[Jewish-Zionist Hollywood continues its strangling of Mel Gibson. All bow to the Jewish Lords of Sacred Innocense. May they bless us with another Porno Movie sacrament and guide us down the Kosher Path about them: See no Evil. Hear no Evil.]
Thanks Mel Gibson, Just What We Needed,
by Jack Engelhard, Israel National News, February 5, 2004
"Now we can talk about Mel Gibson. I can't jump all over the guy because I don't know him, or his movie (timed to open Ash Wednesday, February 25), though given his family ties (parents increasingly on display as clear and present Holocaust deniers), perhaps this is one apple that didn't fall far from the tree. I may have spotted him in LA while Paramount was filming my book Indecent Proposal. We were doing lunch at Toscano's (I think it was) and someone gushed, "Oh, there's Julia Roberts, and oh, there's Mel Gibson. He's so cool!" That's lunch in Hollywood. I do know this, the damage has already been done. We don't even need the movie. The mobs have been alerted. We can't underestimate the star power Gibson uses to bring on these mobs. Hey, Justin Timberlake says that moment with Janet Jackson was a "wardrobe malfunction," so that's what it was, right? He's a star, so he must be right. Gibson says that's the way it was 2,000 years ago, so that's the way it was. He's a star. (Routinely voted number one.) So it's okay to blame the Jews because who says so? Mel Gibson, and he's cool. Gibson (as quoted in the New York Times) says we should share love "despite our differences." What differences, Mel? There weren't any, as of late, until you brought it up. Gibson is guilty of setting a new standard for Jew-hatred, his own, which now goes out to the generations young and old with his undisputable Hollywood stamp and zip code. What's the real crime? A Hollywood icon trading on his fame to yell "Christ-killer!" in a crowded theater. (More than 2,000 of them for the opening in this country alone.) Supposedly he's making late scratches and additions to stop the bleeding. Will any of that make a difference in Europe and throughout the Arab world? I don't think so. The prequel damage? One email exchange tells the story, wherein a leading American Catholic, who claimed that Gibson had the Pope's support, told an Israeli to "take a walk" when the Israeli noted that the Vatican itself came out and said no such blessing had been given. The Israeli asked for a retraction. "Got your message," wrote back Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, "Take a walk." Take a walk? That hasn't been part of our Christian-Jewish dialogue for quite some time. We were starting to make amends. But open this door and all kinds of old goo comes gushing out. That much Gibson has already achieved, and that is near unforgivable. It is tough being Jewish. We've already got a billion and a half Muslims at our throats, and now this business all over again? Sometimes life is one bad hair day after another. I'll let the theologians go back and forth on the Biblical merits of Mel's Passion, which, for the sake of authenticity, is supposedly spoken in the language of the times, but also comes with music. (I doubt that a Hollywood soundtrack came with those events of 2,000 years ago.) The finest book on (and against) anti-Semitism was written by a Catholic priest (I wish I could remember his name) who documented Jewish history year by year, pogrom by pogrom, and so much of it sparked by the Passion. Those were only plays. Imagine what a movie can do! I caught a snippet of it on Fox's O'Reilly, when Gibson came on to lament that he was being crucified. (The Jews are doing it again, and to me!) ... I don't know Mel Gibson's substance. He does have, the girls tell me, a pretty face. But I suspect that deep inside there is another Picture of Mel Gibson." Jack Engelhard is the author of the novel Indecent Proposal and the award-winning memoir Escape From Mount Moriah. His novel The Days of the Bitter End is being prepared for movie production."

ADL Insults Millions of Christian Victims of Communist Genocide,
SupportMelGibson.com
"Mr. Gibson was correct to put the Jewish holocaust in its proper perspective: as but one example of man's inhumanity towards man from a tragic century of death. Curiously, this well-balanced response has attracted the ire of Jewish leaders- Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center responded: "We are not engaging in competitive martyrdom, but in historical truth. To describe Jewish suffering during the Holocaust as `some of them were Jews in concentration camps' is an afterthought that feeds right into the hands of Holocaust deniers and revisionists." Abe Foxman of the ADL attacked as well: "At the very least it was ignorant, at the very most its insensitive. And you know what? He doesn't get that either. He doesn't begin to understand the difference between dying in a famine and people being cremated solely for what they are." Foxman's comments have drawn me out and it is time that some more cards be layed on the table in regards to the historical record. Jews want a monopoly on being victims; if any other suffering group of people, whether they be Christian Russians, sub-Saharan Africans, or Armenians, claims to have suffered an equivalent injustice, they are quick to defend the "unparalleled evil" of the Jewish holocaust. I happen to believe that one human life is one human life. I can think of several examples that far exceed the Jewish holocaust in depravity: The Red Chinese murdered over 50 million to secure their hold on the government against nationalist forces. The Soviet Union systemically murdered over 20 million people, including millions of Ukrainian Christians who were deliberately starved to death. In America alone, over 30 million unborn children have been murdered at the hands of abortionists. This Jewish claim of unique suffering is ridiculous, and yet another example of the "victim mentality" complex that seems to afflict them as a people. Let us consider Foxman's statement that "dying in a famine" is different than "being cremated for who they are." In a November 16, 2003 article for the Toronto Sun, Eric Margolis detailed the "forgotten" Holocaust of 1932-3 that killed over seven million Ukrainians: Stalin declared war on his own people in 1932, sending Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch and NKVD secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization. Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot. During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Abe Foxman claims that the millions of Christians who were deliberately starved by Stalin's government merely "died in a famine." This is like saying that Jews who were shot in the Jewish holocaust were "died due to inhaled poison." Foxman has insulted the survivors of the Ukrainian Holocaust and has insulted Christians everywhere by claiming a Jewish monopoly as victims of the evils of atheistic regimes. However, there may be a darker reason for Foxman's comment. The article goes on to mention that, "Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish..." Foxman could be signaling a most hateful insult, that Gentile suffering is of no consequence compared to that of Jews, dismissing the deaths of Ukrainians as if they were a herd of cattle. When I think of all of the innocent blood that has been spilled in the name of equality and atheism in this century, I cannot help but rise up in anger at Foxman's insensitivity to the sufferings of Christians. Dare I notice that this is the same group of people that killed Christ and persecuted early Christians? Dare I notice that this group of people was primarily responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions of Ukrainians? Dare I notice that the preferred response of this group is not respectful dialogue, but lies, propaganda, and character assassination? Dare I notice that this group continues to seek to shut off the kingdom of God by attempting to censor this movie? All Christians must at some point conclude that the assumption of mutual and reciprocal goodwill with the leadership of the Jewish community is flawed. As Christ warned, they hate us because they hated Him. May God be with Mel Gibson during this trying time and may God guide the hearts of Christians to stand up to these endless insults to their faith and religion."

[Here's a guy whos very job is to kiss Jewish Butt. Restating "rules?" "Ancient errors?" Then all of the Jewish Old Testament is "an ancient error," subject too to revisionist "rules." This Judeocentric sycophant has had too many expensive dinners with the rich Jewish Lobby as Palestianian children were being slaughtered beneath his fine fork. Protecting Jewish Power and Racism isn't the job of the Church: it is the task of well-paid mercenaries. Christianity and Judaism aren't the same. Christ revolted against Israelite dictate, and that is the foundation of Christianity. The last sentence in this article is the veritable definition of propaganda: the declaration that Jews must be portrayed in a "positive" light -- as if this is the moral purpose of the entirety of the Christian world: not only forgiving, but erasing every Jewish sin in history. Why is the modern day Church so incredibly weak? Because it doesn't stand up for anything -- including itself against intensive Jewish demand and revisionism.]
Church Expert Restates Rules for Passion Portrayal,
Yahoo! News (from Reuters), February 7, 2004
"As interfaith temperatures rise before Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" film opens, a U.S. Catholic expert recalled on Friday the Vatican's strict rules on depicting a Jewish role in Jesus Christ's death. Eugene J. Fisher, the Church's top U.S. expert in relations with Jews, said "ancient errors" in interpreting the Gospels had given rise to the "unjust and unjustified view" that Jews were collectively responsible for the crucifixion. He did not directly mention The Passion, which U.S. Jewish leaders have loudly denounced as a damaging film portraying Jews as Christ-killers, but the timing and tone of his article in the U.S. Jesuit weekly America made the link clear. Fisher also said the American bishops would stress this message by issuing a book of official Catholic guidelines about portraying Christ's death just before Ash Wednesday, February 25 -- the day Gibson's film is to be released. "It is impossible to overstate the importance of the church's call to Catholic preachers and teachers to exercise an 'overriding preoccupation' with getting the Gospel accounts of Jesus's arrest, Passion and death just right," he wrote. "Both Christians and Jews involved in (interreligious) dialogue rightly understand that removing once and for all the ancient charge of 'deicide' is the litmus test of the integrity of all our efforts." Catholics involved in dialogue with Jews have said privately that Gibson's film was complicating their work because of its apparently harsh depiction of Jews. "I hope it all blows over quickly," one Midwestern priest told Reuters. Jewish leaders who have seen the latest version of the film say it depicts Jews as sinister and includes a line from Matthew -- "His blood be on us and our children" -- which has been used for centuries to blame Jews for Christ's death. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said last month the film made Jews look evil and sinister "like dark-eyed Rasputins." Fisher said Church guidelines set down that any depiction of Christ's Passion must stress the Christian teaching that Jesus died for mankind's sins and not because of "the particular Jews or Romans who were historically involved." Passion plays must put the story in context because the four Gospels differ in style and substance. "It is not enough simply to say that a given passage is 'in the Bible'," he said. Gibson has said his screenplay was based faithfully on the Gospels. "The presentation of Judaism must be nuanced," Fisher wrote. "Positive images of Jews and Judaism from Scriptures should be as or more plentiful than negative ones."

