Friday, September 4, 2009

How Much Antisemitism is there in Britain? . . . If Any

Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture
Prof. Robert S. Wistrich

Antisemitism has been present in Great Britain for almost a thousand years of recorded history. In the twelfth century, Catholic medieval Britain was a persecutory society, particularly when it came to Jews. It pioneered the blood libel and the church was a leader in instituting cruel legislation and discriminatory conduct toward Jews

More excerpts:

"In the Second World War, Britain was not willing to attempt to rescue the Jews of Europe in any meaningful way. It was not only imperial Realpolitik that made the British close the gates of Palestine. We know that officials in the Colonial and Foreign offices and people in the administration in Palestine were far from immune to antisemitic sentiment while supporting an Arab state after the 1939 White Paper.

"During the war the British government was obsessed by the fear that their fight against Hitler could be construed as a war on behalf of the Jews. To avoid ‘fighting a Jewish war' became a kind of alibi for the British authorities to do almost nothing for the Jews. Britain's solemn commitment to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine was in fact betrayed in the hour of greatest need for European Jewry. This is a serious stain on the British record, which until then had many positive sides."

***

"After 1945-in the three years before the creation of the state of Israel-relations between Britain and the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, reached their lowest point. For example, in 1946 the commander of British Forces in Palestine, Lt. Gen. Evelyn Barker, ordered his men to avoid fraternization with Palestinian Jews and to ‘punish the Jews in the manner this race dislikes as much as any, by hitting them in the pocket, which will demonstrate our disgust for them.'[1] Antisemitism was also very virulent in Britain at that time.

"After the Mandatory Government in Palestine executed members of the Irgun, a Jewish underground organization, the latter reacted by hanging two British sergeants. This led to anti-Jewish riots in 1947 in a number of British cities including Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and London. No lives were lost, but it was a very nasty time. Britain was far from immune in this postwar period to the kind of antisemitism that existed elsewhere on the European Continent, in the Americas, or the Middle East.

***

James McDonald, the first American ambassador to Israel, who had been actively involved in the refugee issue in the 1930s. In London, on his way to Israel in August 1948, he had a conversation with Bevin. McDonald mentions in his diaries how shocked he was by the antisemitism emanating from the British foreign secretary. It was hatred of Israel, of the United States and, in particular, of the Jews.

***

"During the Second World War, Churchill was in favor of the White Paper and kept it in place, despite his strong condemnation of it in 1939 when in opposition. His wartime actions regarding the Jews were no better than those of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which is to say, unimpressive. Nor, after becoming prime minister again in 1951, was Churchill's record on Israel particularly brilliant, though he had the historical vision to understand that Israel's re-creation was a major event in modern history. In expressing its meaning Churchill was at his best."

***

"In the 1970s, I [Robert Solomon Wistrich] was actively involved in such debates when I wrote my doctorate at University College, London. The campus war had heated up and was at full blast in 1975 after the UN ‘Zionism is racism' resolution. There were efforts to ban all Jewish societies on British campuses. This was stopped by a militant and determined campaign. The time was not yet ripe for the brazen antisemitism of the kind we find today in Britain and much of Europe, but it was certainly there beneath the surface.

"In the 1970s, the anti-Zionists in Britain-some of them Jews and expatriate Israelis-were already vilifying Israel as an ‘ethnic cleansing' and ‘racist' state. Even then there were claims that Zionism equals apartheid. Among the most extreme demagogues were Jewish Trotskyites, who were the most vitriolic in their loathing for Zionism."

***

"Trotskyites are organized in the Socialist Workers Party, which was very active in the 1970s. It has become a larger political factor in recent decades. I watched the huge antiwar demonstration in London in February 2003. The two main organizers were the Muslim Association of Britain-close to the Muslim Brotherhood-and the Socialist Workers Party. They formed a Marxist-Islamist alliance against the war in Iraq and on the issue of Palestine-which was a major unifying factor. In my forthcoming book on global antisemitism since 1945 I analyze this ‘Red-Green Axis' at considerable length.

***

"There is also a relatively new party called Respect led by MP George Galloway from Scotland. He was on the left of the Labour Party before he went independent. Galloway at one time received generous assistance from Saddam Hussein and defended him regularly on British television. He has always been a militant anti-Zionist, an antiglobalist, and is ferociously anti-American. The actual name of his Islamist-Marxist movement is a complete misnomer. The Respect Party shows no respect for anyone, much less for Jews or Israel, which it constantly vilifies.

