Jun 19, 2015
I went to the Star Wars weekend at Disney in Holywood Studios and was going to buy a Tshirt that was a Star Wars shirt . I looked at the Star Wars tag and is states Star War: FORCE FOR CHANGE IS A CHARITABLE INITIATIVE FROM DISNEY AND LUCASFILMS IN COLLABORATION WITH UNICEF 25% OF THE RETAIL SALE PRICE OF THIS PRODUCT WILL BE DONATED TO U.S. FUND FOR UNICEF IN SUPPORT OF KID POWER, AN INNOVATIVE CHILD HEALTH INITIATED THAT ENCOURAGES IN THE U.S. TO GET PHYSICALLY ACTIVE IN ORDER TO HELP SAVE THE LIVES OF THEIR PEERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
Gaza is the developing country and at the UN Schools that is supported by US Funded UNICEF stored bombs that bombed Israel by Hamas. Does Disney support Hamas? which is the right arm of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the Holyland Foundation who supports ISIS? Maybe all shirts and items that hold this lable should be returned to Disney and not support terrorist
The article below gives a hint to what the UN is doing with this money
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/.../Article.aspx/15375...
Op-Ed: Unicef Declares War on Israeli Children
Are Palestinian Arab children more “innocent” than Jewish ones? 1Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:52 PM
All of Hamas’ leaders, the politicians such as Ismail Haniyeh and the military such as Mohammed Deif, are probably hiding in a bunker under the Shifa hospital, the largest medical facility in Gaza, as they did during the last operation in Gaza in 2012.
Once again, the Islamists are deploying all theirhumanitarian arsenal against Israel and using their own children as human shields.
In Shuja’iya, the Muslim terrorists launch rockets, Iranian grad-type missiles, from the mosque of Abu Ayn, from the Wafa hospital and from akindergarten. But UNICEF, the UN agency devoted to the rights and lives of children, has never raised its voice against the Palestinian leadership.
Does UNICEF believe that it is acceptable to teach Arab children to blow themselves up against Jews, pay them to run guns, or to throw stones at soldiers at the risk of their lives?
The philosophy behind the use of women, children and civilians has been explained clearly by Hamas’ former minister Fathi Hammad: “It is like saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire life’”.
A television spot from Hamas’ channel says: “Bombs are more precious than children”. Translation: you are a potential shaheed, martyr, so don’t abandon your homes despite Israeli warnings, but protect the bodies of the mujahideen with your own. The holy war is worth more than your life.
The tactic dates back to the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. On 20 November 2006, the Israeli army ordered the evacuation of the house of terrorist leader Waal Rajeb to Shaqra. Hamas responded by forming a ring of women andchildren around the building.
When that occurred, there was only silence from UNICEF.
The UN agency also sees no problem in Hamas’ uses of UN schools to store weapons and rockets.
But in the last few days, UNICEF has been very busy denouncing the “Israeli massacres of Palestinian children”. Western and Arab Newspapers and televisions are all dribbling for UNICEF’s numbers. It is a blood libel against the Israeli army because it gives the impression that Jews target Arab children.
Meanwhile, nobody at UNICEF is touched by the Israeli children, who have to go to schools protected by armed guards and who have to travel on buses fearing for their lives.
Where was UNICEF when Jewish children were murdered in their mothers’ arms?
Where was UNICEF when the Fogel children were slaughtered in their own beds?
Where was UNICEF when Jewish children had their faces burned or their hands rendered useless, some with their sight ruined forever?
Between 2000 and 2004, 128 Jewish children were killed, 9 of them less than a year old; 9 pregnant women were murdered; 886 children lost one parent and 31 lost both. The youngest victim of terror was just one day old.
UNICEF was silent about them. Are Palestinian Arab children more “innocent” than Jewish ones?
Sderot’s children—five thousand in the local area—live as prisoners in their own homes, unable to play outside, swim in a pool, ride a bike, or kick a football. In the Israeli elementary schools, Jewish children learn math by counting how many of them are still at their desks.
Jewish children in the south don’t eat well, have nightmares, don’t go outside alone, don’t want their mothers to go to work, don’t play, have lots of problems at school. Many of these children were born under Hamas fire. They have never known anything different.
80 percent of the children in the Negev show symptoms of trauma. Thousands of children also have physical disabilities from Palestinian bombs. There are children who don’t get out of bed anymore.
Where are all the organizations devoted to the rights of the children? Do they also believe, like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, that Jewish children are a legitimate target? Do they believe that Jewish students deserve the fate they met in Maalot?