'Passion' spoof sparks spat, [in "Breaking News" section at home page]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 14, 2003
"A Jewish magazine and its publicist parted ways over an upcoming satire about a Mel Gibson movie on Jesus. Celebrity publicist Susan Blond told JTA a photo spread about the movie "The Passion of the Christ" in the Feb. 25 issue of Heeb magazine, a client of hers, insulted her. Blond, a ba'al tshuvah, or recent adherent to Orthodoxy, said she dropped the account because of pictures depicting Jesus wearing a tallit, or prayer shawl, as a loin cloth, and of the Virgin Mary with pierced nipples. "I couldn't live with myself," she said. Joshua Neuman, Heeb's editor-in-chief, called Blond's descriptions of the photos "inaccurate," saying that the feature, "Back Off, Braveheart," tackles "a really important issue that many young Jews in America today are talking about."

[JTR Contibutor's Comment: "Make sure you watch the interview on ABC's Primetime Special Edition tommorrow, Monday, February 16 (airs 10 pm EST here on the East Coast) which is Diane Sawyer's interview with Mel Gibson about the movie Passion of Christ. Remember of course that Diane Sawyer's husband, Mike Nichols (born Michael Igor Peschkowsky), a bigshot Hollywood movie director and producer, is Jewish. All this raucous about a movie that is being true to the Gospels. If it were a movie mocking Christianity, Catholicism or the Pope (the Jews love attacking the Holy Father), the Jews would be applauding it and Hollywood's Jews would be funding it down to the last penny. But make a movie about how the Jews persecuted someone they saw as a threat to their ways, well documented in the Gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and you've got B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups screaming "anti-Semitism"!"]

[Note the Judeocentric spin here: it is GIBSON who is the schemer. The ADL's critique of "The Passion" has apparently been in 22% of media stories about the movie. Not quite completely omnipresent, but not bad for a leech. In other words, every fifth article about the film has the ADL sucking the Passion's blood. Imagine if 22% of all media articles about Judaism also contained criticism that the entire religion is racist and a threat to Gentiles! Won't happen. Wonder why.]
Anti-Defamation League plays into Gibson's hands,
By David Klinghoffer, Seattle Times, February 6, 2004
"Mel Gibson's film about the death of Jesus, "The Passion of the Christ," opens this month, critics contend that it may spur anti-Jewish bigotry. Those critics have been led by the Anti-Defamation League, arguably America's most prominent Jewish organization. If the ADL is right that the film "could fuel latent anti-Semitism," whom should we hold responsible if any Jews get hurt as a consequence of its release? Mel Gibson, you say? How about the Anti-Defamation League? This film will be seen by lots and lots of people, thanks largely to the controversy around it, and nobody has done more to fan that controversy into a roaring blaze than the ADL. Fears about Gibson's "Passion," which apparently depicts Jews egging on Christ's crucifixion, were heightened when it was reported that audience excitement is running so strong that the distributor will open it on 2,000 screens nationwide. Church groups are clamoring for blocks of tickets, and one Dallas-area multiplex will show it on all 20 screens starting at 6:30 a.m. of the release date, Feb. 25. Why is "The Passion" likely to be the year's big event movie? ... A Lexis-Nexis search of articles in newspapers that mentioned "The Passion" over the past six months shows that 22 percent also cited the ADL and its critique — an impressive statistic. The ADL was more often mentioned than the film's star, James Caviezel, who plays Jesus. The whole atmosphere of debate, worry and accusation has been invaluable to Gibson in generating anticipation of his work, on which he is personally spending $25 million. Lucky for him the Anti-Defamation League was on the case. If one of the organization's chief purposes is to minimize the impact of negative depictions of Jews in the media, then it has succeeded here in doing the exact opposite. As the ADL states in its latest fund-raising mailer, referring to bigotry in general, "Of great concern to the Anti-Defamation League is the possibility that individuals are more likely to be targets of attack, simply because they are 'different.' " For every individual who sees the Gibson film, the odds of some other individual being attacked because he's Jewish are, presumably, increased. So what did ADL think its relentless criticism of "The Passion" would accomplish? Gibson is the last person in all of Hollywood to bow to hostile pressure to edit his work. A news story this week suggested that the filmmaker may have cut an inflammatory verse from Matthew's Gospel — but this was due to reactions of friendly screening audiences, not thanks to the ADL, which continues to attack the film. As the Seattle-based interfaith activist Rabbi Daniel Lapin observes, Gibson is the guy who made "Braveheart" and identifies with its hero, William Wallace, a 13th-century Scottish warrior who gladly accepts disembowelment rather than submit to intimidation and tyranny. The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, genuinely cares about the Jewish people, but his group is inevitably affected by the pressures of funding a large, nonprofit organization. The imperative to convince donors that you fight an urgent fight is overwhelming. The ADL has a $40 million yearly budget to raise. The perilous logic of the anti-defamation business demands that the ADL find "dangers" to denounce, even when those dangers, if left alone, would have been neutralized simply by their own nature — in this case, by the eccentricity of a Latin-Aramaic screenplay. Gibson's purposes positively required that he be denounced. He played the ADL as William Wallace played the bagpipe. The relationship between anti-defamation watchdogs and alleged defamer is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. What dangers it has unleashed for the rest of us remain to be seen." David Klinghoffer, who lives on Mercer Island, is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of the forthcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In Search of the Turning Point in Western History" (Doubleday)."

[Mel Gibson is a hero. A man who stands up for his moral and religious convictions in Hollywood (or, for that matter, anywhere these days) is as rare as a diamond in the sewer system. Rabbi Lapin below writes honestly (awesome!), except for one thing. Widespread Jewish hatred for Christ and Christianity is the norm, and it is not just "Jewish organizations" (where do these many multi-million dollar fascistic groups come from? --Jewish Amercan support everywhere). Jews have been central in destroying religion in America. Lapin's view is extremely rare among Jews. Where are all the rabbis and mainstream Jews who line up behind him? They do not exist. Lapin -- well known for this honesty below -- is an anomaly, as always. Note that this article is posted at Rabbi Lapin's own organization, Toward Tradition, not throughout the Judeocentric mass media. Or even the Jewish ethnic media.]
Why Mel Owes One To The Jews,
By Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition, February 12, 2004
"Two weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion flashes onto two thousand screens, online ticket merchants are reporting that up to half their total sales are for advance purchases for Passion. One Dallas multiplex has reserved all twenty of its screens for The Passion. I am neither a prophet nor a movie critic. I am merely an Orthodox rabbi using ancient Jewish wisdom to make three predictions about The Passion. One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. Those distributors who surrendered to pressure from Jewish organizations and passed on Passion will be kicking themselves, while Newmarket Films will laugh all the way to the bank. Theater owners are going to love this film. Two, Passion will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made. It will be one of the most talked-about entertainment events in history, it is currently on the cover of Newsweek and Vanity Fair. My third prediction is that the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them. Passion will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening. Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them. Here I digress slightly to exercise the Jewish value of "giving the benefit of the doubt" by discounting cynical suggestions growing in popularity, that the very public nature of their attack on Gibson exposed their real purpose-fundraising. Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d'être. But let's assume they were hoping to help Jews. However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity, in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt, and resentment. Hosting the Toward Tradition Radio Show and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling. Fearful of attracting the ire of Jewish groups that are so quick to hurl the "anti-Semite" epithet, some Christians are reluctant to speak out. Although one can bludgeon resentful people into silence, behind closed doors emotions continue to simmer. I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel. From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture "really means." Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, "We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in." He happens to be a respected rabbi and a good one, but he too has bought into the preposterous proposition that Jews will reeducate Christians about Christian theology and history. Is it any wonder that this breathtaking arrogance spurs bitterness? Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews' best (and perhaps, only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that Passion is revealing startling new information about the Crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators. Christians are baffled by Jews who don't understand that President George Washington, who knew and revered every word of the Gospels, was still able to write that oft-quoted beautiful letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, offering friendship and full participation in America to the Jewish community. One of the directors of the AJC recently warned that Passion "could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that's going on in this country. We're not allowing the film to do that." No sir, it isn't the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so. Jewish organizations, hoping to help but failing so spectacularly, refutes all myths of Jewish intelligence. How could their plans have been so misguided and the execution so inept? Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that nothing confuses one's thinking more than being in the grip of the two powerful emotions, love and hate. The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews. Today, peril threatens all Americans, both Jews and Christians. Many of the men and women in the front lines find great support in their Christian faith. It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate. A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood. For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers. God help us."

