The dark and macabre fantasy themed creations of Stefan Koidl - https://www.scififantasyhorror.co.uk/the-dark-fantasy-artworks-of-stefan-koidl/
NOVEMBER 25, 2024
WHAT IS AN "AS A JEW"?
“As a Jew” is a tongue-in-cheek term Jews use to describe fellow Jews who weaponize their Jewish identities to excuse, minimize, justify, or deny antisemitism.
As in, “As a Jew, this is not antisemitic because so and so…”
WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC?
The Islamic Republic is the fundamentalist Islamist, ultra-conservative, warmongering regime that has been ruling Iran -- and oppressing its population -- with an iron fist since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Many Iranians call the Islamic Regime an “occupying force” because it is culturally foreign to Iran.
According to Iranian-American policy analyst Karim Sadjapour, the three ideological pillars of the Iranian regime are “compulsory hijab, death to America, and death to Israel.”
After the Islamic Republic came into power, over 80% of Iran’s ancient Jewish population fled the country. Today, the 8,500 Jews still living in Iran are subject to second-class citizenship and are constantly under the suspicion of the regime, for which they must tread carefully, never openly criticizing the regime’s implementation of Sharia Law.
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IS A GENOCIDAL THREAT TO JEWS
Given the Islamic Republic’s commitment to the “destruction of Israel” -- where around half of the world’s Jews live -- it has spent decades establishing proxy terrorist militias around the Jewish state. Among the Islamic Republic’s proxies are Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar Allah, and its most important proxy, Hezbollah.
But the Islamic Republic’s targeting of Jews extends far, far beyond the Jewish state. In other words, no, the Islamic Republic isn’t merely “anti-Zionist.”
The Islamic Republic has planned and carried out terrorist attacks and massacres of Jews everywhere from Thailand to Kenya.
The Islamic Republic’s deadliest attack on Jews in the Diaspora was the 1994 bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA), a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which took 85 innocent lives. Before the October 7 Hamas massacre, which killed 1,200 Israelis, predominantly civilians -- another attack that was planned and funded by the Islamic Republic -- the AMIA bombing was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
The Islamic Republic has repeatedly dabbled with Holocaust denial. The Islamic Republic’s leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has consistently talked about the Holocaust’s “exaggerated numbers.” Most infamously, in 2006, the Islamic Republic hosted an international Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.
THE TRIED AND TRUE PROPAGANDA PLAYBOOK
Though the Islamic Republic government is deeply conservative, it started exploiting the well-intentioned progressive types to accomplish its nefarious goals before it even came into power.
The rule of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, was characterized by the most horrific human rights violations. He was no liberal and no progressive. He was not anti-imperialist either, hoping to establish an empire of his own. In fact, he believed that “establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong(s) to the great goals of the revolution.” He spoke of conquering the whole world under the banner of Islam: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”
In 1964, the then Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, exiled Khomeini and banned his books. As such, the vast majority of the Iranian population was unfamiliar with his more extremist beliefs. While in exile in France, Khomeini downplayed his fundamentalism, presenting himself to the west merely as a fierce opponent of American neo-imperialism and influence in Iran. It was in this manner, for example, that he was able to manipulate Iranian leftists to join him under his banner. In reality, Khomeini despised leftism, and soon after he came to power, many left-wing organizations had to flee Iran. Others were executed.
Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the saga of the mandatory hijab. During the Iranian Revolution, many Iranian women wore the hijab as a symbol of opposition to the Shah’s policies of westernization. Soon after Khomeini came to power, the hijab was made mandatory. Shocked, liberal and leftist women took to the streets; they had not expected the hijab to become mandatory. In response, Khomeini quickly began suppressing and eliminating all leftist and liberal political groups, figures, and parties, and to this day, hijab remains mandatory in Iran, and women who refuse to wear it face arrest, torture, and even death.
WHAT IS NIAC?
The National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, is the de-facto lobby of the Islamic Republic in the United States. In other words, they lobby on behalf of the Islamic Republic, its policies, and its interests.
Just as Ruhollah Khomeini did in days past, NIAC has spent years latching onto “progressive” Jewish groups to pursue their nefarious interests...and shield the Islamic Republic from accusations of antisemitism.
Of course the Islamic Republic wants to disarm Israel...because their open goal is to destroy the Jewish state. They couldn’t care less about the suffering of anyone in Gaza.
To the left is Rabbi Abby Chava Stein, who is a member of the “Jewish” Voice for “Peace” rabbinical council. Here she is meeting with the current president of the Islamic Republic.
Press TV is a propaganda arm of the Islamic Republic.
