Ben Stein Explains His Attack on Ron Paul, Creating More Questions Than Answers
(Examiner.com) -- by Thomas R. Eddlem --
Ben Stein published an explanation of his attack on Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on his American Spectator blog December 30. Two days before Stein had termed Rep. Paul 's argument against the ever-increasing U.S. intervention in Muslim nations in the war on terror an “anti-Semitic argument” in a debate on CNN's Larry King Live.
Rep. Paul – who favored the attack on Afghanistan in 2001 as a legitimate response to the September 11 attacks – has in recent years argued that the more than eight-year-long occupation of Afghanistan and military strikes on other Muslim nations are increasingly being viewed by Muslims as a foreign occupation force that props up corrupt governments rather than a legitimate anti-terrorism effort. Regarding the most recent hijacking of an airline on Christmas day, Paul noted that interventionist-minded policy-makers are “never asking the question: What is the motive?” Dr. Paul went on to explain that the most recent would-be airline hijacker “said why he did it. He said because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive.”
Stein said on Larry King Live December 28 that Rep. Paul's words constituted an “anti-Semitic argument” and explained further in his American Spectator column that:
“...in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. 'occupying' Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel -- a line long associated with Rep. Paul, as I understand, and again, maybe I am misinformed -- and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally.”
Rep. Paul had never mentioned Israel or anything Jewish during the debate, nor is there any statement in the former obstetrician's 35-year public record that gives a whiff of hostility to Jews or Judaism. Stein's explanation, and his performance on the original Larry King Live segment, raise two issues related to the war on terror.
1. Anti-Semitism. The first issue is whether a person can advocate that the United States have a policy of minding its own business and staying out of foreign quarrels, as President George Washington advised in his farewell address, and not be an anti-Semite.
Stein argued on the Larry King Live segment that the United States must help all of its “friends” or be considered anti-Semitic. According to Stein, one is an anti-Semite even if he refuses to support the corrupt Islamic state of Yemen with military force because the Yemeni government is among “our friends.” Two days later Stein qualified the statement in his American Spectator blog – two days after he let his “anti-Semitic argument” fly – by adding that if Ron Paul accepted U.S. support for Israel that he may not be an anti-Semite. “I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far,” Stein explained. “So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.” Essentially, Stein was saying that even though he labeled Rep. Paul's arguments “anti-Semitic” on national television, he was willing to admit that perhaps Rep. Paul was not an anti-Semite after all.
If someone does take George Washington's view of keeping out of foreign entanglements, Stein modified his argument on his American Spectator blog, a person is an anti-Semite only if he applies the principle to all nations, including Israel. Whereas Rep. Paul has advocated a foreign policy perfectly in tune with Washington's farewell address – one without any favoritism or intervention whatsoever – Stein may indeed still consider him an anti-Semite.
2. Blowback. The more relevant issue revolves around military intervention and whether the United States becoming the policeman of the world creates what is called “blowback” in the intelligence world. Stein denies the possibility that anyone could be motivated to attack the United States because our government is in the business of blowing up people across the Middle East. “They're terrorists and murderers because they are psychos, same as all terrorists and murderers,” Stein told Rep. Paul during the Larry King debate. Stein argues that terrorists are crazy, that they do not act in a rational way, and that they therefore cannot be reacting to the death of a loved one or fellow countryman. Terrorists attack without reason, Stein flatly stated.
If Stein is correct and terrorists are indeed insane and acting without a reason (a reason may have merit or be entirely devoid of merit), then there is no reasonable expectation that they would target the United States any more than any other government, person or object. If there is no reason, then the attacks are purely random. In fact, if terrorists are truly insane and without reason, logic suggests they would be far less likely to attack the United States. Attacking the United States requires extraordinary travel preparations for Middle Eastern terrorists and intricate planning that is ordinarily beyond the capacity of most insane people to accomplish. And it certainly doesn't fit the random pattern under which Stein insists terrorists heed.