[Abe Foxman is like an incessantly nagging pimp on a streetcorner for a giant Jewish Mafia whorehouse. He personally maintains the hustling Shylock image as a Jewish icon, tugging on the sleeve of everyone who goes by: "Wanna buy a kosher Catholicism?" Hey, Jews. The Pope says he's tired of YOU deciding what Catholics believe. He says get out of his face and Go to Hell. How the Jews stole Catholicism, here.]
Jewish Leader Wants Vatican Stand on Gibson Film,
by Philip Pullella, ABC News, Feb. 17, 2004
"One of the world's most prominent Jewish leaders urged the Vatican Tuesday to instruct Catholics around the world that Mel Gibson's controversial film on Christ's passion was "Mel's gospel" and not Rome's gospel. Many Jews have expressed great concern that the film "The Passion of the Christ," based on gospel accounts but also on the visions of a 19th century mystical nun, may inflame anti-Semitism and set back Jewish-Catholic dialogue. In an interview with Reuters Television after he met Vatican officials, Abraham Foxman, U.S. director of the Anti-Defamation League, an independent Jewish pressure group, said the film portrayed Jews as bloodthirsty and vengeful. He also challenged Gibson to add a post-script to the film and tell audiences it should not be seen as anti-Jewish. "It's Mel Gibson's version of the gospel, it's Mel's gospel. He's entitled but he's promoting it as the gospel truth," Foxman said in the interview in the shadow of Rome's synagogue, just across the Tiber River from the Vatican. "He's promoting it as biblical, historical truth and I believe the Church has a responsibility to its teachings, its interpretation, and this is at variance with what the Church is all about." Foxman, who met several Vatican officials, urged them to instruct bishops around the world to issue statements locally telling their faithful that the film is an artistic work and not a pure portrayal of gospel accounts ... Foxman said the violent film, which depicts the last 12 hours in Christ's life, betrayed a landmark Second Vatican Council statement in 1965 which repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for his death. "It is the old, medieval, classical interpretation of deicide which blames the Jews and it will be seen by millions of viewers," he said. The film opens in the United States on February 25, Ash Wednesday. "I would hope that the Vatican and the Catholic Church would stand up to defend its teachings because in fact what the film is an interpretation that challenges what the Church has been teaching for the past 40 years," he said. "If the Church reminds those viewers of its interpretation of history, its interpretation of the Gospel, its understanding of Biblical history...it will act in a large measure to inoculate against the possibility of anti-Semitism."

[More Jewish "hate." What is a Christian in Jewish lore? An animal. And by the way. If the New Testament is "myth," then the Old Testament (Torah- the origin of Jewish identity) is no less myth -- as real as the faded parchment of a Superman comic book. Super-ancient Abraham and Moses are better documented than Jesus? Sorry. If Christian identity is "myth," then the entirety of Jewish identity itself is founded upon illusion -- the Talmud was invented thousands of years after the original "mythological" Jewish characters. Jesus was born last week in comparison. But the greatest "myth" in modern Jewish identity (MYTH among myths) is that of "anti-Semitism." Reality says this: Jews (or anybody) reap what they sow. If you truly need "pogroms" to maintain your identity, sooner or later you will provoke them -- literally or figuratively.]
Mel Gibson's fake "Passionate" effects,
By Emanuel A. Winston, Israel Insider, February 18, 2004
"Mel Gibson has let his Hollywood imagination get carried away with special effects as he inflated his "Passion" film. ... They will have to use special effects because the problem with that depiction is that nails or spikes through the palms cannot hold the weight of a human body before it tears through the flesh of the palms or tears longitudinally through the fingers. Spikes must go through the bones to hold but, the myth of bleeding palms has been firmly established in Christian mythology. Remember, these stories were created by the Four Gospels which were written separately, between 40 and 75 years after the death of Jesus. The four Gospel writers based their Gospels on hearsay - stories or myths long after the facts. As each one was written later than the last, it became further removed from the real history. So the last, was the most mythical. If those myths are challenged as historically incorrect, it causes Christians to have problems with the faith they base their religious beliefs upon. That challenge to their faith cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Jewish religion, if it stands as authoritative, is too great a challenge and must, therefore, be denigrated, diminished and demonized. This is the basic source of root anti-Semitism. Islam must be viewed as a similar hostile challenge to the faith of Christians, because strict Muslims consider Christians (as all non-Muslims) to be infidels ... Hollywood special effects stirred liberally with misconceptions of real crucifixion, can make for such an exciting, gory Gibson film that it is rated R - but, it is a fake. Testimony from several Jewish academicians, trained to look at details regarding anti-Semitism and the torture instruments of both the past and the Holocaust periods have made their observations plain. The Gibson film is inciteful and provokes anti-Semitism. This story has been told in churches during Lent and Easter, leading to Christian mobs launching murderous pogroms against Jews. It is part of their up-bringing. This film will make their church-taught hatred more real because the film is so realistic. Tickets are being purchased now in large blocks by various Christian churches to inspire more participation by their laymen. The Jews in Gibson's film were made to look grim and threatening, all in accordance with Christian literature of what they call "the perfidious Jew." Gibson was very careful to follow early Church doctrine in demonizing the Jews which recommended murder as a solution to their "Jewish Problem" ... This is a rabble-rousing film by Gibson, sure to exacerbate violent anti-Semitism. When (not if) synagogues are torched and Jews assaulted due to Gibson's incitement, dust off the law books and sue Gibson, the film distributors, theaters and all connected with this Hollywood travesty."

Mel Gibson's father says Holocaust exaggerated,
Yahoo! News, Feb 18, 2004
"One week before the US release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the filmmaker's father has publicly reiterated claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated. Hutton Gibson's comments, made in a telephone interview with New York radio talk show host Steve Feuerstein, come at an awkward time for the actor-director who has been trying to deflect criticism from Jewish groups that his film might inflame anti-Semitic sentiment. In his interview on WSNR radio's "Speak Your Piece", to be broadcast Monday, Hutton Gibson, argued that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had in fact fled to countries like Australia and the United States. "It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is," he said, adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people. "Do you know what it takes to get rid of a dead body? To cremate it?" he said. "It takes a liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million of them? They (the Germans) did not have the gas to do it. That's why they lost the war." Gibson's father had made similar claims in remarks published in a New York Times article in March last year. In a television interview with Diane Sawyer that was broadcast Monday on the ABC network, Mel Gibson accused the Times of taking advantage of his father, and he warned Sawyer against broaching the subject again. "He's my father. Gotta leave it alone Diane. Gotta leave it alone," Gibson said, while offering his own perspective on the Holocaust. "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion." During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican , among others."

Falling into the 'Passion' pit,
By MICHAEL MEDVED, Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2004
"Every day, Israel faces new attacks from terrorists determined to murder Jewish children. In France, synagogues burn, cemeteries face desecration, and leading rabbis urge their followers to shun kippot in public. In every part of the globe, the militantly secular, America-hating Left makes incongruous common cause with Islamic fundamentalism in circulating poisonous anti-Semitic canards, including ludicrous charges of Jewish conspiracies behind banking, media, "neo-conservative" foreign policy, and even the devastating attacks of 9/11. In the midst of this alarming eruption of anti-Jewish sentiment, some usually level-headed commentators have reached the preposterous conclusion that this is the perfect moment for a ferocious new debate with our Christian neighbors on the eternal question "Who really killed Jesus?" The fact that my otherwise savvy friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach believes that we have any chance at all of winning this debate reflects appallingly poor judgment. And the determination by Boteach and many others to conduct the argument in an aggressive and ultimately insulting way at this precarious moment in history represents a far greater spur to anti-Semitism than any mere motion picture from Hollywood – even a sure-bet box office blockbuster like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. For the record, let me make clear that I agree with Boteach that the Christian scriptures provide an often unreliable, occasionally contradictory account of the persecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth ... The enthusiastic embrace of this movie by leaders of every Christian denomination, including the leading Catholic authorities, provides a definitive answer to that question and renders the specific attacks by Boteach largely irrelevant. In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than "Saint" Mel. Of course, Jewish observers retain a perfect right to challenge sacred Christian texts or to denounce the altogether conventional interpretation of those texts by a major filmmaker, but one might reasonably inquire what possible purpose such arguments can serve. By what right do Boteach and his many outspoken allies in the Jewish community demand that Mel Gibson and his innumerable supporters among Protestant and Catholic clergy should reject their own religious tradition to accept a Jewish version of the death of their savior? After many centuries of Christian persecution of Jews, we have finally won the unquestioned right to reject the Gospel claims and yet live in peace with our gentile neighbors. But this precious right to deny the accuracy of New Testament texts does not somehow empower us to insist that our Christian fellow citizens must join us in that denial. For reasons that defy rational explanation, Boteach insists upon picking an ugly public fight with believing Christians who view their own sacred books in the same way the rabbi views the Torah – as the inerrant word of God. To characterize elements of the Gospels as "fabrications" and "cheap frauds," as Boteach does in one of his columns, hardly helps the cause of Jewish-Christian cooperation ... The most pressing issue regarding the current controversy is what exactly Mel Gibson's attackers hope to accomplish with their sky-is-falling denunciations of his work. He paid for the film himself (to the tune of $25 million) precisely because he wanted to realize his own religious vision without compromise. This commitment hardly represents an act of hatred or fanaticism but a statement of the highest artistic aspiration. Having seen the film, it's obvious that he's succeeded in creating a cinematic work of undeniable immediacy and power. It is not, by the way, about "the Jews" but rather about one particular Jew worshiped by Gibson (and two billion others) as the messiah and the deity incarnate. As I have written in numerous venues (including Christianity Today, in a current article), Jews will not enjoy this movie, but we ought to recognize it wasn't made for us and it doesn't focus on us. The Passion of the Christ counts as a project of the Christians, by the Christians, and for the Christians. It will open on more than 2,000 screens on February 25 and will draw literally tens of millions of eager filmgoers, regardless of calls for a boycott by Shmuley Boteach and others. The inevitable success of the film makes it an especially foolish strategy for Jewish organizations and individuals to continue expending energy and credibility in denouncing it. This posture makes us look both mean-spirited and, finally, powerless and irrelevant. We also fall into the devastating trap of "crying wolf." When anti-Semitic depredations fail to materialize as predicted in response to this movie, it will make it far more difficult to mobilize concern over genuine dangers in the years to come. Above all, the misguided agony over The Passion of the Christ serves as a tragic distraction at a time when we need unity and allies more than ever before. Let us never forget that the menacing recent wave in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and around the world arises from the Islamic community and the anti-religious Left, not (so far, at least) from traditional Christians. In this context, the challenge to Christian orthodoxy implicit in the more intemperate attacks on Mel Gibson's movie serves no constructive purpose and works to foment, rather than deflect, anti-Semitic attitudes. When facing an onrushing express train (like this sure-to-be-popular movie), it makes little sense to stand on the track in the middle of a railroad trestle holding up a hand and pleading, "Stop!" Or, to put it in even more commonsensical terms, when you've already placed yourself in a deep hole, it's a good idea to stop digging. The writer, a film critic, author, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the US, is co-founder and former longtime president of the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California."

