Adbusters Magazine and the Israel Lobby

In view of recent events, last week Remembrance Day commemorations ought to have been cancelled out of respect for the thousands of Canadian soldiers, airmen, and sailors who gave their lives fighting fascism. It’s a cruel irony that we should be honouring Canadians who liberated Europe 60-65 years ago when Canadians at home are losing theirs today.

The latest target of the Canadian Jewish Congress is Adbusters magazine, a counter-culture alternative to the pro-business, pro-Israel mainstream media. Publisher Kalle Lasn ran an article and a single pair of photos comparing the Nazi persecution of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to the Zionist persecution of native Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. The parallel is not perfect, but it’s very close and politically relevant.

In response, the CJC mobilized against Shoppers Drug Mart to have it pull Adbusters from its 515 stores nationwide. A spokeswoman for Shoppers denied any connection, but such a pro forma denial cannot be taken seriously, especially when it is demonstrably false:

“Two weeks ago Shoppers told us they were pulling Adbusters off their shelves because of customer complaints about our Gaza/Warsaw comparison,” wrote Kalle Lasn in the comments to the article. “But after stories appeared about this in the National Post and Globe & Mail it seems they have had a change of heart. We should all be calling out Shoppers’ CEO Jürgen Schreiber, not just for pulling Adbusters, but for then blatantly lying about why he did it…”

Nobody expected the CJC to like the article. Nobody should care because a constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression does not depend on the political machinations of a pressure group. Sounds highly undemocratic. Sounds, well, fascist, doesn’t it?

If Adbusters can be persecuted and smeared for dissenting from official Zionist dogma, what does that say about the state of Canada?

The CJC, like all the Zionist organizations in Canada, needs to sabotage any and all rational, open discussion of Israel, and to do that it must undermine the rule of law and constitutional freedoms. Yet, as is often the case, the CJC has done more to enhance Adbusters reputation than harm it.

Speaking of reputations, Canadian organizers of the Boycott Divest Sanction movement are now considering adding Shoppers Drug Mart to its list of businesses to be boycotted. That, and being caught lying about its role in the CJC’s censorship, can’t be good for business.

Ironically, the article that caused all the fuss was relatively innocuous, and given Adbusters relatively small circulation and readership demographic, it’s doubtful that anyone in the general public would have paid much attention.

To give an idea how inane the attack on Adbusters is, Dr. Norman Finkelstein has for the last 23 months featured on his website 84 pairs of photos that depict the horrific parallel between Nazi and zionist fascism. Thanks to the CJC, The Canadian Charger has the perfect reason to share it with its readers.

The Adbusters episode should be kept alive as long as possible to make the Israeli lobby as uncomfortable as possible and to remind us to ask ourselves: “Why do companies and governments so readily capitulate to the Israel lobby’s dictates?”

In Ottawa recently, pressure from B’nai Brith compelled the RCMP, our national police force to reconsider its decision to join the Canadian Islamic Congress at an Ottawa conference. Zionists routinely defame the CIC as extremist, but that doesn’t mean the RCMP should take its orders from them.

A bully only has as much power as his victim is willing to give him. When a victim stands and fights, the bully will often back down because all bullies are cowards.

You, reader, can help stop the zionist bullying of Canada by subscribing to Adbusters and writing to Jürgen Schreiber [requires javascript] and the Canadian Jewish Congress [requires javascript] to remind them that censorship belongs to a fascist state, not Canada.

•  This article first appeared here.

Greg Felton is an investigative journalist specializing in the Middle East, Canadian politics, the media, and language. He holds a Master's Degree in political science from the University of British Columbia and speaks French, Russian, and Mandarin. He is author of The Host and The Parasite: How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America. Read other articles by Greg, or visit Greg's website.

24 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. MichaelKenny said on November 20th, 2010 at 9:22am #

    A classic example of how the Lobby operates! Thing just “happen”! Those who criticise Muslims are hailed as heros of free speech (think: Danish cartoons). Those who attack Jews or Israel (the Lobby doesn’t see the difference!) simply disappear without a trace and without explanation. Remember Norman Finkelstein and DePaul University? The Vincentians were supposed to refuse him tenure without making public that their arms were being twisted by Dershowitz. Jews are a people of the shadows. When you force someone like Dershowitz out into the open, they don’t really know what to do. The more the light is shone on the Lobby, the more they will make mistakes.