Stein went on to explain that Ron Paul's arguments were wrong and that the United States has an obligation to prop up the corrupt government of Yemen...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
If Stein truly believes it is anti-Semitic for Americans to want to get Israel off our welfare dole, and to object to sending Americans off to fight wars for Israeli interests -- which begets ever more attacks by Islamic militants on American positions, then he is living proof that American Zionists put Israeli Jews ahead of American Gentiles, and should never be trusted in positions where Israeli and American interests might come into conflict. And I'm not just taking about Jewish Zionists. George W. Bush was a Gentile Zionists who put Jewish Israeli interests ahead of American interests when he pursued the elective Iraq war, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11 -- attacks that likely would never even have taken place but for U.S government interventionism in the Mideast on behalf of Israel, and Washington's blank check support for the Jewish state.
For example, Jeff Gates notes that 'Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus “the American people…on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people.”'
What Americans are dealing with in Zionism is an insidious, elitist ideology that operates by incorporating American politicians on their rise up the ladders of power (as was the case with Barack Obama), or once they have reached the pinnacle of power (as was more the case with George W. Bush.) And eventually, Zionism actually becomes an elitist, sacraficialist state of mind, wherein it's perfectly acceptable to send lower class Americans to their deaths on behalf of Zionism's interests. In fact, Zionism even manages to incorporate poorer and more ignorant Americans by invoking the Old Testament and suggesting that Americans are fighting for the heritage of Western civilization by protecting the progeny of the tribes of biblical Israel. Actually, the opposite is true. Many Jews harbor profound grudges against Western civilization because of its Christian basis and its historical intolerance for Jewish ethnic rackateering, and thus stab it in the back at nearly every opportunity.
Ron Paul is too smart to fall for Zionism's platitudes and methods, which is what drives guys like Ben Stein crazy.
Israel can sink or swim on its own merits. Ending American interventionism around the world is in no way throwing Israel to the wolves, as Stein seems to suggest. It is forcing it to quite acting like a parasite and stand on its own two feet -- something that is apparently anathema to mentality's like Stein's.
Americans need to implement a new litmus test for their politicians. Instead of being pro-Zionist as the price of entry to the upper echelons of power, politicians should be tested as either Zionist neutral, or anti-Zionist to get elected. Because just like its bastard twin Communism, Zionism will ultimately destroy whatever it touches.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Increasing Jewish persecution of Christians in Israel enjoys support from repugnant Israel-first evangelical Zionists
ISRAEL'S INCREASING ANTI-CHRISTIANITY
(National Prayer Network) -- By Rev. Ted Pike --
The period of the Great Crusades saw the forces of the Christian west and Muslim east engage in futile military efforts to decide who would control Palestine, with power to exclude others. After millions died, the exhausted combatants finally reached a compromise that has proved amicable for nearly a millennium: Each of the three great religions claiming special kinship to Israel—Christians, Jews and Muslims— would have freedom as pilgrims and even residents to worship in the sacred places of the Holy Land.
Yet, with return of Jews to Israel in the 20 th century, a different mentality emerged, one shared by Christian evangelicals. The Jews returned to a land they considered entirely and unconditionally theirs—a land in which Jewish worship, customs and laws enjoyed a Biblical right to predominate.
Now Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbinical authorities in Israel increasingly assert that Israel has the right to actually exclude Christians and Muslims from full participation in the religious life of the nation.
Although Israel’s population is largely secular, the official religious position of the state is Orthodox. The Encyclopedia Judaica: “There are very few Reform or Conservative congregations in the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is the official religious position in Israel with the majority of rabbis belonging to the old school of Talmudic jurists.” [1] The Grand Rabbinate in Jerusalem determines what is “halakah,” or binding Jewish law, not only to lesser rabbinic authorities but in every level of the nation’s life and commerce—even in the military.