Challenge the New Testament,
By SHMULEY BOTEACH, Jerusalem Post, February 18, 2004
"Lovers of God and country, raisers of refined and spiritual children, stalwart defenders of the State of Israel, and deeply committed to combating the moral decay of the popular culture in America, evangelical Christians are people to whom all Jews can look for brotherhood and inspiration. Which makes it all the more painful to see a sharp area of disagreement erupting between our two communities. Several high-profile Jewish co-admirers of Christianity – my dear friends national radio host Michael Medved and Orthodox scholar Rabbi Daniel Lapin, in particular – have made the case that the Jewish community dare not alienate the evangelical community over something as insignificant as a movie. This is a point that Michael Medved made to me in a debate we had recently on his radio show, which is curious because Michael is at the forefront of arguing, as do I, that TV and movies have a huge impact on how people think and behave. I believe Medved and Lapin – both phenomenally committed and profoundly knowledgeable Jews – are forgetting that notwithstanding the Jewish community's deep gratitude to Evangelicals for their unflinching support of Israel, we still remain two distinct communities that at times have vastly different agendas. ... [Rabbi] Lapin says that he'll give the Jewish leaders the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of falsely inflaming Jewish fears simply for the purposes of fundraising: "Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d' tre." But even by mentioning this gratuitous insult against organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, he unwittingly reinforces the most negative stereotype of Jews being prepared to sell out their interests for cash, a stereotype based on Judas's betrayal of Christ for 30 pieces of silver in the passion narrative. Surely Lapin agrees that there is still plenty of anti-Semitism to combat even in the US, as one who simply googles the word "Jew" will discover (the very first website that pops up is "Jewwatch – keeping an eye on Jewish terrorists, Jewish atrocities, and Jewish banking and financial manipulations" ... Lapin further accuses the Jewish community of hypocrisy because "Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum" insulted Catholics by agreeing to display a "dung-bedecked Madonna." He adds that Jewish record company executives "produced obscene records that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women," which were not protested by the Jewish community. In addition, he says, the Jewish community never protested Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ, even though it insulted Christianity. ... I am much more forgiving of Jewish officialdom not having done so, given they have their hands full combating an all-out assault on Jewish life and the Jewish state from Islamic terrorists. I pray the intimate bond and deep respect forged between the Christian and Jewish communities over the past few decades will not be impaired by this film. But notwithstanding how much I love my Christian brethren, I will still not allow the lie that the Jews killed Jesus to go unchallenged."

'Passion' Attacks,
by James Hirsen, Newsmax, Jan. 27, 2004
"It all started January of last year. Mel Gibson appeared on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” The famed actor-producer-director let the world know that a print reporter was nosing around his family and friends trying to dig up dirt. The reporter was freelance journalist Christopher Noxon. He wrote a hit piece that focused on Gibson’s 85-year-old father. The article mischaracterized Mel’s beliefs and those of his dad. It also tried to label the film as fringe propaganda. Noxon’s dirt-digging expedition might have been related to his family’s interest in the same Malibu site where Mel Gibson was building a church. The plot thickened as another group planned a full Gibson assault. Unscholarly Conduct With the help of an individual dubbed in an e-mail “our Deep Throat,” a group of academics, who are part of what’s known as the interfaith movement, got hold of a stolen early draft of a confidential script. Using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, the group generated a so-called confidential report, which twisted the film’s message. Somehow the report landed in the hands of the news media. A number of its authors appeared delighted to have their criticisms aired in public, despite the fact that the report was based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material. In addition to theft, it seems that falsification was also part of the unscholarly game. The group tried to pawn itself off as an official body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but the USCCB subsequently issued a statement denying a connection with the anti-Gibson group. Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen has been a particularly high-profile player in the anti-Passion drama. She has referred to Scripture as “a kind of religious advertisement.” She has promoted the idea that the Gospels “proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist’s position.” On Dec. 22, 2001, the Washington Post delivered a sort of un-Christmas present from Fredriksen in the form of a comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The Post quoted her as saying, “I can’t think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth] to be historically reliable,” adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem. It appears as though Fredricksen and friends could be on a mission to deconstruct the Gospels. They prattle on about “progressive interpretation” and “historical context” when it seems that what they really want is a rewrite of the Good Book. Could it be that their real beef with Mel has to do with the fact that he based his movie on the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? “The Passion” saga continued as film-snuffing sights were set on a potential distributor. Suppression of Expression In an effort to get Rupert Murdoch’s 20th Century Fox to decline to distribute Gibson’s film, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind scheduled a press conference and demonstration. The event was supposed to take place in front of News Corp.’s Manhattan headquarters. 20th Century Fox usually distributes Gibson’s movies, but gave a thumbs down on “The Passion.” As the New York Daily News reported, other Hollywood studios were also less than enthusiastic about taking on the project. Additionally, the New York Times rubbed salt into Icon Productions’ wounds by describing the film as chronicling “in bloody detail” the last hours of Jesus’ life. It also called it “potentially inflammatory” and “not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox.” In typical Gibson fashion, Mel and the crew gripped the wheel, rode out the bumps and were successful in finding distribution. Unfortunately, more trouble lay ahead. The Piracy In November of last year, the New York Post illegally obtained a pirated videotape of the Gibson film. Although this revelation is extraordinary in its own right, it’s what a major newspaper did with the tape that made ignoble cinematic history. Months before the film’s scheduled release, the Post displayed the grainy second-generation videotape to its own assembled panel of critics. Four of the five reviewers who were present slammed the film in the pages of the paper. Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack put feelings into words in this way. He told E! Online News, “If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped.” Evidently the shenanigans weren’t just outrageous, they were also illegal. The Los Angeles Times reported that federal authorities launched a probe. Gibson and the folks at Icon had more head and heartache to endure. Virtual Hate Also in November, Anti-Defamation League held its annual meeting in New York. ADL National Director Abraham Foxman let loose with one of the ugliest assaults on Gibson that had occurred to date. He said, “I think he’s infected – seriously infected – with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views.” These words spewed forth from the leader of an organization that purportedly stands for tolerance. Ironically, instead of modeling a virtue, Foxman ended up demonstrating exactly what hate speech sounds like. In January 2004, uninvited ADL officials registered for a Christian pastors’ conference where Gibson’s film was set to be shown. They used the fabricated name “The Church of Truth” to gain entrance to the event. After seeing the film, ADL denounced Gibson’s picture as a “painful portrayal” and a “commercial crusade to the church community.” Most recently, Foxman requested that Gibson attach a disclaimer (drafted by Foxman) to the film denouncing any bigoted interpretation of his narrative. No similar disclaimer has yet been submitted by Foxman for the spurious and insulting remarks he made about Gibson. At the same time Mel and his mates were dealing with ADL matters, they were also experiencing an insidious print blitz. Poison Pens It seems that New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich felt the need to gear up the sleaze machine several times over to generate innuendo. In his Aug. 3 column, Rich got stuck in sludge-slinging overdrive. He wrote that Gibson and his organization had been “baiting Jews,” Matt Drudge was a “token Jew,” traditionalist Catholics were a “fringe church,” Rupert Murdoch was a “conservative non-Jew,” Peter J. Boyer’s article “sanitizes” Mel’s father, Bill O’Reilly was “being paid” to defend Gibson, and Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob “plays bizarre games with the Holocaust.” (Rich evidently missed the fact that Nierob is a second-generation Holocaust survivor and a founding member of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.) ... Enter once again Frank Rich of the New York Times. On Jan. 18, Rich tossed more journalistic mud pies. He accused Gibson and Steve McEveety of using the pope to make money."