"Galloway is an intellectual lightweight and rabble-rouser. He sees a revolutionary potential in the Muslim immigrants in Britain, a kind of ‘substitute proletariat' that could help revive the lost dreams of international socialism. Being against Israel and America is what brings the far Left and radical Islamists together. They have very little in common on issues such as feminism, attitudes toward homosexuals, or secularism."

***

"Since the Second Intifada, the BBC as well as some major British newspapers have reported daily on Israel in an often tendentious, biased, and one-sided fashion. Under no circumstances will the BBC refer to any act of Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations as terrorism. These killers are always referred to as militants, which has trade-union connotations in Britain. It is the term used when, for instance, shop stewards advocate a factory strike.

"Within the distorted BBC system, the reporting of Israeli civilian fatalities and Palestinian suicide attacks made them seem no more than minor pinpricks compared to the retaliations by Israel, the definitive ‘rogue state.' The BBC invariably disconnects jihadi terrorism from any notion that it is part of a hate culture and the result of ideological indoctrination. The explanation is that these murderous deeds are driven by the relentless, ‘racist actions' of the Israeli government. It is Palestinian misery and oppression that allegedly brings about suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. I believe this is a false, simplistic, and one-sided account. Terrorism is mentioned without connection to an ideology and the issue of antisemitism in the Arab or Islamic world is virtually nonexistent."

***

"What is interesting is that in Britain, as in much of Europe, the proclaimed antiracism of the left-wing variety often feeds the new antisemitism-which is primarily directed against Israel. Of course, if one suggests that such leftists are antisemites in disguise, they are likely to become enraged and retort that one is ‘playing the antisemitic card.' This has become a codeword for saying, as it were, ‘You are a dishonest, deceitful, manipulative Jew' or a ‘lover of Jews.' Zionists supposedly use the ‘accusation of antisemitism' to distort and silence the fully justified criticism of Israel and its human rights abuses. The word ‘criticism' in this context is misplaced. It is a euphemism or license for the demonization of Israel. And that in turn is a major form of antisemitism in our time."

***

Read the Entire Article at:
Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture
Prof. Robert S. Wistrich
Published June 2008
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=2214&TTL=Antisemitism_Embedded_in_British_Culture


COMMENTS

I, Leslie White, do not agree with all of Prof. Wistrich's opinions as expressed in this interview with Manfred Gerstenfeld. Specifically, his view regarding the BNP (British Nationalist Party)

. . . the far-Right British National Party sees a climate emerging where it might do better than in the past. The fascists would frankly like to see a Britain without Muslims. On the other hand, they also see eye to eye with many Muslim extremists on issues concerning Israel and the Jews. These British fascists admire Osama bin Laden."

I am still ambivalent about the BNP, unable to give it my full endorsement but aware that there elements in this party who are are not Jew-haters. On the other hand, the BNP is, at this time, the only hope to keep the Islamic invaders of the UK from forcing sharia on the British people and making "this scepetered isle" another Islamic entity.

And . . .

Prof. Wistrich's take on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ss expressed in his:

"There are exceptions to the anti-Israeli attitude. The most important was former prime minister Tony Blair, who was as sympathetic to Israel as one can reasonably be under the circumstances. The paradox is that, while Blair and his successor Gordon Brown have been pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish, Britain is still one of the leaders of current European antisemitism. That is the sobering reality and it needs to be honestly addressed.

"There is much to be said for the claim that Blair's support for Israel during the Second Lebanon War was the straw that broke the camel's back and brought him down as prime minister. He was undefeated in elections yet had to resign under pressure from his own party. Blair and Brown fit into a line of statesmen who came out of the British Christian tradition, which has a historic affinity with Zionism. These leaders include Arthur Balfour, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Harold Wilson, and Margaret Thatcher-individuals of vision and great political talent. In my opinion they represent the best in the British political tradition.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, their domestic politics aside, are not benefiting Jews in the UK nor the Jewish State of Israel by having been and being soft on the Moslems that are intent on taking over the British Isles and making them into another Islamic outpost in the jihad against Western civilization.