  2. bozh said on November 20th, 2010 at 9:59am #

    canada [and not only canada] had been always ruled by high ranking supremacists.
    i distinguish label supremacism from label racism. actually, i see racism as offspring of supremacism.
    color of skin, thus, is not the deciding factor and deeming or calling a person like obama, mcdonald, harper, trudeau, king hussein, or bush a racist. it, i assert, wld not bring us an elucidation.
    of course u.s militia, today’s german nazis, skinheads i do not deem supremacistic; just conditioned to hate colors!

    it is not going to change for better. we cannot nag supremacism out of supremacists. the thrill of and addiction to owning people just never ever goes away.
    in fact, addiction grows and grows and when it is gonna stop nobody knows!
    thus we need an antipodal politico-economo-governmental power.
    only such a power can confront or even defeat present fascist party that rules us.

    i am abandoning NDP; it appears lead by cryptosocialists. i am now voting for the communist party! tnx

  3. hayate said on November 20th, 2010 at 11:01am #

    “The latest target of the Canadian Jewish Congress is Adbusters magazine, a counter-culture alternative to the pro-business, pro-Israel mainstream media. Publisher Kalle Lasn ran an article and a single pair of photos comparing the Nazi persecution of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to the Zionist persecution of native Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. The parallel is not perfect, but it’s very close and politically relevant.”

    The zionists are the new nazis and their warped zionism is the new nazism – from the obsession to racist and supremacist views to the corporate rich oligarchy running the guv as a virtual dictatorship. They should be treated as nazis.

  4. hayate said on November 20th, 2010 at 11:28am #

    For more 21st century nazi behind the scenes shenanigans see also:

    Scribd.com yields to Israeli pressure over war crimes suspects list

    The document hosting and embedding website Scribd.com has yielded to pressure from the Israeli army’s press unit and deleted the Scribd account of Redress Information & Analysis (www.redress.cc), following our posting of a list of Israeli military personnel suspected of war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead of 2008/09.
    See (www.redress.cc/palestine/redress20101119)

    Please write to Scribd and tell them what I bunch of craven cowards they are.
    Their email address is press at scribd.com
    They did not even have the courtesy of asking us to remove our other files
    first.

    Thanks to Mary for bringing this to our attention.

  5. mary said on November 20th, 2010 at 2:02pm #

    Has anyone heard of Operation Cyanide when a Soviet destroyer protected USS Liberty after Israel had attacked it?

    Few people in America or Russia are aware of the crucial and heroic role played by Destroyer 626/4 of the Soviet Navy during the Six-Day War in June, 1967. The commander and crew of this ship guarded the American intelligence vessel GTR-4, better known as the USS Liberty, after the attack on it by the combined air and naval branches of the Israeli Defense Force. The Zionist attack was coordinated with elements of the US Navy, US intelligence and the White House.

    /….

    (groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/1928)

  6. Ismail Zayid said on November 20th, 2010 at 4:35pm #

    The treatment administered to Adbusters magazine is an example of the expanding policy of the Israeli lobby. The programs, currently engendered by the Canadian government supporting the recent conference, in Ottawa, by the Intergovernmental Coalition to Combat Anti-semitism [ICCA] and the forthcoming report by the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-semitism [CPCCA], are designed to label any criticism of Israeli policies as Anti-semitism. This breach of the freedom of speech is in violation of the basic principles of the Canadian charter of human rights. Anti-semitism, in its true colours, is abhorent and must not be tolerated, but it cannot be equated by the criticism of the policies of the Israeli government which display clear violation of international law.

    What, on earth, can justify this unique immunity from criticism of the policies of the state of Israel that is not available to any other state, including our own government in Canada? How long must Israel remain above international law and able to violate every article of the Fourth Geneva Convention and commit war crimes but remains free from criticism?

  7. hayate said on November 20th, 2010 at 6:44pm #

    Mary

    “Has anyone heard of Operation Cyanide when a Soviet destroyer protected USS Liberty after Israel had attacked it?”