Leaders of Christian and Jewish Organizations Issue Dialogue Guide to "The Passion",
U.S. Newswire, February 19, 2004
"News Advisory: Representatives of the Jewish community and several Christian denominations in the Greater Washington Area have created a dialogue guide to Mel Gibson's new film "The Passion of the Christ." The guide, offering a constructive approach for Christians and Jews in discussing the film, will be sent to hundreds of clergy in area congregations. The authors of the guide encourage clergy to reach out to a Christian or Jewish congregation nearby and to use the guide as a resource for discussion. "The hope is that the film can become a catalyst for positive instruction and dialogue," said the Rev. Ken Howard, an Episcopal minister who worked on the guide on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. "Inter-religious dialogue is one of the greatest antidotes to prejudice and polarization," stated David Bernstein, Washington Area Director of the American Jewish Committee."

[Another sordid pro-Jewish sycophant (or real name Goldberg?) on the Judeocentric Hollywood/Media dole, whose aim to protect Jewish Power, Hypocrisy and Racism by trashing Mel Gibson precludes all other considerations.]
'The Passion of Christ'. Holier than Mel Mel Gibson says he isn't an anti-Semite. Maybe not. But he can't disguise a disturbing truth: that he's not a very moral man,
BY CHRISTOPHER KELLY, Star-Telegram Film Critic, February 19, 2004
"Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ opens Wednesday, on more than 2,000 screens. It could very well be the most accomplished, unforgettable, powerful, breathtaking, fill-in-your-own-superlative movie in a century. But that no longer matters. Because there is an indelible black mark on The Passion of the Christ, and on its creator, that cannot be excused. Wearing a cloak of piety, Mel Gibson -- who has been quoted as saying the Holy Spirit "was working through me on this film" -- has fanned the flames of anti-Semitism into a marketing bonfire. He's turned what by all evidence would have ended up being an art-house curiosity -- a bloody, subtitled movie, in two dead languages, starring mostly unknown actors -- into a likely blockbuster. And he's done it by preying on Jewish people's very legitimate fears that the film will reignite old prejudices that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. That marketing has been canny and relentless -- a classic illustration of a megalomaniac's micromanagement. Just a year ago, Gibson was whining to the press that no one wanted to distribute his self-financed $25 million movie ... For Gibson, it's about keeping the debate one-sided, making certain he cultivates a tsunami of support, so that challenging questions from objective viewpoints will be all but drowned out. Is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic? That's an argument that will likely carry on for decades. But this much cannot be disputed: Gibson's actions thus far have been rooted in utter disdain for Jews ... He turned the question of just how anti-Semitic the movie will be into a parlor game. And, while proclaiming in the press that he is not anti-Semitic, one of his comments, made to The New Yorker last fall, suggests otherwise: "I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened; it was said. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." (His apparent solution -- the line is reportedly still in the film, but Gibson eliminated the English subtitle -- smacks of the worst sort of lip service.) ... What's most troubling is that Gibson could have quelled so many of those concerns, by bringing more Jews into his very public editing process. In Monday's interview with Diane Sawyer, he emphasized that he wanted the film to spark debate, saying, "Let's get this out on the table and talk about it." But why does he suggest we start the debate only after facing a firestorm of controversy -- not to mention the wrath of Hollywood -- when suddenly it's looking like his next $20 million paycheck may not be so easy to come by? Perhaps because being honest and forthright simply isn't Gibson's way. This is a man who has spent a career taking the low road, while holding the Bible out in front of him -- a modern-day Elmer Gantry recast as a $20-million-a-movie superstar ... Even if The Passion of the Christ turns out to be the greatest rendering ever of the greatest story ever told, it will still mark a dark day for anyone who values humanity."

Gibson's father: Holocaust was mostly 'fiction',
Days before the release of Mel Gibson's film about the death of Jesus, which some critics say could fuel anti-Semitism, his father has told an interviewer that the Holocaust was mostly "fiction." In the latest interview, Mel Gibson's father said Jews want to take over the world,
By Corrado Giambalvo, USA Today, February 20, 2004
"Steve Feuerstein — host of Speak Your Piece!— said he interviewed Hutton Gibson for a segment of his show to be broadcast Monday by the small Talkline Communications Network. According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, "It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is," when asked about his views on the Holocaust. He added: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles." The interview comes at a sensitive time for Mel Gibson, whose epic The Passion of the Christ is due to open Wednesday. Some Jewish leaders say the movie could fuel anti-Semitism for its portrayal of Jews' role in the crucifixion, while conservative Christians have praised it as a moving depiction of Christ's death. Gibson, who produced, directed and co-wrote the film, has said repeatedly that he is not anti-Semitic and that the project was a deeply personal expression of his own faith. Hutton Gibson has an unpublished phone number at his home outside Houston and could not be reached for comment. Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Mel Gibson, declined to comment on the interview. Hutton Gibson follows a tiny wing of traditionalist Catholicism that views the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council as a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to take over the church. The elder Gibson has stirred controversy in previous interviews with remarks on the Holocaust and Judaism, but had kept quiet in the months leading up to the release of The Passion. In this latest interview, Gibson said Jews want to take over the world.A He did not know why Jews would want to achieve that, but said "it's all about control. They're after one world religion and one world government." sked in media interviews whether he shares his father's views, Mel Gibson has said that he loves his father and will not speak against him. Zev Brenner, owner of Talkline, which he calls a Jewish network, has been calling for a boycott of all of Mel Gibson's movies."

Interview: Hutton Gibson. Major excerpts of telephone Interview on Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, 8 p.m. between Hutton Gibson, father of Mel Gibson, and Steve Feuerstein, executive producer and talk show host, "Speak Your Piece!" WSNR-620AM. The two-part feature on The Gibson Family: Offspring of Hate? will air on "Speak Your Piece!" on Monday, Feb. 23 and Wednesday, Feb. 25 from 10 p.m. to midnight on WSNR-620AM and live on the Internet at SpeakYourPiece.net. Transcript courtesy of Steve Feuerstein,
Newsday, February 21, 2004
"...IV. THE JEWS & MONEY
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHY DO THE JEWS CONSTRUCT HOLOCAUST MUSEUMS?
GIBSON: There are too many survivors. It's just a gimmick to collect money. They have to go where there is money. There is no way they would come to West Virginia. They have to have some place to go that has money. They didn't work in the mines, you can bet your boots...no, they don't work anywhere where they can out of it. They're great pencil pushers, they are the superior people and therefore they are entitled to the top jobs, supervisory stuff and so on, because they hire each other. They have so much influence in the banks for instance. They all look out for one another you got to give them that. They are at the same time willing to sacrifice a few of theirs if it helps ...
VI. JEWISH WORLD DOMINATION
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHAT DO THE JEWS AIM TO ACHIEVE?
GIBSON: I don't know what their (the Jews') agenda is except that it's all about control. They're after one world religion and one world government. That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine and make one world religion and one world government.
VII. RABBI MARVIN HIER
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT MEL'S HEALTH? GIBSON: "The rabbi for hire" that's even what the Jews refer to him as. He had one of these snarley voices. These people are vengeancebound. They will chase down people like [John] Demjanjuk [cleared in Israel of charges of being a Nazi guard]. They almost got him killed and eventually it was proved innocent of all charges. Yeah, Ivan the Terrible, they said.
VIII. ADL
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHY DID THE ADL OPPOSE THE FILM?
GIBSON: This is part of their deal ... they don't want this movie shown, they don't care if the movie is anti-Semitic or not, or if it is straight history. Mel says he absolutely couldn't buy PR like this. And (thanks to the ADL) everybody knows the line now: Let the blood be upon us and our children ...

[Who is the culprit here? Where is the relentless, coordinated attack upn Mel Gibson and Christianity coming from? Who is it the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights cannot name openly, for fear of their power and because the censorship has become internalized? Jews. Even as they spit in you face, you dare not name them.]
ATTACKING MEL’S DAD,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, February 19, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on news reports regarding an interview that Mel Gibson’s father granted to a radio show: “The attack on ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is unprecedented in its ruthlessness. The script was stolen and given to those who could be counted on to slam it; tapes of the film were stolen and distributed to those who also could be relied upon to bash it; Mel’s faith has been impugned; charges that violence against Jews will occur after the movie has been shown are commonplace; attempts to bully Gibson into changing the film have been ongoing; demands for a postscript have been made by those who seek to put Gibson on the defensive; bishops have been badgered to get Mel’s friends in line; the Vatican has been lobbied to criticize the movie; accusations that the movie is being kept away from Jewish neighborhoods have been made; fears that the movie will damage youngsters who see it have been expressed; demands that Gibson vet his script for approval to officials of the Catholic Church have frequently been made; critics have deceitfully gained admission into screenings of the film; highly personal questions about Gibson’s life have been raised; sneering comments that the film may make a profit have been voiced; the way the movie has been marketed has been raised in a derisive way; demands that the film be censored have been made at public rallies; Catholics who defend the movie have been insulted by foes of the film; disrespect for Gibson’s artistic rights has been voiced many times; and so on. “Now they’re going after Mel’s 85-year-old father. As I have already told reporters, I will have none of it. The search-and-destroy operation being conducted by the movie’s critics knows no boundaries. Make no mistake about it, those obsessed with killing this movie will not manipulate Bill Donohue into berating Hutton Gibson. Nor will they push me to ask for information on how I can contact their fathers, though the thought is tempting.”

FIRST PERSON: 'The Passion' & the Talmud,
By Terry Mattingly, Baptist Press News. February 17, 2004
"The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel. Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a "T." The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "The herald went out before him for 40 days saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures. At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks. The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled "Why the Jews Rejected Christ" -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic. The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead. It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as "enticed and led astray" indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods ... What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts. "If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?' then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him," Klinghoffer said. "Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides [the famous Jewish theologian]." Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews. It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said. "I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said. "To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?"