For a possible--and uplifting--scenario of what will become of Israel, read
A Picture of Things to Come
The Trial

by Paul Eidelberg
at
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2009/09/picture-of-things-to-come.html

A Picture of Things to Come

The Trial

by Paul Eidelberg

Israel is playing a waiting game. She knows that Iran driven by historical memory, overweening pride, and Allah’s cult of hatred, will strike; but Israel will have the warning time required to strike first—and the Jews, victims of the Holocaust, will indeed strike first. This will be the beginning of a new Middle East, that hardly anyone dreams of. Even before Iran is devastated, the Israel Defense Forces will deliver crippling blows to Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and Syria. Israel will eliminate the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Countless Arabs will flee from Judea and Samaria as well as from Gaza. The peace charade will be over. The mendacity and puerilities of Lilliputian politicians will be silenced. The Lion of Judah will have triumphed.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

CONNECTING THE DOTS ON NETANYAHU‏

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Benjamin Netanyahu has often been called a clever but unprincipled, indeed, unscrupulous, politician. But his skill as an orator as well as his pleasant demeanor obscures the nature of this political animal—and his oratory sometimes trips him.

Let’s go back to the aftermath of the May 1996 election, when nosed out Shimon Peres for the premiership by a mere half a percentage point. To both Jewish and Arab audiences he boasted that no one expected him to (1) accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the “peace process”; (2) meet with Yasser Arafat; and (3) withdraw from Hebron. Ponder the significance of this unwittingly self-incriminating statement or confession. If no one, in his own words, expected him to take the three steps just mentioned, it follows that Mt. Netanyahu betrayed those who elected him Israel’s Prime Minister!

That he can boast before the nation about his utterly unexpected adherence to the Oslo Accords reveals his contempt for public opinion. It also reveals, in addition to his moral obtuseness, Israel’s undemocratic political culture. But this is not all.

Mr. Netanyahu employed the same kind political deception in the February 2009 election. During the campaign he said nothing about his stand on the “two state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; in other words, he was mum about his position regarding Palestinian state. He knew very well that had he candidly supported Palestinian statehood, he would lose a decisively significant percentage of votes from the nationalist camp. (Bear in mind that his Likud Party won only 27 seats to Kadima’s 28.)

It is in this light that we are to understand his momentous speech of June 14, 2009 at Bar-Ilan University, where, without prior cabinet or Knesset debate, he unilaterally supported the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Judea and Samaria. That he again displayed contempt for public opinion was confirmed by a poll commissioned by the Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) in August.

● The poll found strong disagreement to Netanyahu's decisions among those who voted for his Likud party in the February 2009 election. Seventy percent of Likud voters said they opposed plans to freeze Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, while 73 percent said the government should grant authorization to so-called “illegal outposts” instead of seeking to demolish them. This clearly implies that the public overwhelming opposes a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.

● Pollsters also discovered that despite overwhelming media criticism of Minister Moshe Yaalon, who termed the Peace Now group “a virus,” the public tends to agree with Yaalon's remarks. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed expressed agreement with Yaalon, and said that Peace Now has caused significant damage to the state of Israel. Only 28 percent of those surveyed did not agree that Peace Now has harmed the state.

I have elsewhere said that Netanyahu has replaced Shimon Peres as the eminence grise of Peace Now. He is far more subtle than Peres, hence all the more dangerous.

Finally, the true story of a long pathetic history about to be repeated

(G-d forbid)

From Israel Commentary:

PM Netanyahu & Defense Minister Ehud Barak – A dangerous duo for Israel’s sovereignty and security

By Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The Wall St. Journal on August 21st ran an article by Joshua Mitnick "ISRAEL’S BARAK TAKES LEAD IN PEACE TALKS" (1) wherein he describes the wonderful(?!) relationship between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ehud Barak. What Mitnick ignores is read between the lines for those of us who know them both and their complicated histories. Since the Wall St. Journal is generally no push over for the boys in the Beltway, why the Puff Piece?

Most everyone in Israel and those outside who know the backgrounds of Netanyahu and Barak would describe them in a different way. Ehud Barak was nurtured by the Labor Left as the "Great Hero,” along with receiving medals for special politically inspired missions so that when he left the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), he would be ready for a Labor Left political career. As for Netanyahu, he is often equated with a used car or house siding salesman, too easily manipulated by U.S. interests with a rubbery spine.