    No I never heard that before. Interesting. I have read that a Soviet sub picked up Liberty’s distress calls and I think relayed them on out to the rest of the world. Interesting link, as well. Why would the americans have nuclear weapon armed aircraft aboard their carrier set to launch first and why would such aircraft have been launched in that situation. Nukes would have been useless to defend the Liberty. I had thought that aspect of the story was bs created by the americans to justify their letting the israelis continue killing the Liberty’s crew. The speculation that these nuke armed craft may have been intended for Egypt, once the Liberty “disappeared”, brings some sense to why they were launched.

    Thanks.

  8. kalidas said on November 20th, 2010 at 6:57pm #

    Why would that Namibia to Germany bound suitcase be empty?

    Was it a “test” or was it a false flag event and the wrong person saw the empty suitcase and blew the cover?

  9. Jeffrey Blankfort said on November 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm #

    The Canadian Jewish Congress is part of what should properly be called the Ziontern, short for Zionist International, which operates in the same manner in every country where there is a substantial affluent Jewish population

    I have yet to read Operation Cyanide but I have read almost everything else about the Liberty (plus interviewing a survivor) and I very much doubt that the US Navy or any other element of the US government was involved in the attack on the Liberty, but every element of the government was involved in the cover-up and the White House in calling back the US air force jets that were on their way to defend the ship but were called off by Sec of Defense, Robert MacNamara when he learned the attackers were Israeli.

    That the US was looking for an excuse to attack Egypt or start a war with the Soviets as a result of it is just plain nuts since at the time the US was bogged down in a war in Vietnam and the last thing LBJ needed was a conflict with the USSR. LBJ was, however, engulfed in a web of pro-Israel supporters and was apparently bedding down the lovely Matilda Krim (a former Israeli intelligence officer) whose husband Arthur was a major backer of Johnson’s and willing, for Zion’s sake, to have his lady do what was necessary to keep the president asking for more.

  10. shabnam said on November 21st, 2010 at 6:04am #

    {LBJ was, however, engulfed in a web of pro-Israel supporters and was apparently bedding down the lovely Matilda Krim (a former Israeli intelligence officer) whose husband Arthur was a major backer of Johnson’s and willing, for Zion’s sake,…}

    The zionists have used the bedroom fully to massacre the ‘enemy’ and expand their wealth and influence throughout the history.
    The Purim which is celebrated by Jews is the story of Persian king who was deceived by a Jewish woman, Esther, to bring Mordecai, a palace official, cousin and foster parent of Esther, to power through massacre of more than 74000 Persians. The massacre plan to bring the Jews to power was fomented in the ‘bedding down” of Esther at the palace.
    Those who have more stories of ‘bedding down’, please tell the story to show how dangerous the Zionists are to world peace.

    Is there a story of ‘bedding down’ between Eleanor Roosevelt and a Zionist man?

  11. kalidas said on November 21st, 2010 at 8:44am #

    Well, when you’re ruled by your genitals it’s pretty lame to whine when you get bitch slapped.

    It does take two to tango.

  12. kalidas said on November 21st, 2010 at 8:46am #

    BTW, ever compare photos of LBJ and Golda Meir?

    Separated at birth, or what!

  13. mary said on November 21st, 2010 at 11:05am #

    A terrible war crime was committed off the Gaza coast in 1967 yet the blind Americans are still being bled to the tune of $3 billion pa for the support of Israel. I see that even the lifeboats were targeted.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

  14. jayn0t said on November 21st, 2010 at 12:54pm #

    Thanks for the gossip about lovely Israeli Matilda Krim and LBJ, Jeff. I always wondered why a president would ignore an attempt to sink an American warship. I guess that partly explains it. A president is after all only a man. Kinda creepy though. LBJ was an ugly SOB.

  15. Hue Longer said on November 21st, 2010 at 12:59pm #

    There was also the fact that many generals and contractors stood to make a fortune with the amount of arms sales to Israel that was being coaxed through to being allowed.

  16. jayn0t said on November 21st, 2010 at 1:54pm #

    I find the argument about arms sales unconvincing. It is true that the US arms industry makes a fortune by selling arms to Israel, but the money comes from the US government, taxing the rest of US capitalism. So what’s needed is to explain why capitalism isn’t acting in its own interests.

  17. Deadbeat said on November 21st, 2010 at 2:21pm #

    jaynot writes …

    I find the argument about arms sales unconvincing. … So what’s needed is to explain why capitalism isn’t acting in its own interests.