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC AND THE NETUREI KARTA
You probably recognize these guys, present at pretty much every pro-Palestine protest in New York City. They are the Neturei Karta. The Neturei Karta is a Hasidic Jewish sect with about 1,000-5,000 members. They are religious anti-Zionists, rejecting political Zionism on the religious basis that they believe no Jewish state should be founded prior to the arrival of the Messiah. While some other Jewish branches, such as the Satmar, hold this position, only the Neturei Karta have gone so far as to establish close relationships with those who wish Israeli Jews dead...particularly with the Islamic Republic.
In 2005, after then-Islamic Republic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews to Germany or Austria, the Neturei Karta issued a statement defending Ahmadinejad.
In 2006, the Neturei Karta attended a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. For this, the Satmar, who are also religious anti-Zionists, condemned the Neturei Karta, calling on Jews worldwide to “to keep away from [the Neturei Karta] and condemn their actions.” The Satmar (along with Chabad, who are not anti-Zionist) also issued a cherem (i.e. censure; almost like the Jewish version of excommunication) against the Neturei Karta.
THE OLDEST TRICK IN THE BOOK
How do you deflect legitimate accusations of genocidal antisemitism? You “befriend” Jews, of course. As in: “how could I be antisemitic?! Look at all these Jews who support me!” Three historical examples:
(1) Leading up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the United States Olympic Committee was under tremendous pressure to boycott the Games, given Nazi Germany’s horrific treatment of Jews. The head of the US Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, was a Nazi sympathizer, who convinced Germany to allow one German Jewish athlete to compete to give the impression that Jews in Germany were being treated fairly. In other words, the Nazis needed a token Jew. They proceeded to select a Jewish fencer, Helene Mayer, to the German Olympic team. Mayer placed second and gave the Nazi salute on the podium.
(2) In the 1920s, the Soviet Union shut down virtually all Jewish cultural, social, and religious institutions using a Jewish group, the Yevsektsiya, as a cover. According to historian of Soviet history Richard Pipes, “In time, every Jewish cultural and social organization came under assault.” The fact that the Yevsektsiya was “Jewish” was central to its purpose. After all, the Soviet regime couldn’t be accused of antisemitism when those shutting down all Jewish cultural and spiritual life were Jews themselves.
(3) Likewise, in the early 1950s, notorious Soviet dictator Josef Stalin conceived a plan for the mass deportation of Soviet Jewry to prison camps, all under the guise of “anti-Zionism.” Though the plan never ultimately came to pass, given Stalin’s sudden death, Stalin had made preparations to publish a letter to be signed by Soviet Jews “denouncing” Zionism and Zionist Jews. In the letter, Stalin’s “anti-Zionist Jews” would then urge the Soviet state to “take action” against the traitorous Zionist Jews. Jews would be deported en masse to the Ural Mountains, where MGB would instigate discord between Jewish leaders. Later, they would kill the “elites” in the camps, and maybe even follow with the rest of the Jewish population.
For a full bibliography of my sources, please head over to my Instagram and Patreon.
rootsmetals
I’ve had my differences with J Street over the years but seeing them shill for the Islamic Republic was disappointing tbh…I expect nothing less of JVP and IfNotNow, but I (stupidly?) thought J Street was better than that 🤷🏻♀️
Artist: Vladimir Manyukhin Title: The Rue d’Auseil (The Music of Erich Zann By H. P. Lovecraft ) “Personal work, practice” Captivating image
I was privately asked about a post implying that Israel is refusing to allow the right to return to Palestinians that have been displaced even though Jews have had the right of return for a while now. I thought I’d answer in a post.
Let me address this by first of all pointing out that Palestinians currently do have the right to return… to the Palestinian-controlled territories. If an American Palestinian wants to move to Ramallah, Israel has no say in the matter, meaning in effect the Palestinians have the right of return to those parts of the historical Land of Israel.
Which means that when Palestinians keep talking about the right of return, they’re not talking about the right to return to their own self-governed territories, they’re talking about the right to return to the territories which make up the State of Israel. The Jewish Virtual Library has a good summary on how in international law, the right of return only applies to individual nationals, it’s not an obligatory right that has to be granted to entire groups of people. That means that every country which does grant a right of return to an entire group of people does so because it chooses to, not because it is compelled by international law. In other words, it does grant this right when it believes it’s in the best interest of the country or of the population the country is meant to serve. When Palestinians demand the right of return not to the parts of the land that they govern, but to the parts which make up the State of Israel, it’s equivalent to country X demanding that country Y will grant automatic citizenship to descendants of country X instead of country X giving those people a right of return to its own borders. That’s something that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. And, in fact, if country X did try to make such a demand, country Y would likely see this as a threat, because of the way that a big concentration of nationals loyal to another country had been used along history. This is how Hitler used the people of German descent who were living in Czechoslovakia to take over Sudetenland (and later using this initial split of the country to take over all of Czechoslovakia), or how Russia has used the substantial population of Russian descent living in the eastern parts of Ukraine to demand those territories.