Barak was the one who ran out on his Christian Lebanese allies in the middle of the night. He kept it a big secret between him and President Bill Clinton. The ‘deal’ was if he vacated Israel’s vital security zone on the Southern Lebanese border. Clinton would transfer $800 million to the Israeli Left government if Barak abandoned his allies to the incoming Hezb’Allah terrorists. Barak ran out so fast, he left four tanks, long range 120 mm artillery with pallets of shells and more. Bill Clinton never did transfer the promised $800 million!

Some of the Lebanese Christian soldiers managed to escape over the border into Israel where Barak provided less than desirable living quarters and conditions. Barak has left a trail of victims and their broken bones. Few, other than some radical Leftists, trust Barak. Some will recall that - when Barak was Prime Minister, he desperately tried to abandon the most vital high ground of the Golan Heights and surrender it to Syria’s Hafez al Assad - a most dedicated enemy. Then Barak confirmed his Left Liberal credentials when he was PM by trying to give up 97% of the territories to Yassir Arafat who, thankfully, refused - proving that he never wanted a Palestinian State.

As for Bibi, he bent like a green twig during the Wye River Conference, ending up abandoning 80% of Hebron and the surrounding communities to Yassir Arafat and his PLO Terrorists who immediately went to work, sniping and killing the Jews who remained. Who remembers the Muslim Arab Terrorists shooting of the baby Shalhavet Pass, who died in her father’s arms? And more.... How many more do there have to be?

Let’s not forget then and now how the U.S./CIA trained and armed Arafat’s killers in sniping and other terrorist activities. The American General Keith Dayton has been training the remainder of the PLO (now under Arafat’s loyal lieutenants who are now under Mahmoud Abbas) in shooting, maneuvers - as well as arming them with automatic rifles, long-range sniper rifles, side arms and, no doubt, anti-armor weapons. Israeli leaders even allowed in weapons’ carriers, some from Russia, supposedly to use against ‘other’ Terrorists but we know the newly U.S.-trained PLO Army will use them against Israel.

Bibi sports his Jewishness as a badge of shame. (I saw him resist putting on the kippa in his pocket at a fund-raising dinner hosted by observant Jews.) What nation, what religion would give up the burial site of their nation’s founders? Bibi knowingly gave up sovereignty and sanctity over the venerable Burial Cave of the Matriarchs and Patriarchs, "Ma’arat HaMachpelah.” Our ancestral mothers, Sara, Rivka and Leah, and our fore-fathers Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’acov are buried there. Before 1967 when the IDF liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, the Muslims let the Jews go up only to the 7th step, outside the Tomb.

After the Six Days War of June 1967 liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights, the Jews were finally free to pray in all of the Ma’arat HaMachpelah. HOWEVER, the Left Liberal government of Moshe Dayan, ‘et al’ gave away our sovereignty and the sanctity for the Cave by ‘sharing’ it with the Muslims who could have it on ‘their’ days, parts of it to be shared, and we could have it on ‘our’ days.

Remember, Dayan (another Leftist un-Jew) also gave the "keys" to the Temple Mount to the Muslim Wakf who now totally control Temple Mount and are propagating lies that the Jews have no connection to Har HaBayit. The idea of abandoning any and all holy rallying Jewish sites for observant Jews started with David Ben Gurion and continues to this day.

Bibi proved his choice to be an un-Jew by abandoning the sole sovereignty for the heritage of all Jewish people from ancient times and forever. The pressures put upon him by America to do so, do NOT ameliorate his responsibilities for these surrenders at all. We are left with a lack of trust and confidence in Bibi’s ability to resist the world and, especially, American pressure for future abdication of Israeli and Jewish land.

Nevertheless, Bibi again was elected Prime Minister this year and chose Ehud Barak as his Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, knowing Barak was well beyond the appellation of "Radical Left.” Of course, Bibi tried to get Tzipi Livni first, on direct orders of Arabist State Department but she opted out. The U.S. State Department wanted someone connected to the Olmert government’s appeasement weak psychology. They had ‘secret’ plans to drive the Jews out of Judea and Samaria - and gift all of Jerusalem that Jordan had occupied for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 - the North, South and East of Jerusalem. The State Department wanted an unbroken continuation with the secret negotiations by Olmert-Livni-Barak - forcing Jews out of their inheritance - all the holy sites in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem - and soon - the Golan Heights.