Unlike in America, there is no separation of synagogue and state in Israel. And, unlike in America, which was founded largely on respect for the Bible, Orthodoxy in Israel is established squarely on the teachings of the ancient Pharisees as embodied in their Babylonian Talmud and its mystical/revolutionary companion, the Zohar or Kabbalah. [2]
Both Talmud and Zohar are vehemently anti-Christian. The Talmud views Christ as the bastard son of Mary, a loose woman. He was also a false prophet who led Israel into apostasy. It says Jewish leaders righteously had Him crucified and He now languishes in hell, writhing in boiling semen. (See actual pages from the Talmud confirming this at the end of this article.) Considering such anti-Christian animus from Israel’s highest religious authority, it is understandable why Christian inhabitants of Palestine have fared poorly over the last century. The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem documents hundreds of acts of discrimination and persecution against Christians almost since the beginning of the Zionist experiment. [3] These include profanation of Christian churches and holy places as well as a general program of unpublicized harassment and discrimination. Much of the energy behind such anti-Christianity has emerged from the Grand Rabbinate in Jerusalem and the many Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbis under its influence. (Ultra-Orthodox haredim differ from Orthodox primarily in their exaltation of the authority of the Zohar above the Talmud.)
At the turn of the 20 th century, upwards of 20 percent of the inhabitants of Palestine were Christian; but as a result of incessant, long-term discrimination, only 2 percent are Christian today – and that number is shrinking.
Rabbinic War on Christmas
Recent events in Israel leading up to Christmas confirm efforts by the Grand Rabbinate and lesser rabbinic councils to exclude Christianity from Palestine. A recent Ha’aretz article says the Rabbinate stands behind the “'Lobby for Jewish Values" in its attempts to eradicate Christian symbols from Jerusalem, especially during Christmas. They are “condemning the holiday and inciting the public to boycott restaurants and hotels that sell or put up Christmas trees and other ‘foolish’ Christian symbols…” Their intention is to revoke kosher certification for any business that allows a Christian symbol to be displayed, thus probably ruining them. (See Rabbis versus Christmas: Religious rivalry in Jerusalem benefits no one)
Such behavior reflects a deep loathing for Christianity within Talmudic Orthodoxy. WorldNetDaily recently published Ha’aretz’s article “Christians in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop Spitting on Them.” It begins: “A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting…When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked at the window. As the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face...
Anti-Christianity in Israel is not only fueled by the Orthodox establishment but, incredibly, by evangelical Christians themselves. The Jerusalem Post (Oct 23, 2009) says that evangelicals have donated $70 million a year to Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein’s “International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,” one of a number of Israeli charities accepting millions annually from Christians. But Eckstein admits now that much of it has gone toward support of the very Orthodox and haredi groups most responsible for harassment and persecution of Christians in Israel today! The Post says, “Various haredi organizations in Israel and abroad receive money from the IFCJ or have received support in the past.” Part of the evangelical millions, according to Eckstein, goes to fund orthodox and ultra-orthodox rabbinical organizations as far away as the Ukraine and Morocco, including the Rabbinate in Turkey. (See Christian donor to out haredi recipients)
Every Christian is bound by Scripture to donate first to “those of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10) i.e. Christian churches, missionaries and charities. “Israel-first” evangelicals have no justification for this ungodly drain on Christian resources to assist the persecutors of their brethren...MORE...LINK
(National Prayer Network) -- By Rev. Ted Pike --
The period of the Great Crusades saw the forces of the Christian west and Muslim east engage in futile military efforts to decide who would control Palestine, with power to exclude others. After millions died, the exhausted combatants finally reached a compromise that has proved amicable for nearly a millennium: Each of the three great religions claiming special kinship to Israel—Christians, Jews and Muslims— would have freedom as pilgrims and even residents to worship in the sacred places of the Holy Land.
Yet, with return of Jews to Israel in the 20 th century, a different mentality emerged, one shared by Christian evangelicals. The Jews returned to a land they considered entirely and unconditionally theirs—a land in which Jewish worship, customs and laws enjoyed a Biblical right to predominate.
Now Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbinical authorities in Israel increasingly assert that Israel has the right to actually exclude Christians and Muslims from full participation in the religious life of the nation.
Although Israel’s population is largely secular, the official religious position of the state is Orthodox. The Encyclopedia Judaica: “There are very few Reform or Conservative congregations in the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is the official religious position in Israel with the majority of rabbis belonging to the old school of Talmudic jurists.” [1] The Grand Rabbinate in Jerusalem determines what is “halakah,” or binding Jewish law, not only to lesser rabbinic authorities but in every level of the nation’s life and commerce—even in the military.
