If Helen Thomas has any family members who care at all about her, now is the time for them to step in and get her away from any public appearances. It seems that she can’t stop running her mouth about the evil Jews who secretly run the world.

It seems that the Elders of Zion is something very real to this insane woman. So real, that she has so far allowed her hatred to bring her career to a screeching halt, destroy her reputation, and now erase her name from awards named for her previous accomplishments in journalism.

One such award, the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in the Media Award, awarded by Wayne State University, is now kaput in light of her latest acrid verbal explosion. At a diversity conference in Dearborn, Michigan, Thomas couldn’t resist spouting that “Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question.”

Wayne State University released a statement shortly thereafter, stating that “Wayne State encourages free speech and open dialogue, and respects diverse viewpoints… However, the university strongly condemns the anti-Semitic remarks made by Helen Thomas during a conference yesterday.”

See the full story here, and read more about her previous bouts of verbal diarrhea here and here.

That’s exactly what I think of Henry Kissinger: traitorous scum. This is a person who would sell his people down the river apparently just to kiss Nixon’s ass. He would have been the perfect sonderkommando in Hitler’s concentration camps.

Arutz 7 reports on newly released tapes from the Nixon library:

White House adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once told President Richard Nixon, “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern,” according to newly-released tapes from the Nixon library…

Kissinger also advised Nixon when he was president during the campaign to free the Jews from the Soviet Union, “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy…

Nixon and Kissinger were seen as heroes in 1973 for staging a military airlift to help Israel fight Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur War, which inflicted heavy casualties on the IDF. However, the airlift did not begin until the second week of the war, while the Soviet Union was resupplying Egypt and Syria with weapons throughout. More cynical observers said that the United States could not let the Soviet Union’s allies win the war.

The New York Times reported three years afterwards that Kissinger delayed the airlift because he wanted to see Israel “bleed just enough to soften it up for the post-war diplomacy he was planning.”

As a side note: at least Nixon wasn’t particular about who he hated:

Nixon’s disgust with minorities was not restricted to Jews. He labeled Irishmen as drinkers and Italians as “wonderful” people but who “don’t have their heads screwed on tight.”

There has been a slew of disgusting, self-hating, traitorous anti-Semitic Jews in the news lately. In the last few days, I read no less than three separate stories of such vermin.

First, you have this unbelievable story of a whole shipload of such imbeciles who put together the next flotilla sailing for Gaza. Arutz Sheva reports:

A ship carrying Jewish left-wing activists from around the world set sail from Cyprus at noon Sunday, and is headed to Gaza, carrying what activists say are humanitarian supplies.

Among the passengers are Yonatan Shapiro, a former IDF helicopter pilot who co-signed a letter by IDF reservists who refused to serve in missions that targeted terrorists in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, for fear of killing civilians. Shapiro also recently vandalized the Warsaw Ghetto memorial with graffiti comparing the ghetto to Gaza.

Shapiro said that the goal of the ship is to “break the siege on Gaza” and transfer equipment and humanitarian supplies. He stressed that they would not enter a confrontation with the IDF even if the IDF stops them from reaching Gaza.

Among other activists on board are a Holocaust survivor, Julie Moskowitz, and Rami Elhanan, who lost his daughter in an Arab terror attack.

These are obviously a bunch of first-class rabble-rousers, but most incredible is the passenger whose daughter was slaughtered by Arabs in a terrorist attack. Here’s someone who should understand the need for the blockade, but he’s apparently blind to common sense.

The best response to this situation, as voiced to me by several intelligent people, was that the IDF should allow that ship in, but not allow them out. Let those foolish Jews see what their Hamas “friends” think of them. (The sad part is that even as their “friends” are stringing them up for a public lynching, those self-hating Jews would still find some way to blame it on Israel.)

