Islamic Antisemitism Watch: Jews are vampires

September 2, 2011

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Just ask honored Egyptian cleric Salem Abu-Futouh, who asserts “his truth” — that Jews kidnap children and use their blood for Passover matzos and wedding ceremonies. The ancient blood libel is alive and well in the heart of the Islamic world.

An excerpt from the transcript, dealing with weddings:

That’s not all. [Jews] are blood-sucking vampires. When a Jew wants to get married, he must fetch human blood and give it to the rabbi. The rabbi takes this blood and puts an egg in it. He cooks the egg in blood, instead of water. After the egg absorbs the human blood… Let me just say that when there is a wedding, they gather at the rabbi’s. The rabbi puts the egg in the man’s mouth, and he takes a bite. Then he puts it in the woman’s mouth, and she also takes a bite. The egg contains human blood. These are blood-sucking vampires, brothers. 

Funny, I’ve been to several Jewish weddings, never once seen that bloody egg.

This is just one example among many of the appalling Jew-hatred and conspiracy-mongering that’s rampant in the Arab media. The archives of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) are chock-full of this kind of material, stuff that would be funny for its outrageousness, were it not that these “learned scholars” are deadly serious. MEMRI does invaluable work keeping us informed of what’s being said in the region’s native languages, which is all-too often different from what they want us to hear when they speak English (or French, or other Western languages). They operate off private donations, which are tax-deductible. Please consider giving.

Meanwhile, will someone please explain to me just how the Israelis are supposed to make peace with their neighbors, when their media is filled with garbage like this?

RELATED: PJM’s Barry Rubin on the nature of Egyptian society after the fall of Mubarak. It’s not reassuring.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow up: how to react to libel?

January 18, 2011

A few days ago, I argued that Sarah Palin was right to respond to the blood libel hurled at her and at the Right in general, that it was not the usual criticisms one could ignore or “rise above.”

At Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson agrees with me, but puts it much better and less heatedly than I:

Palin cannot just ignore the obvious libel against her.  That is the strategy pursued by the Bush administration in the face of false accusations that Bush “lied us into war.”  We saw how that strategy of silence worked.

There is not a shred of evidence to date that Loughner ever saw Palin’s electoral map, yet 56% of Democrats (and 35% of people overall) believe that the map was connected to the Tucson shooting.

This puts Palin in an impossible position, one faced by many people who are falsely accused.

If Palin does not defend herself vigorously, the silence is taken as acquiescence and an implicit admission of guilt.  If she does defend herself, she is criticized for making the issue about her and she further spreads the defamatory accusations (so-called “self-publication”).

(…)

Palin is correct to fight back forcefully against people for whom the truth about the Tucson shooting is just a set of inconvenient facts to be ignored for a false political narrative.

If Palin did not fight back, the slanderers and defamers surely would win.  The truth may not prevail here because of the strength of the Democratic message machine, but it is worth fighting for.

And if you’re not following Legal Insurrection, you really need to fix that oversight, now.


The Left and “blood libel:” the cartoon version

January 16, 2011

The essence of moonbat reasoning:

I’d say that covers it.

via Legal Insurrection


When your name is “Palin,” you have no right to defend yourself

January 14, 2011

I was going to go off on another rant‡ about Democratic politicians, mainstream journalists, and leftist activists (but I repeat myself) and their blood libel against the Right and Sarah Palin, but then I watched this episode of PJTV’s Trifecta and realized that Greene, Ott, and Whittle said everything I could. And did it better. Just watch;  I’ll wait here.

Take away line from Whittle: “I have to count to ten.”

Of the many odd, even outrageous, things I’ve read and heard over the last few days since the shooting spree and, especially,  since her address two days ago, the corker has to be that Sarah Palin should have stayed out of the fray, kept herself above it all, let others handle it for her. In other words, she should have shut up.

To which I reply: Horse manure.

This was no garden-variety criticism from the Left that one could reasonably shrug off and let others handle. This was a monstrous accusation of inciting mass-murder, including the killing of a child, and of encouraging the attempted murder of a congresswoman. No human being could or should stay silent when slandered in that way. Sure as the sun rises in the East, someone would twist that silence into an admission of guilt, and others would believe him. To say that she had no right to defend herself is either cynical or idiotic, take your pick.

And to say she had been wronged but should have done the “politically smart thing” and stayed out of it shows monumental blindness to what’s been happening: a desperate attempt by the left-liberal establishment to destroy the one potential candidate who truly scares them and to delegitimize the movement of average Americans she symbolizes — and even free speech itself. Not only did she have to speak to defend herself, she had to fight back to defend the right of the Right to say anything other than “Yes, master*.”

This was not a case where Sarah Palin could sit back, eat moose dogs, and let others fight her battle. Besides, outside of talk radio and Center-Right blogs, just who the Hell has been defending her? Where are all these people she should let take up sword and shield in her name? I didn’t see a rush from the Republican “leadership” or the political experts on the talk-show carousel. Governor Palin gets carpet-bombed by the perpetually outraged Left, and all we hear is the sound of crickets from the Republicans and mealy-mouthed tongue-clucking from the talk-show panels. Thanks a lot, guys and gals. It’s nice to know you’ve got her back. Try not to stick a knife in it, okay?

We all saw the ABC news clip in the video above. Like Greene said, millions did. Millions who don’t read Center-Right blogs or listen to talk-radio, but who still get their news from the MSM — and they were just told Sarah Palin was to blame for Tucson. And yet she was supposed to stay silent in the face of garbage like that, day after day?

No. Forget it. Not this time. I’ll even stipulate that there have been instances she’s fired back at more ordinary criticisms when she shouldn’t have, because she’s a fighter.

But not now.

Governor Palin had to respond to these slanders; it was her right and she was right to do it.

LINKS: Allahpundit has an assignment for budding speechwriters: “Try to write an address titled ‘I Didn’t Kill Anyone’ without sounding aggrieved.” Daniel Blatt thinks Sarah Palin made a mistake. I disagree in the comments. Power Line has a superb quote from President Lincoln about an earlier Democratic blood libel. Lori Ziganto calls her speech thoughtful and on-target, while accusing the Left of losing it’s grip on reality.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

 

*Any bets on how long it will take some hypersensitive Lefty to accuse me of racist rhetoric?

‡Guess I did, anyway.


If the name fits

September 20, 2009

According to the National Affairs Adviser to Palestinian Authority President (and Holocaust denier) Mahmoud Abbas, the Jews are trafficking in organs harvested from Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers:

The facts show that Israel and its army are trafficking in the organs of Palestinians. There are documents to this effect. Why is Europe trying to stop this [from being exposed]?

“Why must the Palestinian people pay the price under occupation? Why must it be tortured and the organs of its martyred sons used for trafficking? This is the result of the [moral] bankruptcy of the U.S. and Europe and the cover they provide [Israel]. These countries must rise to their responsibility, if they are interested in making peace and reaching a settlement in the region.”

The name of this statesman? Omar al-Ghoul. I wonder if his official portrait was done by Richard Upton Pickman?

BACKGROUND: The organ-harvesting story started in a Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, the editor of which later admitted he had no evidence. He should work for the New York Times.