[Another rabbi tells Christians what to think. More Jewish dissimulation, evasion, and anti-Christian hatred. Aish is an Orthodox Jewish group. Rabbi Blech, open up what's in the Talmud for us.]
Mel Gibson, and the Jews, His latest lethal weapon? Mel's film promises spiritual inspiration but instead evokes the kind of rage that for centuries past resulted in ruthless acts of retribution,
by Rabbi Bejamin Blech, Aish.com
"Soon we'll find out who is more powerful, Mel Gibson or Pope John XXIII. Shortly before his death in 1963, the spiritual leader of Catholics round the world composed this prayer: "We realize that our brows are branded with the mark of Cain. Centuries long has Abel lain in blood and tears because we have forgotten Thy love. Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us, that with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time." It was an awesome admission that reversed almost 2000 years of unjustifiable hatred. Christian anti-Semitism, rationalized as fitting punishment for the Jews guilty of the heinous crime of deicide, killers of Christ, was officially declared "a great sin against humanity." Jews dared to hope that the distortions of ancient history which prompted Crusades, pogroms and perhaps -- as many scholars suggest -- even the world's silence during the Holocaust, were finally put to rest in the dustbin of grievously outdated theological errors. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. How strange then to now have the 21st century witness the re-birth of a monumental lie. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. Once again the world is told that it was the fault of "the perfidious Jews." In a movie that reeks with gruesome violence unbearable even by Hollywood standards, "The Passion of the Christ" weaves the contradictory threads of the Gospels' accounts describing the last hours of the life of Jesus into a tale that portrays a reluctant Pontius Pilate decreeing crucifixion for "the son of God" at the mad urging of a Jewish mob led by Caiaphas, the High Priest ... This is a film that makes the Gospels seem almost tame in their depiction of Jewish evil. Which is why it's so irrelevant to ask the question, "Is Mel Gibson really anti-Semitic?" I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews. Those who wonder whether Gibson hates Jews simply don't get it. It doesn't matter. Take Gibson at his word, if you want to, and accept his profession of friendship. He may like us. But that isn't the issue. What matters is what the film is going to accomplish. Simply put, I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews ... Movies create mindsets far more than any other medium. Ingmar Bergman was right. "No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls" ... Let me make clear to Mel Gibson: I did not kill Jesus and neither did my ancestors. Responding to criticism, Gibson denies his intent is to blame the Jews. "It's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it'. That's not so. We're all culpable. We're all guilty. We all killed Jesus." Let me make clear to Mel Gibson that for myself, I deny any personal involvement. I didn't kill Jesus. Neither did my ancestors. Ironic, isn't it, that the same Gibson who willingly accepts universal guilt for the crime of deicide chooses only the Jews to be singled out as the real perpetrators. "We all killed Jesus," he claims -- but it's just Jews whom the movie clearly depicts as the scoundrels. Do Jews have a right to share their concerns with those who choose to believe in a different version of history? Can Jews object to an ultraconservative Roman Catholic Hollywood icon producing a movie that reflects his personal bias? ... As Holocaust memories fade and scholars note the resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism, the one thing worse than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in our times is a mass-marketed appeal to religious passion against Jews in the guise of the Gospels. Regrettably, its very notoriety may well make this movie highly popular. That's why I pray viewers understand the reason "The Passion of Christ" so strongly fails as a spiritual message. Not only is it anti-Jewish and indifferent to the harm it will surely bring in its wake to relations between gentiles and Jews, it is so profoundly un-Christian."

[Mel Gibson is obviously now on the Jewish Hollywood and Jewish Media BLACK LIST, far deeper than any McCarthyist censorship. It is necessary now to create a new "Hollywood," separate from Jewish whim and censorship. Maybe Gibson has the power to shake free of them?]
Is 'Passion' a destroyer? Image shift may ruin his career, industry pros say,
By TRACY CONNOR, New York Daily News, February 21, 2004
"With the opening of "The Passion of the Christ" this week, Mel Gibson is casting himself in a new role - and the movie industry is wondering if he'll ever recover. In a matter of months, the 47-year-old actor-director has gone from heartthrob to holy roller before the public's eyes. Gone is the lovable rogue of "Lethal Weapon," the regular-guy action hero, the sex symbol who melts women with piercing blue eyes and a raffish smile. Now he's the wild-eyed fringe Catholic who risked his reputation and the wrath of Jews to bring the Gospel according to Mel to the big screen. It's a transformation that has some insiders whispering that Gibson has lost it, committed Hollywood heresy, turned box office gold into radioactive waste. "I think this whole thing is going to be quite harmful to his career," said Lloyd Leipzig, a 50-year veteran of the film business and retired studio executive. "I don't think you can put him in the same roles anymore. All of a sudden he's a different person and, accordingly, you're not going to find a lot of people who will take chances with him." Gibson poured $25 million of his own money into "The Passion," but the gamble could cost him - and the studios - far more than that. In the past decade, films starring Gibson, including blockbusters such as "Signs," have grossed more than $100 million each on average. If he kept up his pace of at least one big production a year, the industry could expect to rake in a billion bucks from him in the next 10 years. Gibson, who commands a top-end salary of $25 million per picture, would collect a quarter of a billion dollars himself. But while some pundits think "The Passion" will crush the Mel money machine - there are big shots who say privately they'll never work with him again - others aren't so sure. "Hollywood is not the most religious society on Earth," said James Ulmer, author of the "Hollywood Hot List." "Their faith isn't in God, it's in money. It's profits over prophets." "If Mel brings home over $100 million at the box office for a film in Aramaic and Latin - believe me, he will get hired again" ... Early odds on the movie - starring unknowns and shot entirely in dead languages - were that it would tank. But the debate over Gibson's theology, particularly whether he blames Jews for the Crucifixion, stirred interest. When his father mouthed off about Holocaust myths and Jewish conspiracies, Gibson lashed out at the media. He talked about divine signs that told him make the movie, and gave interviews about how the New Testament rescued him from the brink of suicide. The publicity, combined with a tireless Christian-geared marketing effort, now has "The Passion" poised to break records. With theaters sold out for opening weekend, there's no doubt Gibson will make money from his pet project, but the question is: Can his career survive the success? In the past, Gibson has been attacked by gays and feminists for impolitic comments, with no repercussions, but filmdom's discomfort this time is different. "I was sitting with someone in the Sony commissary who got very upset when Mel Gibson walked by," said Premiere writer Anne Thompson. "A lot of the sentiment runs very deep."

[Jewish mass media trashing of Mel Gibson and Christianity continues. The mass media is theirs to mold public opinion: trying to steer the audience away. This below is "hate." Jewish hate. Jews hate Christianity. It's time to start trashing Jews and Judaism in the mass media too. Equal time? Never. The mass media is a Jewish game.]
Is `The Passion` anti-Semitic?,"
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, February 24, 2004
"THE PASSION of The Christ" is violent, bloody, and sadistic. Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus' last day has to be the most graphic and brutal death ever portrayed on film. It is being described as a masterpiece -- soul-stirring and beautiful. I found it stomach-turning and deeply troubling. I am not a Christian, but I tried to view "The Passion" the way a Christian might view it. I tried to experience it as a message of God's love and mercy, as a depiction of self-sacrifice so complete and all-embracing as to transform human history. I tried to imagine believing that all that blood -- and "The Passion" is drenched with blood -- was shed to wash away my sins. I tried to understand this grim nightmare as an enactment of mankind's redeemer being tortured and killed, to accept that this was the purpose for which he was born, to feel that I, no less than the howling mob on the screen, was responsible for -- and the beneficiary of -- his death. I tried -- but I failed. I failed in part because I am not a Christian but a believing Jew. I don't believe that Jesus was God come to earth in human form -- I believe that God is one, incorporeal and indivisible. To me, the Passion is not a manifestation of divine love but a vicious and evil ordeal inflicted on a victim who didn't deserve it. As a Jew I cannot look at the savage murder of an innocent man as anything but a grievous sin. And as a Jew, I could not watch a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus and not be aware of all the other Jews, scores of thousands of them, who also died on Roman crosses. Most of the prerelease publicity about "The Passion" has focused on its depiction of the Jews and its potential to fuel anti-Semitism. In truth, Gibson's film barely acknowledges that the majority of its characters are Jewish. If you didn't know that Jesus of Nazareth was born and died a religious Jew, you certainly wouldn't learn it from "The Passion." Almost nothing in this movie connects him with the Jewish people. He does not refer to himself as a Jew or take part in any recognizable Jewish ritual. His reason for being in Jerusalem was to celebrate Passover, but there is never any mention of that Jewish holiday. When he is glimpsed praying or teaching, it is always outdoors, never in a synagogue. Only once is Jesus identified as a Jew: when Judas, about to betray him, greets him with, "Hail, Rabbi." ... Is "The Passion" anti-Semitic? That depends on whether it is anti-Semitic to reenact the story told by the Christian Bible. To be sure, there is a good deal in Gibson's movie that is not in the New Testament. In one scene, for example, Judas is driven to commit suicide by a gang of demonic Jewish children. In another, Pontius Pilate, beholding a shackled Jesus who has already been beaten bloody by Jewish guards, chastises the High Priest: "Do you always punish your prisoners before they are judged?" But there is no getting around the fact that the parts of "The Passion" that are the most unflattering to Jews -- the bloody-minded and hateful Temple priests, the Judean mob howling for Jesus' death -- come straight out of the Gospels. I shudder at those depictions and reject them as historically false, but I cannot call a Christian anti-Semitic for believing in the truth of his Bible. I will not smear Gibson as a Jew-hater. But neither will I pretend that he is unaware of the long and horrid history of Passion plays or of the millions of Jews who died at the hands of killers demonizing them as "Christ killers."