Then you have another clown in today’s news: Ilan Pappe. This frothing-at-the-mouth sonderkommando actually traveled to India (a country with relatively overwhelmingly high support for Israel) with two choice companions, Arab MK Jamal Mahalka and PA official Mustafa Barghouti, to stir up a boycott of Israel and to publicly lambaste Israel in any way that he can. Arutz Sheva reports:

An Arab MK and a Jewish Israeli professor were among those in India last week for a conference that aimed to put an end to Israel-India ties. MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad), professor Ilan Pappe, and Palestinian Authority official Mustafa Barghouti traveled to New Delhi to speak in favor of boycotting Israel.

. . . MK Zahalka told Indians to stop purchasing Israeli arms because they are, he claimed, ineffective. “India should end its defense ties with Israel because it is buying equipment that failed during Israel’s aggression on Lebanon,” he said.

Ilan Pappe, known radical leftist and one of the few Israeli professors to support an academic boycott of Israel, focused on the flotilla incident, which he said “exposed Israel for who and what they are [sic].” He criticized the Arab world for “not doing anything” against Israel.

If only Israel had the death penalty for traitors.

And, yet another anti-Semitic Jewish lowlife in the news recently is none other than the American liberal funder George Soros, who was recently revealed to be behind the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel lobby, “J Street”.  Arutz Sheva reports:

[The Washington] Times’ reporter Eli Lake said that the newspaper obtained tax forms revealing that Soros and his two children gave J Street nearly a quarter of a million dollars.

Soros originally helped found J Street as an alternative lobby to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose pro-Israel polices angered him. He contributed heavily in an attempt to defeat President Bush when he ran for re-election in 2004, telling The New York Times that getting rid of Bush was  the “central focus of my life” and “a matter of life and death.”

Soros was a strong supporter of President Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the president has included J Street  officials frequently in White House consultations, trying to promote the political lobby as representing American Jews.

J Street promotes itself as a “pro-Israel and pro-peace lobby. It favors including Hamas in the “peace process. The former founder of a Hamas-linked charity recently attended a J Street event in Florida and was welcomed by applause.

All this in just a couple of days.

Why is it that Jews always have what seems to be the most substantial fifth column of any nation, country, group, etc. ever in history???

David Suissa wrote a great piece in the Huffington Post last month making a very interesting observation, essentially that with all the “new paths” that are called for (and new “plans” and “road maps” that are put in place), not a single one of them bothers to question the presupposition of judenrein policies in any future Palestinian state.

The rights of Arabs to live in Israel have never been called into question with these “peace plans” and, yet, it’s virtually a “given” that no Jew would be allowed to live in any future Palestinian state.

Well, Suissa points out that considering how poorly all those past plans have worked out, it might be a good time to start really thinking of things in a new way, and not just saying that we’ll do that.

He writes:

Why does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem so intractable? Why do we hear the same ideas over and over again, even though they never work?

At her AIPAC speech this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of the need to find “a new path” to the two-state solution. But nowhere in her speech did she actually challenge a key tenet of the current path: We can never have Jews living in Palestine.

She’s not alone. For decades now, the world’s most brilliant political minds have worked with this same unimaginative and racist assumption: To have peace with the Palestinians, we must have ethnic cleansing of the Jews.

As a result, a peace vocabulary has developed that suggests anything but peace: words like “freezing” and “dismantling” rather than “warming” and “creating.” The Jews themselves who live in the areas of a future Palestinian state have been globally demonized as the biggest obstacle to peace.

Sure, there may be terrorist entities like Hamas and Hezbollah that are sworn enemies of any peace agreement, but as far as the world is concerned, the soccer moms in Ariel and Efrat are bigger obstacles to peace.

Never mind that when Israel tried to cleanse Gaza of all Jews a few years ago, it got rewarded not with peace and quiet but with a few thousand rockets.

It’s gotten so absurd, that the headlines around the world two weeks ago weren’t about the terrorist rockets flying into Israel, but about interim zoning permits for apartments in East Jerusalem. Had those apartments been for Buddhists or Hindus or Hare Krishnas, no one would have flinched. But they were for Jews, which makes them obstacles to peace.