    The reason why IMO is that the CEO’s of these corporations today are transient. They make their money and leave. This is why they support lowering taxes because they want to make the “killing” and get the hell out. They don’t care about Capitalism “per se” they care about only their short term pay packages.

    Zionists do care about Capitalism because they use it to acquire POWER.

  18. hayate said on November 21st, 2010 at 3:55pm #

    Jeffrey Blankfort

    “I very much doubt that the US Navy or any other element of the US government was involved in the attack on the Liberty”

    I don’t know. I did a review of the attack this am and there are too many questionable things leading up to and during the attack. Some speculations:

    First off, from what I’ve seen, the israelis ordered the usn to move the ship when they found out it was near their war crime site the day before. Apparently this is why the u.s. ordered the ship to move further away from Palestine, though the messages didn’t reach Liberty before the attack and some never reached her at all.

    Second is mcnamara calling back the first launch which occurred right after the Liberty got a distress call through the israeli jamming and said she was under attack by unidentified attackers. Mcnamara called those aircraft back (4xF4s, from Saratoga, I believe), yet how did he know the attacker was israeli at that point. From what I’ve read, Liberty had said unidentified attackers in their distress call and had not identified the attackers as israeli till much later. Granted, he could have guessed, but sending a flight to investigate Liberty would be standard procedure and would find out for sure. If there was doubt who the attacker was, they would need to find out, and would have to do so, in my opinion, because if the attacker was not israeli, failure to investigate would be beyond the pale.

    He could have also contacted the israelis, and told them they were “mistakenly” attacking an american ship. But he apparently did not at that point, when such a move could have made a difference. Why? Johnson apparently contacted the Soviets immediately once he was informed, so there is nothing stopping contacting the israelis. From what I’ve read, the israelis contacted the u.s. first over the attack – in what sounds like a very staged manner.

    Another possibility is mcnamara was informed the attackers were israeli by the u.s. intelligence services. This seems doubtful, since he recalled the investigative flight within minutes of launch, and the flight was airbourne within minutes of the reception of Liberty’s distress call. I would guess that less than half an hour passed from the time that distress call was received and the intercepting flight was recalled by mcnamara. Actually less time since the usn only announced to washington that they were sending the flight right before or after it was launched. That’s not a lot of time to gather up the intelligence data and get it over to the white house and discuss the possibilities. Especially in 1967. Also, according to what I’ve read, nsa and cia were informed much later than the white house. From the time mcnamara was informed of the attack till the israelis ceased was about an hour. A simple call from mcnamara to the israelis would have stopped the later phases of the attack, but he did NOT do it. Why? This is the smoking gun, in my opinion, that he had prior knowledge and was determined to allow the attack to carry on AS PLANNED. My gut feeling is mcnamara didn’t need an intelligence briefing to know, he had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. The breaks with procedure remind me of the similar “laxes” used to justify breaks with procedure to facilitate the 9/11 attacks after wards. Too convenient for something that was not preplanned. The american guv, different segments of it, had many such war like plans developed during the 60’s which they did not carry out. Like that one of creating incidents of violence against americans, on american soil, to blame on Cuba, to facilitate full fledged war against Cuba. The neocons have shown that the nuts are not always straitjacketed in the american guv/military, and do sometimes dominate policy.

    I didn’t see anything about a Soviet sub relaying Liberty’s distress call, though apparently a couple were in the region, but not right near Liberty. An american sub was, though, Amberjack or of that class, I think it was. One of the Liberty crewmen saw it’s periscope and later confirmed with several crewmen that were aboard the sub that they were there and that they even filmed portions of the attack. Naturally, the usn denies this officially. That sub had to have informed their superiors what was going down, in real time. This further reinforces my view the attack was preplanned with active american guv consent. Offhand. another thing I can think of is refusing the Liberty’s request for an escort while on station, when the ship was deployed, prior to the attack.

    From what I’ve found, the Soviet destroyer mentioned in Mary’s link actually didn’t arrive till much later that night, around midnight. They offered help, this was refused, and the Soviets replied they would stick around at a distance in case they needed help later. They apparently stuck around till morning when american ships finally arrived. One of the worries of the americans was that Soviet ships trailing the Liberty might obtain classified documents that could be floating out of the gaping hole in the ship’s side. An american ship picked up one document floating 10 miles behind the Liberty later. It was reported that 2 Soviet ships continued to shadow Liberty as she made her way to Malta.