People around the world should protest against this shameful discimination. Because silence is telling. The world has always been deaf and blind to the subject of Jewish children's suffering.
U.S. Funding for Hamas?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-should-americans-fund-hamas-1401913021
State winks at the Palestinian merger with the terror group.
 |
| ABIGAIL DISNEY DAUGHTER OF ROY DISNEY! |
Hatred for Jews and Israel goes even further then the parks. Read Below about Abigail Disney, The Disney family is Pro Terrorist.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/disney-family-member-renounces-her-investments-in-israel-s-ahava-cosmetics-1.451506
Disney family member renounces her investments in Israel's Ahava Cosmetics
Abigail Disney, the granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, who co-founded The Walt Disney Company with his brother Walt, disclaims Ahava investment due to its location in an 'Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.'
Abigail Disney, a descendant of one of the Disney Company founders, said Monday that she is renouncing her share of the family's profits in the Israeli cosmetics company Ahava, saying it is engaged in the "exploitation of occupied natural resources."
Disney said she will donate the profits and a sum equal to the worth of her shares to "organizations working to end this illegal exploitation." Disney, 52, a filmmaker and businesswoman, is the granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, who co-founded The Walt Disney Company with his brother Walt.
Her move, however, has more of a symbolic significance than a financial one. Shamrock Holdings, the family firm in which she is a partner, has invested heavily in Israel, as evidenced by the wide-ranging activity of its Israeli affiliate, Shamrock Israel.
According to various media reports, Shamrock has invested some $400 million in Israeli companies, about a fifth of its capital. Among its holdings is an investment worth at least $12 million in Ahava, which is based in Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem on the Dead Sea shores, outside Israel's pre-1967 borders.
After informing her family and partners in the firm of her decision, Disney released the following statement:
“Recent evidence from the Israeli Civil Administration documents that Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories sources mud used in its products from the Occupied shores of the Dead Sea, which is in direct contravention to provisions in the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention forbidding the exploitation of occupied natural resources".
“While I will always hold my colleagues and coworkers in the highest regard, I cannot in good conscience profit from what is technically the ‘plunder’ or ‘pillage’ of occupied natural resources and the company’s situating its factory in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied West Bank," Disney said.
“Because of complicated legal and financial constraints I am unable to withdraw my investment at this time, but will donate the corpus of the investment as well as the profits accrued to me during the term of my involvement to organizations working to end this illegal exploitation.”
One of Israel's best known brands overseas, Ahava makes skin care products derived from Dead Sea mud and mineral-based compounds from the Dead Sea. It has stores in Israel, Germany, Hungary, the Philippines and Singapore.
Disney's reference to "evidence from the Israeli Civil Administration" relates to a letter received from the Civil Administration by the "Who Profits From the Occupation" research project. In the letter the Civil Administration confirmed that the military government had issued a permit to Ahava allowing it to take mud from the area adjacent to the Dead Sea captured by Israel in 1967. Disney did not reveal how large her stake is or the sum of the profits that had accrued to her from the investment in Ahava.
Until two months ago, Disney had been deputy chairman of Shamrock Holdings, which was founded in 1978 by her father Roy E. Disney. The firm bought a 17 percent stake in Ahava in 2008, which was worth $12 million at that time.
Ahava representatives said that the purchase was aimed at helping Ahava make foreign investments, specifically forging business connections in the United States.
Shamrock also has a stake in the Teva Naot footwear company, which is located in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc south of Jerusalem, and in the Orad company, which makes, among other things, control and monitoring technology for the separation barrier running through the West Bank.
Disney, who has a PhD. in English from Columbia University, began making documentary films in 2007. Her first was about the struggles of women in Liberia against the warlords in their strife-torn country in an effort to stop the civil war there.
She was also part of the team that produced a five-part series for the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service called “Women, War and Peace,” which was aired late last year. The series deals with the changes in war theaters since the end of the Cold War, on the one hand, and on the other with the role of women in war-torn societies that are struggling for peace, in countries like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Colombia and Liberia.
In the details given to the media about the series’ creators, it said “[Disney’s] longtime passion for women’s issues and peacebuilding led her to producing these films".
Together with her husband, Pierre Hauser, Disney is also co-founder and co-president of the Daphne Foundation, a foundation that makes grants to grassroots, community-based organizations working with low-income communities in New York City and describes itself as “progressive and seeking social change.”
According to the American group Stolen Beauty, which has called to boycott Ahava products, this profile of Disney conflicts with her previous involvement with investments Shamrock made in those areas captured by Israel in 1967. The group says its staffers were the ones who presented Disney with the findings regarding Israel’s use of natural resources on the West Bank.