The Obama administration’s obsession with freezing Jewish settlements — including Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — has further demonized the settlements, made the Palestinians even more intransigent and pretty much frozen the peace process.

But what if the peace processors took a different view of these settlements and saw them not as obstacles to peace but as potential contributors to Palestinian society? What if, instead of forcing Jewish settlers to leave as part of a peace agreement, they were invited to stay?

In all these failed peace meetings over the years, has anyone considered that a Jewish minority in a future Palestine may actually be a good thing? That it would encourage mutual dependency and co-existence and democracy — and help the Palestinian economy? And that for Israel, it’d be good to have Jewish representatives in a Palestinian parliament — just like we have supporters in Diaspora communities throughout the world?

I know what you’re thinking: How naïve of you, Suissa! How many Jews would want to be part of a Palestinian state? Who would protect them? It’ll never work!

To which I reply: Maybe you’re right! But nothing else has worked, so why not shake things up and try something new? Let’s poll the Jews of the West Bank who’d be most likely to be evacuated and see how many would be interested in staying in a future Palestine, and under what conditions. Dual citizenship? Security guarantees? Equal voting rights? These are great questions for peace talks.

Even if you’re a cynic who believes peace with the Palestinians is impossible in our lifetime, pushing for the right of settlers to stay in a future Palestine is a game changer. It disarms critics who claim that settlements are the main obstacle to peace and shines a light on fundamental issues, like whether the Palestinians are willing or even able to deliver peace, and how they would protect a Jewish minority in their midst.

Just like Soviet Jewry was about the Jews’ “right to leave,” this new cause is about the Jews’ “right to stay.” And if the world ends up opposing the idea, well, we’ll finally have our PR homerun: An international movement fighting for “Human Rights for Palestinian Jews!” Our mantra: The Jews of Palestine deserve the same rights as the Muslims of Israel.

If you’re not a cynic but a hopeless romantic who believes in the power of co-existence, you should have been with me the other night at the Levantine Cultural Center, a storefront salon on Pico Boulevard co-founded four years ago by local activist Jordan Elgrably to foster harmony between all peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. The guest speaker was author and journalist Rachel Shabi, who was talking about her new book, “We Look Like the Enemy: the Hidden Story of Israel’s Jews From Arab Lands.”

Shabi, a Jew of Iraqi descent who grew up in London and now lives in Tel Aviv, has had a lifelong fascination with the story of Jews who come from Arab lands like Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and Tunisia.

As she spoke about the long and complicated journey of these Jews of Arabia, she didn’t sugarcoat their struggles, but you could feel her passion for the golden moments and possibilities of cultural co-existence.

Stuck between my cynical and romantic sides, and perhaps caught up in the moment, I couldn’t help wondering whether there might be, one day, a Palestinian chapter to this Jewish-Arab odyssey — a chapter that wouldn’t be about Jews being kicked out, but about Jews being asked to stay.

In what is probably the most bizarre and unbelievable (literally) news of the year, London’s Daily Telegraph is reporting that Iranian president and notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might actually be a Jew!

Apparently, some people picked up on his former family name listed on the identification papers that he flashed during the recent vote which happens to be a family name used exclusively by Jews—and observant ones, at that!

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad’s birthplace, and the name derives from “weaver of the Sabour”, the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran’s Ministry of the Interior.

…A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that “jian” ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

“He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had,” said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. “Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran.”

…The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.

Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.

Speculation that his family converted to Islam and changed the name is rampant, and the typical psychoanalyses are making rounds, the most prominent one being the obvious observation that his foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semitism is his defense mechanism for deflecting attention to his Jewish roots in his extremist world of Shia Islam, mullahs, and anti-Semites:

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad’s track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: “This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad’s background explains a lot about him.

“Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.

“By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society.”

Here’s one last interesting tidbit the Telegraph mentioned:

Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad’s roots was arrested this summer.

This new revelation might explain why Ahmadinejad’s police state arrested this blogger.

For some more colorful background and commentary on this story, see Politics Daily’s post.