    As for americans wanting to open up another war while Vietnam was going on, I don’t know. Look at what they did to Iraq after invading Afghanistan. It’s possible the americans thought a joint israeli-american operation to knock out Egypt in a quick war, using an “Egyptian attack” on the Liberty as the Tonkin Gulf like pretext, was viable. The americans still thought they were invincible then. The Tet offensive was still months away. They would not have used nukes, though, but such weapons would be prepared as is standard procedure for an emergency. If there was a plan to use Liberty in a Tonkin Gulf style pretext, mcnamara’s early strange behaviour would make sense then. Also, the massive hammer that came down after the attack in order to prevent any sort of investigation seems to me to go beyond protecting israel and involve preventing something more devastating getting out than that israel deliberately attacked the Liberty. They, those associated with this attack on the american side, completely frightened and dominated the others in the american guv who were in the dark about what happened, and wanted to find out. Considering how unpopular israel was with many of these officials and interests, their acquiescence says to me that there was more to this attack and that if any of it got out, it would result in more than just a loss of status for the zionists and israel in american affairs, which these people would probably have welcomed otherwise. A planned Tonkin Gulf like pretext could have been arranged and carried out by only a portion of the top american leadership, due to wartime compartmentalization that was being employed because of the Vietnam war. It would not be too difficult to keep most in the dark before the attack, then hysteria after would work to silence those raising questions.

    They would have avoided attacking the Soviets directly. From what I’ve read, the Soviets were more concerned with the usa invading Syria, than Egypt. They had a force ready to intervene and land troops in Syria if that happened. The usa would have known about this, and this may be behind the americans not wanting the israelis attacking Syria. Fear of getting the Soviets involved fighting israel, with the usa then being drawn in to protect israel.

    There is a question of how strong zionist/israeli influence was in the u.s. guv during those pre-neocon days when the u.s. was essentially run by cold war paleocons. Could the zionists order the americans about like now? There was a lot more resistance to the zionists, then. We all know how zionists cooked up the war on terrorism and planned the recent american aggressions through their pnac paper trail. Could they have cooked up a similar strategy back in 1967? But in a more secretive manner, to avoid what would probably be strong resistance from some paleocon segments of the american power structure? This was with the success of the Tonkin Gulf incident still fresh. Could the zionist segment of this establishment, along with other rightwing, but not zionist, similar thinkers thought that springing another pretext, followed by a quick war (mostly provided by the idf, with the usa providing mostly distant support) would turn the tables on the Soviets in the Mideast? The ziofascist/fascistt goal there seems to have been neutralising Egypt, more than any other policy. Something they eventually accomplished without invading the country later in the 70’s. The war went much better for israel than was probably expected, and they accomplished their goals without [probably] much american direct help. But what if it had not and got bogged down, or israel had started losing. A Tonkin Gulf pretext against Egypt, using the Liberty, would be a ticket to get the americans actively involved in the fighting on israel’s side. The attack could have been planned as insurance against a worst case scenario, one that did not materialise.

    It’s also possible the americans knew the israeli intent to attack Syria, and agreed with it, but made like they opposed, and that israel did this on their own without american approval, to avoid an incident with the Soviets. It did give both a way of backing off from escalating the israeli attack on Syria into an american-Soviet conflict.

  19. hayate said on November 21st, 2010 at 4:27pm #

    jayn0t said on November 21st, 2010 at 1:54pm

    “I find the argument about arms sales unconvincing. It is true that the US arms industry makes a fortune by selling arms to Israel, but the money comes from the US government, taxing the rest of US capitalism. So what’s needed is to explain why capitalism isn’t acting in its own interests.”

    Those oligarchs making the decisions are acting in their own capitalist interests. They are not the ones footing the bill. The u.s. guv is not taxing u.s. capitalism, it’s transferring the wealth of the powerless to the powerful and at the same time making sure the powerless remain powerless. The guv in a capitalist country is a tool which the powerful use to increase/maintain their power and enrich themselves in the process. The guv is their tool to make sure the powerless continue supporting the powerful.

    For example. When the u.s. guv gives x billions to raytheon to make item y, this is a gift from the powerless taxpayer, to the powerful capitalist oligarch. The rich are not paying for ratheon’s item y, we are. And in the capitalist scheme of things, we don’t count, the raytheons do, we are their to keep the ratheon’s in power.