Stolen Beauty’s activity in the United States and elsewhere has helped make Ahava cosmetics one of the first mentioned in any discussion of products that are produced in settlements or in industrial zones operated in settlements but are marked “Made in Israel.”
This is the full version of this article. A shortened version, edited for the print edition of Haaretz, was also published.
Walk in any park near any Muslim working at Disney you hear Muslim calling the Guests ....Kafir. The meaning of Kafir
What is a Dhimmi? A Kafir?
These terms have related meanings. Kafir is the broader term. Dhimmi is the legally invoked status of a Kafir.
A Kafir is a non-believer, an infidel, or an ingrate to the Islamic faith. A Dhimmi is alway a Kafir. But a Kafir is not always a Dhimmi.
From Wiki: In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth". The Quran also uses the word for Muslims; in Sura 2 Verse 256, it asks them to take upon themselves the action of "Kofr" of all unjust idols, persons or powers.A Dhimmi is a person who is a non-Muslim in a Muslim dominated society. Dhimmi is the subordinate legal status given to the kafir to "protect" him. Why is protection needed? Because Muslims are called upon to kill infidels as the general rule. The creation of the Dhimmi status was a way to offer protection to the infidel in exchange for fees or taxes, and a reduced level of cultural benefits or freedoms, like voting. If you are an infidel, it is a good idea to be a Dhimmi in a Muslim culture. Without being a Dhimmi you would be in violation of the rules, and the "other" option would be on the table, so to speak.
Views of modern Islamic scholars about Dhimmi (from Wiki)...
Dhimmitude is a more recently developed broader term implying those in a non-Islamic dominated society who are being intimidated or terrorized in some manner and are accordingly fearful of taking action to counteract their condition.
Bat Yeor's definition of "dhimmitude" (from Wiki):
"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility."Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines "Dhimmi" (from Wiki): ... [Dhimmi] is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race. |
The Dhimmitude of the West
Mark Durie
August 2002
Mark Durie
August 2002
To appear in the Newsletter for the Centre for Islamic Studies
London Bible College
London Bible College
Dhimmitude is an Islamic phenomenon. It defines the condition of submissive surrender to Islamic rule, yet without conversion to the Islamic faith. Under classical theological formulations developed in the first centuries of Islam, the region where Islam rules is known as Dar al-Islam 'the House of Islam'.
From the very beginning the Dar al-Islam included many non-Muslims, indeed they were normally in the majority after initial conquest. Based on the example of Muhammad's dealings with the conquered Jewish farmers of Khaybar, Fadak, Tayma and Wadi-l Qura, the institution of the dhimma or 'pact of protection' was developed to provide for those who refused to convert to Islam. The dhimma was granted by the conquerors as one possible outcome of military jihad. It assured the vanquished an institutional legal framework which guaranteed their religious freedom, and determined their social and economic place in the Islamic state. In return the people of the pact, or dhimmis, were required to pay tribute in perpetuity to the Muslim Community (Umma), and to adopt a position of humble servitude to the Umma.
The Koranic verse which dictates this fundamental character for dhimmitude is Sura 9:29:
"Fight against those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day, and do not make forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have made forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [head tax] readily and are humbled."
Within the Islamic state, all non-Muslims who are not objects of war are considered to be dhimmis - communities who are allowed to exist within the Dar al-Islam by virtue of surrender under the conditions of a dhimmi pact. These are the permanently conquered peoples of Islam.
The historian Bat Ye'or has documented the social, political, economic and religious conditions of dhimmi communities - Jews and Christians - in the Middle East. It is a sad history of dispossession and decline. Legal provisions applying to dhimmis ensured their humiliation and inferiority, and to this was added the often crippling taxes which were allocated to support the Muslim community. Under conditions of dhimmitude there was also a constant risk of jihad conditions being reinvoked - of massacre and dispossession - if the dhimmi community is considered to have failed to live up to the conditions of their pact. History records many examples where dhimmis were attacked by their fellow Muslim citizens on such grounds, for example the massacres of the Jews of Granada in 1066, and of the Christians of Damascus in 1860.
Like sexism and racism, dhimmitude is not only manifested in legal and social structures, but in a psychology of inferiority, a will to serve, which the dominated community adopts in self-preservation.