When or IF the Muslims control Judea, Samaria and most (or all) of Jerusalem, none of the rest of Israel - in any borders - will be safe from terrorist attacks. Israel’s water resources will also be at critical risk. Most important, where do they intend to ‘put’ the 500,000 - 600,000 Jewish men, women and children they plan to uproot? In addition, small matter, how and who will pay for that ‘small’ evacuation and re-settlement? Or, don’t we use the word ‘settlement’? Has it become a dirty word?

The Muslim Arabs never wanted a state before the Jews created a Garden of Eden in a desolate land. Since then, the Muslims felt compelled to steal it from the Jews. Those Muslim Arabs now called ‘Palestinians’ came into Eretz Yisrael from all over the Middle East after the Jews made jobs, medical care and a better life for all the people of the Middle East. Of course, none of these historical facts would appear in a puff piece written for the Wall St. Journal by Joshua Mitnick. Not his fault, just a bit of an important history lesson left out - Our History. We Americans should be used to misleading articles as was done - often - for President Barack Hussein Obama but NOT from The Wall St. Journal.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:12 PM Comments (0)
August 26, 2009
http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2009_08.html#001244

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Jews and the Film "Inglorious Basterds"

from City Journal

STEFAN KANFER

Memo to the Führer

A report on Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds

25 August 2009


TO: Adolf Hitler

FROM: Julius Streicher

DATELINE: Hell

Mein Führer:

Much excitement to report! The good news is piling up like copies of Der Stürmer in the good old days, when I published caricatures of the International Jew as predator and violator. Remember what we discovered in the 1930s? The secret of the Big Lie was to turn the truth on its head. Well, here we are in the New Millennium, and on the wide screen, the B.L. is more monstrous than ever! The film is entitled Inglourious Basterds (their spelling, not mine). And—are you ready for this?—it’s produced by Harvey and Bob Weinstein!

Earlier this month, before Basterds was screened for a private audience, Harvey W. told his invitees, “Please keep in mind that it’s a fable.” And what a fable it is—a revenge fantasy, actually. The plot is as elemental as a bayonet. A group of six violent American sociopaths, all of them Jewish, are under the command of Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a gentile hillbilly with a scar on his neck and ice in his heart. After D-Day, Raine’s squad is let loose in Europe. There, its members take almost as much delight in scalping Germans as director/writer Quentin Tarantino does in showing the removal of skin and hair. One of the enlisted men, dubbed the “Bear Jew” (Eli Roth), is especially revolting. When a German officer honorably refuses to betray his fellow soldiers, the Bear bludgeons him to death with a baseball bat. The execution is shown in exquisite and sanguinary detail as audiences chortle. It goes without saying that the dirty half-dozen are licensed to kill by whatever means necessary.

Earlier in the film, we see the sophisticated and multilingual SS colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) order the execution of a Jewish family hiding in a French farmhouse. One girl survives because Landa whimsically allows her to run away. That, however, is the extent of German malfeasance. No mention is made of the Holocaust. Dachau? Never heard of it. Auschwitz-Birkenau? Chelmno? Treblinka? Sorry, Herr Tarantino isn’t very good with names. The death of 6 million Jews as a result of forced labor, exposure, brutality, disease, execution? Nicht ein Wort. You, mein Führer, are played by Martin Wuttke, who turns you into a buffoon. The same goes for Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) and most of the other top Nazis.

But Tarantino’s purpose is not to comment on human events. It is to comment on cinematic events, as he did in his previous features Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. Thus the name Aldo Raine suggests that of Aldo Ray, the veteran of many American war films. Thus the soundtrack blares “The Green Leaves of Summer,” the theme song from The Alamo, starring John Wayne. Thus the Jewish escapee, now the owner of a Paris cinema, says in classic Cannes Film Festival style: “We’re French; we respect directors in our country.”

But what Tarantino and his benefactors have done is something far more interesting than mere celluloid scholarship. They have joined the dark side. And we welcome them! Imagine a filmmaker who can trivialize Nazi crimes against humanity, make the Jews the brutal ones, evoke laughs from horror, and create a finale in which the German High Command, from you on down, are locked into a film house. Cinema Paradiso turns into Cinema Inferno when it’s set aflame, thus reversing the image of the death-camp ovens.

As our old enemy Karl Marx observed: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Or as our new colleague Herr Tarantino states proudly: “This ain’t your father’s World War II movie.” Indeed it ain’t, mein Führer. That’s why it’s thriving at the box office. New times demand new directors, new narratives, new history. Nicht wahr?