UPDATE
Meir Javedanfar writes a credible rebuttal in the Guardian to the Telegraph’s report:

…Professor David Yeroshalmi, author of The Jews of Iran in the 19th century and an expert on Iranian Jewish communities, disputes the validity of this argument. “There is no such meaning for the word ‘sabour’ in any of the Persian Jewish dialects, nor does it mean Jewish prayer shawl in Persian. Also, the name Sabourjian is not a well-known Jewish name,” he stated in a recent interview. In fact, Iranian Jews use the Hebrew word “tzitzit” to describe the Jewish prayer shawl. Yeroshalmi, a scholar at Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies, also went on to dispute the article’s findings that the “-jian” ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews. “This ending is in no way sufficient to judge whether someone has a Jewish background. Many Muslim surnames have the same ending,” he stated.

Upon closer inspection, a completely different interpretation of “Sabourjian” emerges. According to Robert Tait, a Guardian correspondent who travelled to Ahmadinejad’s native village in 2005, the name “derives from thread painter – sabor in Farsi – a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan province, where Aradan is situated”. This is confirmed by Kasra Naji, who also wrote a biography of Ahmadinejad and met his family in his native village. Carpet weaving or colouring carpet threads are not professions associated with Jews in Iran.

According to both Naji and Tait, Ahmadinejad’s father Ahmad was in fact a religious Shia, who taught the Quran before and after Ahmadinejad’s birth and their move to Tehran. So religious was Ahmad Sabourjian that he bought a house near a Hosseinieh, a religious club that he frequented during the holy month of Moharram to mourn the martyrdom of Imam Hossein.

Moreover, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mother is a Seyyede. This is a title given to women whose family are believed to be direct bloodline descendants of Prophet Muhammad. Male members are given the title of Seyyed, and include prominent figures such as Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei. In Judaism, this is equivalent to the Cohens, who are direct descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. One has to be born into a Seyyed family: the title is never given to Muslims by birth, let alone converts. This makes it impossible for Ahmadinejad’s mother to have been a Jew. In fact, she was so proud of her lineage that everyone in her native village of Aradan referred to her by her Islamic title, Seyyede.

The reason that Ahmadinejad’s father changed his surname has more to do with the class struggle in Iran. When it became mandatory to adopt surnames, many people from rural areas chose names that represented their professions or that of their ancestors. This made them easily identifiable as townfolk. In many cases they changed their surnames upon moving to Tehran, in order to avoid snobbery and discrimination from residents of the capital.

The Sabourjians were one of many such families. Their surname was related to carpet-making, an industry that conjures up images of sweatshops. They changed it to Ahmadinejad in order to help them fit in. The new name was also chosen because it means from the race of Ahmad, one of the names given to Muhammad.

According to Ahmadinejad’s relatives the new name emphasised the family’s piety and their dedication to their religion and its founder. This is something that the president and his relatives in Tehran and Aradan have maintained to the present day. Not because they are trying to deny their past, but because they are proud of it.

Bari Weiss wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week decrying the history of Jerusalem being rewritten quite openly by the Palestinians to no one’s apparent concern.

She describes how Palestinian textbooks and guidebooks always acknowledged the importance of Jerusalem to the Jewish nation until recent decades when the Palestinians quite openly (and virtually unchallenged by anyone) decided to remove all such acknowledgments from their media and instead to go so far as to call such claims “lies”.

This is done quite simply “to undermine Israel, which earned statehood in 1948 and captured the Old City of Jerusalem during the Six Day War of 1967. Since then, Palestinian leaders have fought to erase any Jewish connection to sacred places, particularly the Temple Mount.”

In my opinion, the most important paragraph of that piece is toward the beginning, when she states that:

As President Barack Obama and his foreign-policy team gear up to propose yet another plan for Israeli-Arab peace, they would do well to focus less on important but secondary issues like settlement growth, and instead notice that top Palestinian intellectual and political leaders deny basic truths about the region’s most important city.