"The law required from dhimmis a humble demeanor, eyes lowered, a hurried pace. They had to give way to Muslims in the street, remain standing in their presence and keep silent, only speaking to them when given permission. They were forbidden to defend themselves if attacked, or to raise a hand against a Muslim on pain of having it amputated. Any criticism of the Koran or Islamic law annuled the protection pact. In addition the dhimmi was duty-bound to be grateful, since it was Islamic law that spared his life.
The whole corpus of these practices … formed an unchanging behavior pattern which was perpetuated from generation to generation for centuries. It was so deeply internalised that it escaped critical evaluation and invaded the realm of self-image, which was henceforth dominated by a conditioning in self-devaluation. … This situation, determined by a corpus of precise legislation and social behaviour patterns based on prejudice and religious traditions, induced the same type of mentality in all dhimmi groups. It has four major characteristics: vulnerability, humiliation, gratitude and alienation.(1)"
As one Iranian convert to Christianity put it 'Christianity is still viewed as the religion of an inferior class of people. Islam is the religion of masters and rulers, Christianity is the religion of slaves'. Often dhimmi Christians can be seen to collude to conceal their own condition, finding themselves psychologically unable to critique or oppose it.
Although many of the laws of dhimmitude were dismantled during European colonization, today they are making a comeback.
Islam is exerting an increasingly important influence in the destiny of Western cultures. Through immigration, oil economics, cultural exchange and even terrorism, the remnants of what was once Christendom now find themselves having to attend to Islam and its distinctive 'take' on the world. We increasingly hear that we have an 'Abrahamic' civilization - an Islamic perspective - not a Judeo-Christian one.
Within the Islamic self-consciousness, there are limited options for the roles that non-Muslims communities can play. The only real alternative to 'enemies of Allah' is dhimmitude.
The requirement that dhimmis affirm and serve Islam greatly limits the repertoire of responses that dhimmified Christians can have towards it. Where there are grounds for confrontation, the only way of struggling permitted to the dhimmi is by saying soft things. Such political correctness is itself an injustice that needs to be exposed and challenged. This dynamic, when combined with the meanings of 'struggle' (jihad) that Islam claims as its divine right without apology of any kind, can intimidate and debilitate Christians who are free and do not live under Islam. The cumulative effect can be that the gross injustices come to seem as somehow excusable or unexceptional. An infamous example is the weak international response today to the persecution of non-Muslims (not just Christians) under Islam. This is epitomized in the slavish attitude adopted by Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement she read to an Organisation of Islamic Conference Symposium on Human Rights in Islam held at the Palais des Nations in Geneva in 2002. After offering praise Robinson adopts the strategy of affirming the inherent righteousness of Islam:
"It is important to recognize the greatness of Islam, its civilizations and its immense contribution to the richness of the human experience, not only through profound belief and theology but also through the sciences, literature and art.
No one can deny that at its core Islam is entirely consonant with the principle of fundamental human rights, including human dignity, tolerance, solidarity and equality. Numerous passages from the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad will testify to this. No one can deny, from a historical perspective, the revolutionary force that is Islam, which bestowed rights upon women and children long before similar recognition was afforded in other civilizations. …And no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States.(2)"
Observe here the dhimmi themes of gratitude, affirmation of moral superiority of Islam (with the implication of inferiority of the infidel), and the denial of any possible voice of protest against human rights abuses in Islamic states. It is a classical dhimmi strategy to avoid confrontation by affirming what is best in Islam. Change for the better is only allowed to arise from values which Muslims can see as springing from their faith itself. This strategy conceals and disempowers the moral worth of non-Muslim value systems. It is the strategy of those whose existence is marginal and threatened.
For those living in liberal democracies this is not in the end a healthy way to engage with the 'other' that is Islam. It establishes a framework in which Islam takes on the role of a dominator that expects to be praised, admired, and stroked. The reaction to deserved criticism, when it manages to find a voice, can be shock, denial and outrage.
For Christians there is a special challenge here. In adapting to this requirement of grateful service, Christians can interpret their own submissiveness in gospel categories of forgiveness and service. But from the Islamic side this just looks like 'submission', i.e. the program of 'Islam' itself is working. Islam interprets such submissiveness as its rightful due, not an expression of grace, and affords itself the right to the feeling of generosity. Likewise international aid is interpreted as tribute, a rightful due. This perception is reinforced when the most peaceful Islamic nations receive the least aid.
Another cost of this dynamic is a widespread Islamic pattern of claiming the role of victim, whilst inculpating others for problems not of their making. Since Islam is not confronted with its own difficulties, whilst having its virtues affirmed, Muslim communities have permission to feel themselves aggrieved. This is enormously costly for the ongoing social and economic development of Islamic nations, and it is costly for Western societies.