Unlike in America, there is no separation of synagogue and state in Israel. And, unlike in America, which was founded largely on respect for the Bible, Orthodoxy in Israel is established squarely on the teachings of the ancient Pharisees as embodied in their Babylonian Talmud and its mystical/revolutionary companion, the Zohar or Kabbalah. [2]
Both Talmud and Zohar are vehemently anti-Christian. The Talmud views Christ as the bastard son of Mary, a loose woman. He was also a false prophet who led Israel into apostasy. It says Jewish leaders righteously had Him crucified and He now languishes in hell, writhing in boiling semen. (See actual pages from the Talmud confirming this at the end of this article.) Considering such anti-Christian animus from Israel’s highest religious authority, it is understandable why Christian inhabitants of Palestine have fared poorly over the last century. The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem documents hundreds of acts of discrimination and persecution against Christians almost since the beginning of the Zionist experiment. [3] These include profanation of Christian churches and holy places as well as a general program of unpublicized harassment and discrimination. Much of the energy behind such anti-Christianity has emerged from the Grand Rabbinate in Jerusalem and the many Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rabbis under its influence. (Ultra-Orthodox haredim differ from Orthodox primarily in their exaltation of the authority of the Zohar above the Talmud.)
At the turn of the 20 th century, upwards of 20 percent of the inhabitants of Palestine were Christian; but as a result of incessant, long-term discrimination, only 2 percent are Christian today – and that number is shrinking.
Rabbinic War on Christmas
Recent events in Israel leading up to Christmas confirm efforts by the Grand Rabbinate and lesser rabbinic councils to exclude Christianity from Palestine. A recent Ha’aretz article says the Rabbinate stands behind the “'Lobby for Jewish Values" in its attempts to eradicate Christian symbols from Jerusalem, especially during Christmas. They are “condemning the holiday and inciting the public to boycott restaurants and hotels that sell or put up Christmas trees and other ‘foolish’ Christian symbols…” Their intention is to revoke kosher certification for any business that allows a Christian symbol to be displayed, thus probably ruining them. (See Rabbis versus Christmas: Religious rivalry in Jerusalem benefits no one)
Such behavior reflects a deep loathing for Christianity within Talmudic Orthodoxy. WorldNetDaily recently published Ha’aretz’s article “Christians in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop Spitting on Them.” It begins: “A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting…When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked at the window. As the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face...
Anti-Christianity in Israel is not only fueled by the Orthodox establishment but, incredibly, by evangelical Christians themselves. The Jerusalem Post (Oct 23, 2009) says that evangelicals have donated $70 million a year to Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein’s “International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,” one of a number of Israeli charities accepting millions annually from Christians. But Eckstein admits now that much of it has gone toward support of the very Orthodox and haredi groups most responsible for harassment and persecution of Christians in Israel today! The Post says, “Various haredi organizations in Israel and abroad receive money from the IFCJ or have received support in the past.” Part of the evangelical millions, according to Eckstein, goes to fund orthodox and ultra-orthodox rabbinical organizations as far away as the Ukraine and Morocco, including the Rabbinate in Turkey. (See Christian donor to out haredi recipients)
Every Christian is bound by Scripture to donate first to “those of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10) i.e. Christian churches, missionaries and charities. “Israel-first” evangelicals have no justification for this ungodly drain on Christian resources to assist the persecutors of their brethren...MORE...LINK
Thuggish, authoritarian Egyptian regime comes under fire for collaborating with Israel in strangling of Palestinians
Egypt blasted for 'aiding Gaza blockade'
(Israel Today) --
Israel is often the sole recipient of criticism for the so-called "Gaza siege," but most forget that the Gaza Strip also shares a border with the Egyptian-controlled Sinai Peninsula.
Now Egypt is under fire for allegedly aiding the "Israeli blockade" of the Gaza Strip by building a new anti-smuggling wall along that border.
The reinforced steel barrier is being sunk deep into the ground to disrupt and prevent the digging of smuggling tunnels under the border.
Egypt has been under heavy pressure from Israel and the US to do more to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, which are inevitably used against the Jewish state resulting in more harsh security measures.
