvah to vote against Netanyahu the Toxic
Nine years into his rule, Benjamin Netanyahu has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He’s taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation…
Bad enough that a once famed newspaper presents one side of American political philosophy, but what a shame when it tries to influence elections in other countries. Worst of all, has the NYT ignored the professed desire of President Obama to not interfere with an Israeli election by not even meeting for a minute with its elected Prime Minister? Sadly, I think the answer is a wink and a nod from the White House.
Wikipedia reports this ownership of Haaretz:
Salman Schocken, a wealthy German Jewish Zionist who owned a chain of department stores in Germany, bought the paper in 1937. His son, Gershom Schocken, became the chief editor in 1939 and held that position until his death in 1990.
Until August 2006, the Schocken family owned 100% of the Haaretz Group, but then the German publisher M. DuMont Schauberg acquired 25 percent of the shares. The deal was negotiated with the help of former Israeli ambassador to Germany, Avi Primor. This deal was seen as controversial in Israel as DuMont Schauberg’s father, Kurt Neven DuMont, was member of the German Nazi party, while his publishing house promoted Nazi ideology.
On 12 June 2011, it was announced that Russian-Israeli businessman Leonid Nevzlin had purchased a 20% stake in the Haaretz Group, buying 15% from the family and 5% from M. DuMont Schauberg. This means that the Schocken family now owns 60% and M. DuMont Schauberg and Leonid Nevzlin have 20% each.
I decided not to get the free offer.
Today, Bibi Netanyahu hit a home run in his speech before Congress – nearly everyone was in standing ovation and some with tears streaming.
Yesterday was an opportunity for the Obama administration to tell AIPAC, and the American public, how much the administration loved Israel. On the front page of the Conference website, they emblazoned speakers Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Mrs. Cass Sunstein. Prime Minister Netanyahu showed up on page four – indicating what AIPAC organizers apparently thought of the relative importance of its speakers.
Mrs. Sunstein, who uses the moniker “Samantha Power”, was the WH lead off in the struggle to subdue Bibi’s ideas Monday morning and she was tolerably pedantic, not unexpected from a former Harvard prof.
Samantha met her husband, Cass, when they worked as campaign advisers to Barack Obama, their friend and his former colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.
To understand Samantha, and perhaps the mindset of the White House, one should study the philosophy of her hubby, Cass. From Wikipedia:
“Cass Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from “cascades” of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s anti terrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”, where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as “extremist groups.”
When you see the current efforts to monitor the internet and phone calls, Cass’ “cognitive infiltration” looks like the philosophical basis of today’s intrusive government surveillance. Wikipedia continues, and it gets weirder:
“The authors declare that there are five responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.” However, the authors advocate that each “instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories…”
“Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting “nongovernmental officials”; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.” Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, “might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens. Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.”
Place these ideas in the context of how Occupy Wall Street and union protests have been manipulated in recent years, and you wonder what Cass and the Ambassador Samantha talk about over the dinner table?