In Victoria Australia our Equal Opportunity Commission has a 'Stand up to Racism' campaign which announces to the community that Islam is a religion to be admired - this is called 'dispelling myths'. Yet the majority of attacks on Australian religious buildings since 9/11 have been against churches and synagogues. Our EOC's tactic distorts the whole meaning of 'tolerance' and undermines social harmony. This issue is especially urgent now that significant numbers of Westerners are embracing Islam.
Appeasement and the softly, softly approach only buys time. Sooner or later the will to dominance inherent in the jihad stream of the Qur'an and Sunna will rear its head when a faithful believer reads the Qur'an and finds that it says to struggle against unbelievers and subjugate them. Frank exposure and critique offers the best way to contain this outcome.
(1) Bat Ye'or. Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide. Cranbury, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002. P. 103-104.
(2) Mary Robinson, March 15, 2002.
Walt Disney was anti-Semitic, says Meryl Streep
http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Arts/Walt-Disney-was-anti-Semitic-says-Meryl-Streep-337647
During her speech at the National Board of Review Awards, Streep says Disney is nothing like he is portrayed in "Saving Mr. Banks."
Meryl Streep. (photo credit:Reuters)
Hollywood icon Meryl Streep says the legendary Walt Disney was anti-Semitic.
During her speech at the National Board of Review Awards in New York on Tuesday, Streep ripped into Disney in a lengthy nine-minute rant saying the famous cartoonist "was supposedly a hideous anti-Semite" and a "gender bigot."
"Disney, who brought joy, arguably, to billions of people, was perhaps, or had some … racist proclivities. He formed and supported an anti-Semitic industry lobby. And he was certainly, on the evidence of his company's policies, a gender bigot," Streep said during the ceremony.
Streep backtracked on her insults of the creative mastermind explaining that "most creative people are often odd, or irritating, eccentric, damaged, difficult. That along with enormous creativity comes certain deficits in humanity, or decency. We are familiar with this trope in our business. Mozart, Van Gogh, Tarantino, Eminem"
Streep was giving an ode to the upcoming film "Saving Mr. Banks," which follows the relationship between Mary Poppins' author P.L. Travers with Walt Disney. The film will star Emma Thompson, who Streep believes to be a true artist, juxtaposing the true nature of Disney, something that is sugarcoated in the film, according to Streep.
According to the New York Times, in 1938, a month after the Nazi assault on German Jews known as Kristallnacht, Walt Disney gave Hitler’s personal filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, a tour of his studio. When Riefenstahl offered to show Disney her depiction of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Eventually, the Times reported Disney turned down the German artist when he realized working with her might ruin his reputation.
In his biography of Riefenstahl, author Steven Bach writes that upon her return to Germany, she thanked Disney for receiving her, saying it “was gratifying to learn how thoroughly proper Americans distance themselves from the smear campaigns of the Jews.”
During her speech at the National Board of Review Awards in New York on Tuesday, Streep ripped into Disney in a lengthy nine-minute rant saying the famous cartoonist "was supposedly a hideous anti-Semite" and a "gender bigot."
"Disney, who brought joy, arguably, to billions of people, was perhaps, or had some … racist proclivities. He formed and supported an anti-Semitic industry lobby. And he was certainly, on the evidence of his company's policies, a gender bigot," Streep said during the ceremony.
Streep backtracked on her insults of the creative mastermind explaining that "most creative people are often odd, or irritating, eccentric, damaged, difficult. That along with enormous creativity comes certain deficits in humanity, or decency. We are familiar with this trope in our business. Mozart, Van Gogh, Tarantino, Eminem"
Streep was giving an ode to the upcoming film "Saving Mr. Banks," which follows the relationship between Mary Poppins' author P.L. Travers with Walt Disney. The film will star Emma Thompson, who Streep believes to be a true artist, juxtaposing the true nature of Disney, something that is sugarcoated in the film, according to Streep.
According to the New York Times, in 1938, a month after the Nazi assault on German Jews known as Kristallnacht, Walt Disney gave Hitler’s personal filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, a tour of his studio. When Riefenstahl offered to show Disney her depiction of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Eventually, the Times reported Disney turned down the German artist when he realized working with her might ruin his reputation.
In his biography of Riefenstahl, author Steven Bach writes that upon her return to Germany, she thanked Disney for receiving her, saying it “was gratifying to learn how thoroughly proper Americans distance themselves from the smear campaigns of the Jews.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.