  20. jayn0t said on November 21st, 2010 at 5:49pm #

    Hayate says: “Those oligarchs making the decisions are acting in their own capitalist interests. They are not the ones footing the bill. The u.s. guv is not taxing u.s. capitalism, it’s transferring the wealth of the powerless to the powerful and at the same time making sure the powerless remain powerless.”

    Deadbeat says: “Zionists do care about Capitalism because they use it to acquire POWER.”

    (Both in response to my comment that arms sales to Israel fail to explain the US government letting Israel get away with attacking one of its ships).

    These comments mix up two issues, capitalism and Zionism. Yes, capitalist wealth is taken from the workers. But having taken that wealth, capitalists can decide what to do with it, via the state. Obviously, the state doesn’t run capitalism for the benefit of the workers. Obviously, it defends the powerful against the powerless. But what is less obvious is how it decides among various factions of the powerful. Why throw so much wealth at Israel, wealth which it could use for the benefit of the majority of the greedy capitalists, rather than a tiny minority of them?

    Zionists indeed use capitalism (and various other things) to gain power, but why do the other capitalists allow them to do so? You can’t explain why capitalism chooses some policies rather than others, particularly when the former are less rational than the latter, by saying “it’s capitalism”.

  21. hayate said on November 21st, 2010 at 6:28pm #

    jayn0t said on November 21st, 2010 at 5:49pm

    “(Both in response to my comment that arms sales to Israel fail to explain the US government letting Israel get away with attacking one of its ships).”

    I’ve never claimed american arms sales to israeli are the reason why the u.s. let israel get away with the Liberty attack. I speculated as to why in the Liberty related post above. You can read that if you want to know what I think may be the reason the zionists got away with it.

    “Why throw so much wealth at Israel, wealth which it could use for the benefit of the majority of the greedy capitalists, rather than a tiny minority of them? ”

    You almost answered your own question there. Why benefit that tiny group? Because that tiny group is running the show and making the decisions.

    “Zionists indeed use capitalism (and various other things) to gain power, but why do the other capitalists allow them to do so? ”

    It’s not really a question of the other capitalist allowing zionists the upper hand, it’s that the zionists have been working steadily to gain that upper hand and have essentially taken it. The other capitalists “let them” only under duress and because they are on the same side, ultimately. Common purpose. The zionists are much more unified in sense of purpose and they have the capitalist power to back up their wishes. Most of the capitalists are below the level of the decision makers, anyway, so who sets the pace makes little difference to them, as long as they don’t slide down the ladder. It matters little to raytheon (to use my previous example) whether a rockefeller or a rothchilde makes the decisions at the top, provided they still maintain their share of the arms industry. And if they lose out to another currently in the graces of “the power”, well, they can complain…That’s pretty much how it works throughout. The main worry of capitalist oligarchies is not competition between each other, but loss of power to the people they dominate. Maintain the status quo and don’t deprive the non zionists blocks of their share of the spoils, keep up a bit of competition between the others to keep them from unifying. Good business negotiation skills. Those sorts of things. Zionists oligarchs use these to their advantage and the fact they are better organised than the rest of the capitalist oligarchy. Should the non capitalists unify against zionist influence, the latter would fold fairly quickly. This is why zionists work so hard at keeping people apart from each other, on every level.

  22. jayn0t said on November 22nd, 2010 at 3:35pm #

    hayate – that’s a good answer

  23. jayn0t said on November 23rd, 2010 at 5:03pm #

    I’ve just come across an astounding article by a conservative academic claiming that, far from suppressing freedom of speech in Canada, Zionists in that country are in under siege from mobs of anti-Semitic Muslims and leftists. Does he live in a parallel universe where everything is the opposite of what it is here?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/york-university-finally-moves-quickly-to-suppress-offensive-speech-%E2%80%94-but-only-when-jews-are-speaking/

  24. hayate said on November 24th, 2010 at 1:02am #

    “Does he live in a parallel universe where everything is the opposite of what it is here?”

    The zionists do like their fantasy… :D

    “pajamasmedia”

    Though perhaps it’s time they learned how to get dressed – at least at some point during the day. “Nursey” cant hold their hand all the time.