Amid threats by human rights activists around the world to march on the Gaza-Egypt border, the Egyptian government on Wednesday insisted that the new barrier was defensive measure and had nothing to do with barring the import of goods to Gaza...LINK
(Israel Today) --
Israel is often the sole recipient of criticism for the so-called "Gaza siege," but most forget that the Gaza Strip also shares a border with the Egyptian-controlled Sinai Peninsula.
Now Egypt is under fire for allegedly aiding the "Israeli blockade" of the Gaza Strip by building a new anti-smuggling wall along that border.
The reinforced steel barrier is being sunk deep into the ground to disrupt and prevent the digging of smuggling tunnels under the border.
Egypt has been under heavy pressure from Israel and the US to do more to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, which are inevitably used against the Jewish state resulting in more harsh security measures.
Amid threats by human rights activists around the world to march on the Gaza-Egypt border, the Egyptian government on Wednesday insisted that the new barrier was defensive measure and had nothing to do with barring the import of goods to Gaza...LINK
Ben Stein's attack on Ron Paul: Another psychologically unstable Zionist playing the anti-Semite card?
Ron Paul, Ben Stein, & Israeli Minister who said the anti-semitic label 'always used' as a trick VID
(Examiner.com) -- By Martin Hill --
In a Larry King segment yesterday with guests Congressman Ron Paul, Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, the four were discussing airline security, with Jackson Lee promoting protection of the so-called "homeland". The topic of terrorism and its' root causes came up, and Neoconservative Ben Stein called Ron Paul's arguements 'anti-semitic'. This prompted Paul to demand an apology and the segment deteriorated into a near shouting match, with King pulling down the audio saying that the three will be back again tomorrow.
At 6:40 in the video, Ron Paul had asked Stein "Why are they terrorists?"
Stein: "They're terrorists and murders because theyre psychos"
Paul: "They're terrorists because were occupiers!"
Stein: "No, we're not occupyers, that's the same anti-semitic arguement we've heard over and over again; no. "
A shocked Paul points at Stein saying , "Oh. now that is a viscious attack!"
Stein: "Its' not a viscious attack."
Paul: "You discredit yourself. Totally discredit yourself"
Sheila Jackson Lee then jumps in, repeatedly offering to referree between the two Republicans.
It's worthwhile to note that Stein, who is Jewish and admitted to Time magazine in 1999 that he was under psychiatric care, was Richard Nixon's speechwriter. Nixon, who made such remarks as "The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards", "As long as I'm sitting in the chair, there's not going to be any Jew appointed to that court. [No Jew] can be right on the criminal-law", and "every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana are Jewish", also employed Ben Stein's father...
This recent Larry King clip with Stein smearing Ron Paul as an "anti-semite" has prompted recirculation of an old youtube video entitled "It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic"). A new variation including the Paul-Stein exchange has been added.
It might be helpful though, to view the clip in it's entirety and in it's proper context. The youtube excerpts are actually from a 2002 interview with an Israeli Minister who spoke out against Israeli's occupation and human rights abuses of the Palestinian people...
Aloni: "Well its a trick, we always use it. When from Europe someobody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust . When in this country people are criticizing Israel then they are anti-semitic. And the organization is strong and has a lot of money. And the ties between Israel and the American estab- Jewish establishment are very strong and- they are stong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is ok. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is 'Israel my country right or wrong' , identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it's very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli govt as anti-semitic and to bring up the holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people and that- that is justify everything we do to the Palestinians."...MORE...LINK
(Examiner.com) -- By Martin Hill --
In a Larry King segment yesterday with guests Congressman Ron Paul, Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, the four were discussing airline security, with Jackson Lee promoting protection of the so-called "homeland". The topic of terrorism and its' root causes came up, and Neoconservative Ben Stein called Ron Paul's arguements 'anti-semitic'. This prompted Paul to demand an apology and the segment deteriorated into a near shouting match, with King pulling down the audio saying that the three will be back again tomorrow.
At 6:40 in the video, Ron Paul had asked Stein "Why are they terrorists?"
Stein: "They're terrorists and murders because theyre psychos"
Paul: "They're terrorists because were occupiers!"