[In Jewish lore, Jesus is a blasphemer, a traitor to the "Chosen People."]
Canadian Jewish leaders divided on Gibson's The Passion of the Christ,
by GREG BONNELL, The Province (from Canadian Press), February 23, 2004 "Several prominent members of the Canadian Jewish community got their first look at Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ on Monday, but opinion on whether the work is anti-Semitic remains divided. "I think it's a thousand times worse than what I anticipated... in terms of depicting the Jewish community in an evil manner," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada. Although Dimant was reluctant to make specific criticisms in advance of the film's theatrical release, he wasn't impressed by its violent imagery and its treatment of Jews. The film, which opens in 138 Canadian theatres on Wednesday, has been hailed by numerous Christian leaders as a powerful telling of the last hours of Jesus Christ and not at all anti-Semitic. At issue is the blame placed on the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, a belief which formed the basis of two millennia of persecution in Europe. That teaching was renounced by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s. Further adding to the controversy are questions surrounding Gibson's faith - he adheres to a strict interpretation of Catholicism that predates the reforms of 40 years ago. "When one wants to call something anti-Semitic there has to be there an intent to attack," said Manuel Prutschi, national executive director of Canadian Jewish Congress. "The purpose of this film is to move Christians, not to attack Jews," said Prutschi, who attended the same Monday screening as Dimant. How Christians digest the information presented is key. "We feel fairly confident that Christians, certainly in Canada, are quite sophisticated now to understand what anti-Semitism is all about and the evil that it is. "That's not what they're going to be coming away with." The message imparted to moviegoers is of concern to Adele Reinhartz, dean of graduate studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. "It's not intended to make people hate Jews," said Reinhartz, who saw the film last week. "But I think if you go in there with preconceived negative notions about Jews, if you already have a latent anti-Semitism, then it will just reinforce that." Having done her PhD dissertation on the Gospel of John, Reinhartz was keenly aware of the source material from which director Gibson was drawing. "All the Gospels, to a greater or lesser extent do place moral responsibility on the Jews." But scenes in which Jewish children transform into demons and Satan walks among the Jewish crowds as they clamour for Jesus's death were "over the top," said Reinhartz. "Gibson didn't have to do that" to tell the story of the crucifixion. The film also presents a very narrow depiction of the Jewish community, said Prutschi. "Basically you have two types of Jews, the priestly class and the Jews who were following Jesus," he said. "You certainly don't get a picture of the broad Jewish community."

[Kicking bigoted, hypocritical Jewish Butt. Things are getting hot. This article appears in Joeph Farah's World Net Daily, usually a bastion of Judeocentric pro-Israelism. People are getting sick of Jews telling them what their religion says. Jews hate Christianity, here.]
It's all about hating Catholics,
by Barbara Simpson, World Net Daiily, February 23, 2004
"I am furious! No, I'm livid! I've had it and I'm finally going to vent! It's a good thing I was alone when I read the latest Catholic insult by Abe Foxman. The steam from my ears and the sparks from my eyes would have been shocking! It's a good thing Abe wasn't there or more than his ears would have burned from my wrath. Abe is Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Nice title. Nice perks. It gets him nice headlines and fawning media attention. He shows up for interviews with a serious demeanor, wearing his yarmulke, and pretends to be concerned and thoughtful, fair and wise. The truth is, he's engaged in nothing more than dirty, street fighting. It's an insult to his targets and to good Jews who allow him to speak for them! In his role as "defender" of all things Jewish, Foxman gets warm media reception even though his words and actions lately have not only been out of order, they've been mightily insulting to another religion and one particular member of that group. The religion is Roman Catholicism and the man is producer-writer-actor Mel Gibson. Gibson has a new movie set to open on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, one of the holiest days of the year for Catholics. The film is "The Passion of the Christ," a graphic and explicit portrayal of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus, the last 12 hours of His life, from His trial to His death. In Catholicism, that period of time is called the "Passion" and it refers to Christ's suffering. Gibson bases the film on the four Gospels in the Bible, using the words in the original Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles. It's not a sanitized version. It's graphic and bloody, based on what is known of that form of capital punishment. Mel Gibson admits it's brutal and says that if people don't want to see violence, don't see the movie. Foxman's problem is that he thinks the movie will incite anti-Semitism. He objects that the words of the Bible are spoken in the film. He says it appears that Jews encouraged the killing of Jesus. Many in the secular media voice the same accusations, most often without having seen the film. I doubt they've read the Bible. But they don't let the absence of facts keep them from attempting to destroy something they despise. Abe Foxman's in that group Ultimately, what they despise isn't necessarily Mel Gibson or his film. They hate his religion, the Bible, the story it relates and, they especially hate the Catholic Church because it's founded on intrinsic right and wrong, good and evil. Foxman not only rails against the film, he actually met with Vatican officials this week, urging them to challenge Gibson and tell him that the film contradicts Catholic teaching. Can you imagine? He thinks he knows more about Catholicism than the Vatican! How contemptible. Talk about chutzpah! He has it in spades. He ought to be ashamed and Catholics should be angry. I'm afraid, though, they've been so busy turning the other, but wrong, cheek that they're getting kicked in the rear again and don't even know it. Interesting, isn't it? Foxman and others who are so concerned with protecting the opinion of moviegoers about Jews, are consistently silent when Catholics, their rituals or their beliefs are ridiculed and demeaned. Where were they when a crucifix submerged in urine was called art? A picture of the Virgin, smeared with elephant dung was also called art. Where were the demands for script changes in movies portraying Jesus as homosexual, or married, or promiscuous? How about books or theatricals depicting priests or nuns in the most insulting and fabricated situations that pretend to reality? Where was their outrage in artistic desecrations of the Sacrament of Communion, the invasion of Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral by condom-tossing "gay" activists, the radio stunt of a couple having sex in that same Cathedral during mass. I'm also fed up with denigration of Catholics who are shocked and offended by the excesses of Vatican 2 and prefer the traditional Latin Mass. Mel Gibson is one of them, and he practices those traditions. That's his choice and his prerogative. To hear the critics, you'd think that was heresy. It isn't, and Gibson isn't alone. There are thousands of Catholics like him, furious at the changes in their Church over which they have no apparent control. They hate the revised rituals of Catholicism that have nothing to do with the religion. The so-called reforms reflect a zealot clergy anxious to force on everyone 'Catholic-Lite' and create 'Cafeteria Catholics.' The recent scandals, diminishing vocations and smaller congregations are visible results of this attack on the Church from within, spurred on by hateful non-Catholics and fallen-away Catholics who delight in dragging down what they once believed. It disgusts me. I'm tired of it being socially acceptable to dump on Catholics and blatantly suggest how the religion should be changed. It's done without compunction yet if the same were done to Jews or Muslims or any eastern religion, it would be denounced. How about a movie joke about Islam or one with a Muslim murderer? I dare you to produce a movie about an adulterous rabbi or a slapstick Torah. Anyone for criticizing Orthodox Jews for discriminating because men and women worship separately? How about suggesting a revision of Islam because of its treatment of women, to say nothing of "non-believers," the infamous infidels. It wouldn't happen – and we all know why. Catholics, indeed Christians, are fair game. At the least, it's discriminatory. But, in and of itself, it's a sin."

[Jews hate Jesus. Palestinians love him. Behind which would Jesus stand?]
Jesus of Palestine & the 'Passion' of Israel,
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz (Israel), February 25, 2004
"Israel's Channel 10 television station screened a recent ABC interview in which ABC's Diane Sawyer asks Gibson - who has strongly condemned anti-Semitism as a "sin" - to comment on those who fear that "in a world in which horrible things have been done to the Jewish populations, simply looking at these events will once again incite people toward if not violent animosity, [then] prejudice, vindictiveness." Gibson, nodding in agreement to the first part of the sentence, then replied, in a parallel that grated on Israeli ears: "I don't think you can say that. I watched Schindler's List, and what the Germans do in that is horrible, you know. But I don't hate Germans, or want to hurt them or anything. I mean, if you go by that rationale, any story where one group of persons does something to another group of persons - you shouldn't put any of it on film." In recent years it has become axiomatic, if in many cases less than accurate, that Israel's policies have inflamed anti-Semitism in Europe, the United States and throughout the Muslim world. But when Gibson's Jesus of Palestine finally makes his way home, could the world's oldest form of anti-Semitism, the charge of Christ-killing, take the opposite route, helping to fan the flames of Palestinian anger against Israelis? When it finally reaches the Holy Land, could "The Passion of Christ" add new fuel to an already intensely volatile conflict? 'Jesus was a Palestinian' Certainly many Palestinians, even among the strongly Muslim majority, identify with Jesus. The concept of the holy rebel waging a hopeless, ultimately victorious fight to the death against authorities of overwhelming power, has been long used by Arab cartoonists and editorial writers to represent the Palestinian struggle. Gibson's "Passion" may ultimately be used by some Palestinians in marshalling anger against Israel, says Haaretz commentator Danny Rubinstein. In some respects, Palestinian identification with Jesus renders irrelevant the Gospels-driven debate over whether the Jewish establishment or the Romans bore ultimate responsibility for the death of Jesus. In the Palestinian national metaphor, with an American empire believed to be under the influence of Jewry, Jewish Israel can easily play a simultaneous dual role: that of the armor-clad iron-fisted Roman occupier, and that of the hard-line Tz'doki [Sadducee] Jewish leadership of Roman-ruled first century Judea, a territory which imperial authorities would only after Jesus's death begin to call Palestine ... Christian Palestinian clergymen, taking radical Latin American churches as a rough model, created a Palestinian Liberation Theology based in part on the figure of Jesus. "Jesus was a refugee and lived under occupation," the movement's founder Dr. Naim Ateek, a canon at St. George's Anglican Cathedral in Jerusalem, told Reuters in 1999, as the Holy Land prepared to celebrate the millenium of Jesus's birth. "If he's interpreted in this way he becomes a model for faith. So I can learn from him and how he coped with a life under occupation like me," said the U.S.-educated Ateek, who said that when he was 11 in 1948, Jewish soldiers forced his family to flee their home near Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. The figure of Jesus, known in Arabic as Issa, also resonates for Muslims as a prophet and saint in Islamic tradition."