To make the current situation clearer, I’ll add that many Jews were originally from territories that are now under Palestinian control (meaning they were displaced from those places, not from the parts of the Land of Israel which today make up the Jewish state). Those Jews don’t have a right of return to those parts of the Land of Israel either, they can’t return to Gaza, they can’t return to areas A and B of Judea and Samaria, they can’t return to Jewish communities that existed on the eastern side of the Jordan river and which were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians as a part of Jordan’s actions against Israel during the latter’s War of Independence (despite reaching a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan, signed in 1994). To be accurate, even within the State of Israel, Jews don’t have a free right of return to every place they used to inhabit. In antiquity, all of Israel used to be Jewish. Even in later times, there still were Jewish communities in places like ShefarAm, Nazareth, Pekiin and Huseifa, all places that were originally Jewish towns. They are today all under Israeli rule, but the Jews don’t get to return there. The demographics of these places had been irreversibly changed.
Certainly when we look at borders between countries, two states for two people where each gets to self-govern means the right of return is and will remain limited geographically for both groups.
If the right of return won’t be limited, it’s clear which of the two groups will become the minority, losing in practice the right to self-determination. Because it has to be emphasized that the right to self-determination is not considered a right that is fulfilled when a group of people is a minority. As long as a group is a minority, its power to determine its own fate is dependent, either (in a democracy) on the good will of the majority (for example, in the 1920′s and early 1930′s in Germany, Jews who made up 0.8% of the German population didn’t get to decide who will lead their country, they were dependent on the majority of Germans voting against the Nazis… and we all know how that turned out) or it’s dependent on the minority’s use of force to override the majority (which is the case in Syria, for example, where the Alawi minority reigns over the Sunni majority through the use of force. We all saw how bloody that got during Syria’s civil war, and nobody wants that for Israel). If the Palestinian right of return were to be applied without limitation to the entire Land of Israel, it would be the Jews who would become a minority and lose the right to self-determination.
This is why the push for the right of return of Palestinians to all of Israel is considered such a red flag by a majority of Jews. Because it’s understood to be a tool in destroying the State of Israel serving as the one place where Jews get to have self-determination, and to deny Jews this universal right is discriminatory in nature, and therefore considered by many to be antisemitic. This is one of the reasons why so many, including actual governments, have declared the BDS movement (which calls for the boycott of Israelis and Jews) antisemitic, because one of its three stated goals is a return of Palestinian refugees to all of Israel. Note here that the one of the founders of BDS is Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian man living in Israel thanks to his marriage to an Israeli Arab. He states he wants a right of return of Palestinian refugees, while ignoring the right of Jews to return to Israel. He knows exactly what this means for Jews.
More than that, most conflicts around the world aren’t resolved through a mutual and unlimited right of return. When two countries were in a conflict and many people were displaced on both sides, conflicts were usually resolved through eventually agreeing that there was a population exchange, and whatever harm befell one country and its population, it was more or less balanced off by whatever harm befell the other country and its population. A population exchange is a bad thing, since it points to many people being displaced, but once it has occurred, recognizing it can allow both sides to move on. The Israeli-Arab conflict could have been resolved like that long ago. About 800,000 Arabs were displaced in Israel during its War of Independence (most of them because they fled the war that their own side started), about 850,000 Jews from Arab countries were expelled from those countries following Israel’s victory in that war, and most of the Jews displaced from Arab countries ended up in Israel. Agreeing that this was an exchange of populations, that Israel would take care of the displaced Jews, and the Arab countries would take care of the displaced Arabs (presumably by creating a new Arab state on the parts of the Land of Israel that Egypt and Jordan had occupied during Israel’s War of Independence) could have been a resolution for this conflict over 70 years ago. In fact, Israel agreed to this when it told the UNWRA in 1952 it assumes all responsibility for the Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries. Here’s a mention of Israel taking that responsibility in an excerpt from an essay looking into how UNWRA today discriminates in favor of the Palestinian refugees in comparison with how all other refugees worldwide are treated by UNHCR (for example, mentioning that refugees treated by UNHCR have no right of return):
If this conflict wasn’t resolved through accepting the mutual population exchange, if the Arab countries didn’t create a Palestinian state on the lands occupied by Jordan and Egypt, if the Palestinians today continue to insist on the right of return even as they gain citizenship in other countries, and they insist on a right of return specifically to the territories that now make up the State of Israel, it’s because they’re not interested in a resolution. They know that applying the Palestinian right of return to all of the land will effectively wipe out Israel as the one Jewish state, and that’s what those who are advocating for it are really interested in.