Stein: "No, we're not occupyers, that's the same anti-semitic arguement we've heard over and over again; no. "
A shocked Paul points at Stein saying , "Oh. now that is a viscious attack!"
Stein: "Its' not a viscious attack."
Paul: "You discredit yourself. Totally discredit yourself"
Sheila Jackson Lee then jumps in, repeatedly offering to referree between the two Republicans.
It's worthwhile to note that Stein, who is Jewish and admitted to Time magazine in 1999 that he was under psychiatric care, was Richard Nixon's speechwriter. Nixon, who made such remarks as "The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards", "As long as I'm sitting in the chair, there's not going to be any Jew appointed to that court. [No Jew] can be right on the criminal-law", and "every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana are Jewish", also employed Ben Stein's father...
This recent Larry King clip with Stein smearing Ron Paul as an "anti-semite" has prompted recirculation of an old youtube video entitled "It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic"). A new variation including the Paul-Stein exchange has been added.
It might be helpful though, to view the clip in it's entirety and in it's proper context. The youtube excerpts are actually from a 2002 interview with an Israeli Minister who spoke out against Israeli's occupation and human rights abuses of the Palestinian people...
Aloni: "Well its a trick, we always use it. When from Europe someobody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust . When in this country people are criticizing Israel then they are anti-semitic. And the organization is strong and has a lot of money. And the ties between Israel and the American estab- Jewish establishment are very strong and- they are stong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is ok. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is 'Israel my country right or wrong' , identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it's very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli govt as anti-semitic and to bring up the holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people and that- that is justify everything we do to the Palestinians."...MORE...LINK
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The war isn't for Israel, huh? Ron Paul says America occupying Mideast, Ben Stein declares it “anti-Semitic argument”
Ben Stein Accuses Ron Paul of Anti-Semitism on Larry King
Chris Moore comments:
Did Ron Paul even mention Jews or Israel in the context of stating that America is occupying the Mideast? No, he didn’t. But Ben Stein essentially acknowledges the wars America is fighting there are on behalf of Israeli interests by jumping to the anti-Semite card, because the only way objecting to American occupation of the area becomes anti-Semitic, by any stretch, is if the U.S. military has been sent there as a bodyguard and enforcer for the Jewish state.
Also, notice how Stein, in his freakish mutterings, conflates anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (so called), as if they are one in the same. What he and other Israel-firster Jewish Zionists and their collaborators and appeasers are trying to do is create a political environment where Americans who are unwilling to put Israel first and send their children off to fight and die on behalf of Israeli expansionism are regarded as seditious enemies of the state. How twisted: those who refuse to put the interests of a foreign, alien entity above the interests of America are to be regarded with fear and loathing, whereas Israel-firsters are to be regarded as American patriots.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Zionists of all stripes are dangerous subversives and warmongers who need to be flogged from the American temple before they sink the fangs of their insane, upside down Bolshevik morality any deeper into the American body politic. They don’t belong anywhere near the seats of American power, let alone setting its foreign and domestic policy to suit their own usurping agenda.
America’s next war should be to extract itself from the suffocating grip of the Zionist alien entity and its traitorous feeders before they destroy us all, the same way they destroyed Russia, and much of the Levant.
Wherever they go, they're trouble. And the best way to defang them is to strip their U.S. power base, shake off their demonically possessed spiritual acolytes in Washington and around the country, and return America to melting pot Americans.
Chris Moore comments:
Did Ron Paul even mention Jews or Israel in the context of stating that America is occupying the Mideast? No, he didn’t. But Ben Stein essentially acknowledges the wars America is fighting there are on behalf of Israeli interests by jumping to the anti-Semite card, because the only way objecting to American occupation of the area becomes anti-Semitic, by any stretch, is if the U.S. military has been sent there as a bodyguard and enforcer for the Jewish state.