[More Jewish treachery in the quest to crucify The Passion. Abe Foxman of the ADL calls himself a priest to get into a Passion screening and then this Jewish scamster deceives and sets up Mel Gibson's 80-year old grandfather. Ethics don't matter. Scruples are irrelevant when Jews go out on an "Anti-Semite" Hunt.]
Gibson's Family: Father Tricked Into Interview,
by Carl Limbacher, See The Passion (from NewsMax) February 20, 2004 "When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview... When Mel Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton, told a New York radio interviewer Wednesday that the Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Jews were trying to rule the world, he had no idea he was speaking on the record, let alone being recorded for broadcast, Gibson family sources tell NewsMax. When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Hutton Gibson says the caller claimed his mother maintained a Web site devoted to "The Passion of the Christ." Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview. With no idea that his comments were being taped, Gibson's father made no attempt to disguise his views. He told Feuerstein that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust had been fabricated. "It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he told the radio interviewer. According to the account obtained by NewsMax, the elderly Gibson talked to Feuerstein for almost an hour before asking for further identification. The talk host promised to call back with more details, but never did. Feuerstein did not return calls for comment. So far, Hutton Gibson has not publicly apologized for the explosive remarks. But in previous interviews, first with the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, Mel Gibson noted he didn't share his father's revisionist views on the Holocaust. The actor-director said he had friends who had survived the death camps. "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely," Gibson told ABC's Diane sawyer. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion." Asked about an earlier interview where Gibson senior offered similarly offensive views, the Hollywood star complained: "Their whole agenda here, my detractors, is to drive a wedge between me and my father. And it's not going to happen. I love him. He's my father." Gibson's father's comments were the topic Thursday night of Alan Colmes' national radio show. James Hirsen, a NewsMax columnist, was interviewed and said that Hutton Gibson's "statement is indefensible, but it is also irrelevant. Mel's dad didn't make the movie; Mel Gibson did."

[The Passion struggle pits decadent, money-grubbing, cocaine addict Jewish Hollywood and the manipulative Jewish Mass Media against human dignity, integrity, hope, and spirtuality. Hollywood means "Jew."]
The firmness behind 'The Passion',
by Brent Bozell, Town Hall, February 18, 2004
"The mass unveiling of Mel Gibson's cinematic vision of "The Passion of the Christ" on 2,000 screens -- a massive debut for a foreign-language film with subtitles -- has the entertainment elite a bit frightened. After all, how many decades have elapsed since Hollywood has been in any way associated with Christian orthodoxy? The one who is not frightened is Gibson. He is a man who has made his own brave and generous sacrifice, putting tens of millions of dollars and his own film career on the line for a daring and controversial cultural event. He is a man who can sit in front of Diane Sawyer as she looks like she's sucking on a lemon and honestly proclaim his humble Christian beliefs, to be a "fool for Christ" before the world. He has dared to make a film that focuses only on the last hours of Jesus, leaving the gentle preachings and healings that some like to imply are the whole of the New Testament behind, honing in just on the cruel and yet necessary crucifixion of the Christ. For many months, media outlets have promoted controversy over this film, suggesting it might be anti-Semitic, and even if it isn't anti-Semitic in intention, it could have an anti-Semitic effect. One might argue all this controversy has been good for the film, but that doesn't mean the entertainment press has been fair or accurate in its coverage of it. Our cultural elites are worried not about how the film is "anti," but how the film is "pro." They know how this film has the potential to light a fire under traditional Christianity in America and around the world. They are worried because millions of Americans are enthusiastic. As the media boomlet picks up this growing phenomenon, it seems to overflow with secular alienation and dread that some might be using this film to evangelize, that the filmmakers are "marketing Jesus." To the bad-taste specialists that dominate our culture, there is no dirtier word than "proselytize." That, to them, is a very "divisive" act. To the secularists, it is offensive to believe that one creed, one faith is absolutely correct, and therefore the others must be in error. But why is it not offensive to suggest, as Hollywood so often suggests, that all religions are basically fairy tales for creepy, superstitious people who need the "crutch" of faith to deal with the natural world? And why it is not offensive for Hollywood to serve the country as a sort of 24-hour Temptation Channel for exotic sex, filthy language and pornographic violence? The entertainment factories are proselytizers -- for the lowest in human behavior. They are evangelists -- for empty sensationalism. And isn't it odd now to see, in the wake of this powerful film, cultural critics trying to curdle its impact by suggesting that the movie, with its body count of one (not counting the Resurrection), is a gorefest? "Mel's 'Passion' for Gore 'Extreme,' He Admits," claimed the New York Daily News, mangling his words out of his ABC interview. He said he wanted people to be struck, shocked by the physical pain and suffering endured by Jesus to save each believer. The spectacle wasn't for blood-loving jollies, like the choreographed mass murder of a Quentin Tarantino film. It was intended for Christian inspiration. The Los Angeles Times wrote that Gibson made "one of the most brutally graphic and violent depictions in modern cinema" of the last hours of Jesus. But Hollywood has almost no depictions of Jesus in "modern cinema," other than Martin Scorsese's Jesus-trashing "The Last Temptation of Christ," and that's 16 years old. To show your children explicitly Christian films requires a walk through the oldies section: "Quo Vadis" (1951), "The Robe" (1953), "Ben-Hur" (1959), or "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965). Don't worry, film critics: It should be safe to assume that the crowds flocking to this R-rated movie will not be dragging their kids to see the pain inflicted in "The Passion." How wonderful it would be if Hollywood had such tender hearts for the well being of vulnerable children routinely sneaking into R-rated films with little resistance. The secular cultural elites have reason to be frightened. Millions of Americans will be dazzled in the multiplexes watching a cast of non-stars speak in non-English about what Hollywood has seen for eons as a non-story. The hubbub should send a powerful message to Hollywood: Our culture could use more of this kind of artistic vision and exploration, and less of your nihilistic nonsense. There might be a new fad in town."

[The millionth Jewish journalist trashes the Passion. Objective journalism? Jews run the mass media. Jews own it. Jews even dominate the movie review scam. Jewish Hollywood vomits out so many degrading, violent trashy movies it's beyond belief. But the Jewish Media doesn't care about that. Its intent is to crucify Mel Gibson -- and Christ again. ]
Critic Calls Gibson Movie Anti-Semitic,
By Arthur Spiegelman, Reuters, February 24, 2004
"While preview audiences are leaving theaters deeply moved by Mel Gibson's controversial new film "The Passion of the Christ," critics are slamming it for excessive violence, questioning its spiritual message and wondering aloud if it is anti-Semitic. With the film opening in 2,800 theaters on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times ran a rare front-page review warning that the movie was certain to divide people and the New York Daily News called it an anti-Semitic work with violence that was "grotesque, savage and often fetishized" in slow motion."

[Christian-hating dual-loyalist Jewish politicians take to the streets. These professional "haters" foment "hate" with their Judeocentric intolerance.]
‘Passion’ protesters rally in Times Square. Assemblyman calls movie a ‘blood libel against Jews’ Assemblyman Dov Hikind leads about three dozen Jewish demonstrators rallied in front of a Times Square movie theater to protest the depiction of Jews in the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ."
MSNBC, Feb. 24, 2004
"About three dozen Jewish demonstrators rallied in front of a Times Square movie theater Tuesday to protest the depiction of Jews in the Mel Gibson film “The Passion of the Christ.” A New York state assemblyman and member of the City Council led the crowd, which carried signs reading “The Passion is Dangerous,” “To incite violence is to commit violence” and “The Passion is a Lethal Weapon,” the latter a reference to Gibson’s series of violent action movies of the same name. “I was horrified. It was beyond anything that I imagined prior to seeing the film,” said Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat from Brooklyn who said he attended an advance screening of the film in New Jersey Monday night for an audience of black Baptist church groups. The film opens Wednesday. “I don’t have any doubt this film will cause anti-Semitism. I don’t have any doubt that this film will result in violence,” said Hikind. David Weprin, chairman of the City Council’s finance committee, sai