Yours until the next farce,

J. S.

Stefan Kanfer, a contributing editor of City Journal and a former editor of Time, is the author, most recently, of a biography of Marlon Brando, Somebody.

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0825sk.html

Monday, August 10, 2009

WHO HATES JEWS THE MOST?

It's a toss-up (throw-up) really
 
There are the usual contenders:

Nazis (called "neo" today to differentiate them from the Hitler-gang Nazis)

Mohammedans - specifically, those "true" followers of Mohammed that share his rabid Jew-hatred

Catholics - those that believe that the Jews crucified "their" Lord (albeit he was a Jew, not a Catholic, not Irish, nor Italian, French, Spanish, and not especially an African, if he existed).

Prostestants - except for Evangicals, that is those who believe that all the Jews will return to Israel at the "end of days," when Jesus (the Messiah) returns, etc. By the way, the Mohammedans also have the Jews at the "end of days," hiding behind rocks, and what have you, so that they can be killed.

Let's see, whom did we leave out?

"Nordics," that is, those who believe in Thor, Wotan, the Valkyries, Valhalla, etc., be they from Norway, Sweden, Germany or the United Kingdom

Oh, and then those (not Jews) of the antisemitic Left, the South Africans ("Bishop" Desmond" Tutu), the Hugo Chavez crowd, etc.

Then the "Black Muslims"--Louis Farakhan and the boys in the prisons of that persuasion, and the Afrocentric Christians, such as Jeremiah Wright and the Catholic priest Phleger.

There's more, I'm sure, that I haven't covered, but that's enough to give you a taste--until we get to the Jews who hate Jews. Leftists, Liberals, whatever, but Jews--they can be counted amongst those who hate Jews.

But, to top this all off, let's look at the following:

A Comment from Israpundit's "The Spanish Inquisition and Me"

Marranos versus moriscos:

The muslims (arabs and berbers from Morocco) conquered Spain from+ the christians and ruled it in part for 700 years. The christians fought back stubbornly and finally won back all of Spain.
They conquered a lot of muslims, and a much smaller number of Jews.

The catholic spaniards really hated the Jews. They stole all their property and made them convert or leave (1492). The Jews were hated by both the christians and the muslims, and didn’t have many places to go to. Many rich Spanish Jews chose to convert to catholicism rather than lose all their money. The catholics then instituted the Inquisition, which was directed against Jewish converts, the richer the better.

The muslims were a bigger group. The catholics gave them the same order: convert or leave. The rich muslims had someplace to go to: muslim Morocco or elsewhere in the muslim world. Many poor muslims stayed in Spain and converted to catholicism. They were not persecuted as much by the Inquisition, but nevertheless, after a hundred years, when Spain had lots of South American gold, they expelled the muslim converts (Moriscos), most of whom went to Morocco and converted to islam when they got there.

Segue to today: liberal Spain hates Jews more than ever, even though they have not seen a living Jew in 400 years. They lead the EU in their venom towards Israel (and that’s saying a lot).

On the other hand, as part of the recent financial boom, they invited a million poor muslims from Morocco to come to Spain and pick up christian garbage and work in the christian farms. The muslims now make up 2% of Spain’s population. And as the financial bust has set in, they have lost their menial jobs and are going on welfare.

My Jewish conclusion: Spain sucks.

Comment by Samuel Fistel — August 10, 2009 @ 1:56 am
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=16190

So? Who hates Jews most? Take your pick, but Spain is right up there with the rest of them. (lw)
 
_______________________________
APPENDIX

Spanish Jew-hatred extended to those Jews who had converted to Christianity (Catholicism) and their  descendants.  Often for reasons of economic and political jealousy, this hatred by Spaniards for conversos even exceeded that they had for Jews.  See . . .
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Marano.htm

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Israeli Navy vulnerable

.
[quote]

"We are now in a time where a terrorist group like Hezbollah can not only acquire a cruise missile, but also train, launch and hit an Israeli Sa’ar 5 corvette – a capability once possessed by only a handful of militaries. This type of capability (once the purview of the nation-state, now within the reach of many non-state extremist and criminal organizations) . . . "
--ADM J.C. Harvey, Jr.

http://fleetforces.dodlive.mil/
also at
http://blog.usni.org/?p=3883