Also, notice how Stein, in his freakish mutterings, conflates anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (so called), as if they are one in the same. What he and other Israel-firster Jewish Zionists and their collaborators and appeasers are trying to do is create a political environment where Americans who are unwilling to put Israel first and send their children off to fight and die on behalf of Israeli expansionism are regarded as seditious enemies of the state. How twisted: those who refuse to put the interests of a foreign, alien entity above the interests of America are to be regarded with fear and loathing, whereas Israel-firsters are to be regarded as American patriots.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Zionists of all stripes are dangerous subversives and warmongers who need to be flogged from the American temple before they sink the fangs of their insane, upside down Bolshevik morality any deeper into the American body politic. They don’t belong anywhere near the seats of American power, let alone setting its foreign and domestic policy to suit their own usurping agenda.
America’s next war should be to extract itself from the suffocating grip of the Zionist alien entity and its traitorous feeders before they destroy us all, the same way they destroyed Russia, and much of the Levant.
Wherever they go, they're trouble. And the best way to defang them is to strip their U.S. power base, shake off their demonically possessed spiritual acolytes in Washington and around the country, and return America to melting pot Americans.
Psycho killer, qu'est que c'est: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” -- includes section on babies
Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
(DesertPeace.) -- By Didi Remez --
ORIGINAL POST
The ultra-fundamentalist Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar is infamous for its involvement in settler violence against Palestinians. Memorably, one of the students fired a homemade “Kassam” rocket at the neighboring village of Burin in June 2008. This morning, Maariv reports that the Yeshiva’s dean has just published on the proscribed dos and don’ts (mainly the former) regarding the killing of gentiles. Here are some choice excerpts.
“In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created…When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed…The [Din Rodef] dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly…Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer…Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”…In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directled mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.
A full translation of the Maariv article can be read after the jump.
The complete guide to killing non-Jews
Roi Sharon, Maariv, November 9 2009 [page 2 with front page teaser]
When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.
Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva...MORE...LINK
Blatant Israeli war crimes in Gaza, but impotent dissident liberals unable to make any progress in Zionist-owned Democratic Party
US congressmen fighting for Gaza - 29 Dec 09
(Al Jazeera) --
A year after Israel's war on Gaza, the territory is still struggling to rebuild.
In the weeks after the offensive, politicians from around the world visited the Strip and made promises to help.
But it appears many of those pledges have not been delivered.
Al Jazeera's Todd Baer caught up with two US Democratic congressmen whose efforts to lift the Israeli blockade on Gaza are being met with stiff resistance...LINK
Israeli ambassador to Washington says "warm" Obama preparing "paralyzing" sanctions against Iran
'US readying paralyzing Iran sanctions'
(Jerusalem Post) --
The US administration is heading towards placing "paralyzing" sanctions on Iran, Israeli Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren said Tuesday. Speaking to Army Radio, Oren added that although it was "too early," the US had also not yet abandoned the military option.
"The Americans attribute the highest importance to the Iranian issue," he said during the interview. "The US, along with other countries, is preparing to impose paralyzing sanctions on [Iran], and preparations are happening even now."
Oren went on to reject claims that US President Barack Obama was trying to downgrade relations between Washington and Jerusalem, saying, "The man is very warm towards us… I hope that during the next year he will also come [to Israel], and bring that [warmth] to the Israeli public."...MORE...LINK
(Jerusalem Post) --
The US administration is heading towards placing "paralyzing" sanctions on Iran, Israeli Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren said Tuesday. Speaking to Army Radio, Oren added that although it was "too early," the US had also not yet abandoned the military option.
"The Americans attribute the highest importance to the Iranian issue," he said during the interview. "The US, along with other countries, is preparing to impose paralyzing sanctions on [Iran], and preparations are happening even now."
Oren went on to reject claims that US President Barack Obama was trying to downgrade relations between Washington and Jerusalem, saying, "The man is very warm towards us… I hope that during the next year he will also come [to Israel], and bring that [warmth] to the Israeli public."...MORE...LINK
Monday, December 28, 2009
Militant Jewish Zionists Lieberman, Specter already thumping chests for U.S. war in Yemen due to 'lap bomber' alleged ties
Officials Eye Yemen War in Wake of Lap Bombing
Speculative Ties to Yemen a Good Enough Excuse for Some
(Antiwar.com) -- by Jason Ditz
Friday’s “lap bombing” did only superficial damage to the Detroit-bound plane, though it badly burned would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s lap. Still, the real fireworks may be yet to come, as some top US officials are looking to use it as an excuse to attack Yemen.