This should be stated even more forcefully. Yes, she ends the piece with the sentence, “this is no foundation for ‘peace talks‘,” but I feel that this is an issue of huge importance that does not garner nearly enough attention in the global spotlight. Why is it that the Palestinians are permitted to rewrite history like this? Why does no one care that an entire generation of Palestinians are growing up learning that the Jewish link to Jerusalem is a “lie”?

At least some attention (of course, not nearly enough) is given to their Holocaust revisionism, but why does this related brand of revisionism go virtually unnoticed?

If Obama—or anyone, for that matter—is serious about peace, this is one major topic that needs to be addressed and, even more so, should be at the forefront of the agenda. After all, how long will peace really last with the Palestinians when their entire next generation is indoctrinated to see the Jews as supposed chronic liars?

Norman Podhoretz, well-known from his tenure as editor of Commentary for many years, has written a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled, “Why Are Jews Liberals?”

It contains many quotable sentences and paragraphs, but one in particular that sums it all up is this one:

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

Unfortunately, this great piece does not seem to hold out much hope for liberal Jews coming to their senses. After all, once you elevate politics above religion and blur the lines to the extent that you can’t tell which is which, it’s not even about common sense anymore, but blind faith in a warped dogma that is unrecognizable from the original true faith.

On Friday, Peter Beaumont wrote a piece in the Guardian attacking Netanyahu for using the term judenrein and going so far as to accuse Netanyahu of using the term “so cheaply to score a political point”.

In reality, the only one zoning in on this term for cheap political shots is Beaumont himself. Netanyahu is only using a term that has been used many times over by many American and Israeli politicians, all of whom have used it for a good reason: because, unlike Beaumont’s pitiful attempts to whitewash the Palestinians’ ultimate goals, the American and Israeli politicians are simply calling it what it is.

As Beaumont freely admits, judenrein is a word “that meant all trace of Jewish ancestry had been removed.” Yet, when the Palestinians don’t even hide their efforts to destroy every trace of Judaism upon being given any piece of land (think: Gaza, with the utter destruction of virtually every Jewish-built structure), all of a sudden that admitted definition doesn’t seem to suit him anymore.

I’d love to hear what term Beaumont would use to define the practice of destroying everything the Jews built, removing all traces of them, and refusing to allow any Jew to live on Palestinian lands.

Beaumont also attempts to rewrite history by erasing the Jews from the “occupied” territories over history. He says:

For while it is true that Jewish communities existed on the West Bank before the six-day war, the settlement programme that followed the occupation is regarded by most international bodies as a serious violation of international law.

This is complete and utter nonsense for two reasons:

(1) Before “Palestine” even existed as a state (or a mandate) prior to Israel, there were Jews living all along in the now-”occupied” parts of it for centuries. For example, Jews have always lived in places like Hebron (Nablus), long before Israel, long before “Palestine”, and long before any notion of international law. So, for Beaumont to rewind the clock to 50 years ago and freeze it there, disregarding hundreds of years prior, is misleading and deceptive.

(2) Beaumont is addressing the issue of settlements, when that’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the term “judenrein”, which has nothing to do with settlements and has only to do with Jews. The Palestinians don’t just want to dismantle settlements under Israeli control. They want to deport every Jew living there and to prevent any Jew from living there, even under their control. That has nothing to do with settlements and everything to do with “judenrein”. For Beaumont to try to steer the issue towards settlements while attacking Netanyahu for judenrein is also misleading and deceptive.

Beaumont’s summation is that:

To use “Judenrein” so cheaply to score a political point dishonours the memory of history and its victims.

In reality, his blind eye to the Palestinian policies is in effect allowing history to repeat itself and allowing the “memory of history and its victims” that he claims to honor to fall by the wayside while the Palestinians try to finish the Nazis’ job. Now, that is the true dishonoring of the memory of history and its victims.

And, for his part in this, I hold people like the misleading, deceptive, and despicable Peter Beaumont complicit in whitewashing these attempts to finish the Nazis’ job.