Here’s a statement by a UN official from 1952, convinced that the Arab states are purposely using the Arab refugees as a political weapon against Israel:
Here’s what a leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization said in a 1977 interview he had with a Dutch newspaper:
“There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are part of one people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are one people.
Only for political reasons we do carefully maintain our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national importance for the Arabs to insist on the existence of a Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.
Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only there for tactical reasons.” - Zuheir Mohsen, PLO, March 31, 1977
Attached here is a recording of Aljazeera's live broadcast today against the background of Gaza.
Pay attention to the broadcast time on the right. 18:59 - In the background we can see a failed launch that crashes inside the Gaza strip - exactly at the time when the red alert warning was activated across Israel.
The line of reports running at the bottom of the page talks about the elimination of Iman Nofal so that the broadcast is certainly from today.
Do you remember that I wrote to you that the incident was first reported around 19:10 (I will immediately provide proof)?
That is, a reasonable period of time of about ten minutes from the moment of the impact to the Gaza news channels.
Here is live proof courtesy of Aljazeera - a launch from Gaza is responsible for the impact inside the Gaza Strip
Thanks to the “Hot News” Telegram channel for the video!
Der beim türkischen Erstligisten Antalyaspor spielende israelische Fußballer Sagiv Yehezkel (28) ist am Sonntag festgenommen worden, weil er nach einem Torerfolg mit einer Aufschrift auf einer Bandage seine Solidarität mit den von der Terrororganisation Hamas festgehaltenen Geiseln bekundet hatte. Die Staatsanwaltschaft in Antalya habe eine Untersuchung wegen "Aufstachelung zu Hass und Feindseligkeit" gegen Yehezkel eingeleitet, sagte der türkische Justizminister Yilmaz Tunc.
Tunc sprach nach Angaben der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters von einer "hässlichen Geste in Unterstützung des israelischen Massakers in Gaza". Tatsächlich hatte Yehezkel eine weiße Bandage auf dem Handgelenk ins die Kameras gehalten, auf die er handschriftlich "100 Tage, 7.10." geschrieben hatte, ergänzt um einen Davidstern. Er meinte damit offenkundig die Terrorattacke der Hamas am 7. Oktober, seit der 100 Tage vergangen sind. Über 100 Personen, die damals verschleppt worden sind, befinden sich immer noch in der Gewalt der palästinensischen Terroristen. Weltweit wurde der Geiseln mit Demonstrationen und Solidaritätsaktionen gedacht, auch in Wien.
Der israelische Nationalspieler wurde auch von seinem Klub gefeuert. Wie Antalyaspor auf seiner Internetseite mitteilte, wurde der Fußballspieler mittels einer Entscheidung des Klubvorstandes gekündigt, weil er mit seiner Äußerung "gegen die nationalen Werte unseres Landes gehandelt hat". Auf Yehezkels Tor verzichtete der Klub freilich nicht. Der Israeli hatte in der 68. Minute den Ausgleich zum 1:1 im Heimspiel gegen Tranzonspor erzielt und rettete seiner bisherigen Mannschaft einen Punkt.
Das Vorgehen gegen Yehezkel löste große Empörung in Israel aus. "Schämt euch, türkische Regierung", schrieb Ex-Premier Naftali Bennett auf Twitter. Er wies darauf hin, dass nach der "einfachen Geste" Yehezkels in der Türkei "die Hölle los" sei. Der Spieler sei nämlich zunächst vom türkischen Fußballverband verurteilt, dann von seinem Team suspendiert und gefeuert worden. Schließlich habe die türkische Polizei ihn noch festgenommen und verhört. Der Fußballer, der zuvor unter anderem bei Hapoel und Maccabi Tel Aviv gespielt hatte, war erst im Vorjahr in die türkische SüperLig gewechselt.
Israeli soccer player, Sagiv Yekhezkel, who plays for Antalyaspor, a Turkish team, dedicated a goal to the Israeli hostages today.
On his wrist he wrote “100 days ✡️ 7.10”
Following the show of support:
1. He was condemned by the National Football Association.
2. His team first announced that he was suspended and then said he would be fired.
3. Turkish police arrested him and interrogated him. He is accused of “supporting the Israeli massacres in Gaza and inciting the public,” per Turkish media.