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was the first to declare Yemen “tomorrow’s war,” urging a preemptive attack on the nation now. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) concurred, saying an attack should be considered.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said President Obama should be held responsible for the attack, and also declared Yemen a “hot spot” that needed to be dealt with. He also alleged that the attack was probably somehow tied with US cleric Awlaki, though this link appears to be purely speculative.
Yet so far the only evidence linking the lap bomber to Yemen are his own claims that he is a member of al-Qaeda and got the bomb (essentially a condom with some explosive inside) from al-Qaeda bomb makers in Yemen. Law enforcement officials concede that can’t corroborate any of this...MORE...LINK
Speculative Ties to Yemen a Good Enough Excuse for Some
(Antiwar.com) -- by Jason Ditz
Friday’s “lap bombing” did only superficial damage to the Detroit-bound plane, though it badly burned would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s lap. Still, the real fireworks may be yet to come, as some top US officials are looking to use it as an excuse to attack Yemen.
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was the first to declare Yemen “tomorrow’s war,” urging a preemptive attack on the nation now. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) concurred, saying an attack should be considered.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said President Obama should be held responsible for the attack, and also declared Yemen a “hot spot” that needed to be dealt with. He also alleged that the attack was probably somehow tied with US cleric Awlaki, though this link appears to be purely speculative.
Yet so far the only evidence linking the lap bomber to Yemen are his own claims that he is a member of al-Qaeda and got the bomb (essentially a condom with some explosive inside) from al-Qaeda bomb makers in Yemen. Law enforcement officials concede that can’t corroborate any of this...MORE...LINK
Top Obama aid in charge of war on "anti-semitism" an Israel-firster who admits it's her true homeland, but even that's not enough for Zionist fanatics
Obama aide calls Israel her ‘homeland’ and a ‘healthy democracy’
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
The neocon cabal is going crazy over comments supportive of J Street from Hannah Rosenthal, Obama’s aide in charge of fighting anti-Semitism. It’s really amazing that the neocons have been able to hurt J Street, a mainstream group if ever there was one, a group that turned its back on the powerful Goldstone report that describes the moral corruption of Israeli society.
Andrew Sullivan, who has been accused of anti-Semitism for his own criticisms of Israeli policy, correctly identifies the Israel lobby’s presence in the discourse:
"Remember what the neocons believe is a criterion for public office: no criticisms of any Israeli policies. Or you are a suspect Jew or a closet anti-Semite. And they believe this. Thank God the younger generations are less paranoid and less blinkered."
The problem with Sullivan’s formulation is that it isn’t just neocons. Remember what Haaretz stated baldly in an article a couple weeks back:
"Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
"In the case of Obama’s government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."
I.e., it’s Democrats who are imposing this criterion, not just neocons!
I would take this analysis further. Rosenthal made several comments in her interview with Haaretz suggesting that this high White House official, whose office is on the same floor as Hillary Clinton’s at the State Department, regards Israel as her country.
"It is not 1939," she said. "We have the state of Israel…"
Although she did not say outright what she thought Israel should do regarding the peace process, when pressed, she said: "I lived in Israel in 1973 in the bomb shelters. I don’t want my kids or my grandchildren to have to ever come visit their homeland and to live in a bomb shelter – that is what I mean when I say the matzav [the situation/conflict]...MORE...LINK
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
The neocon cabal is going crazy over comments supportive of J Street from Hannah Rosenthal, Obama’s aide in charge of fighting anti-Semitism. It’s really amazing that the neocons have been able to hurt J Street, a mainstream group if ever there was one, a group that turned its back on the powerful Goldstone report that describes the moral corruption of Israeli society.
Andrew Sullivan, who has been accused of anti-Semitism for his own criticisms of Israeli policy, correctly identifies the Israel lobby’s presence in the discourse:
"Remember what the neocons believe is a criterion for public office: no criticisms of any Israeli policies. Or you are a suspect Jew or a closet anti-Semite. And they believe this. Thank God the younger generations are less paranoid and less blinkered."
The problem with Sullivan’s formulation is that it isn’t just neocons. Remember what Haaretz stated baldly in an article a couple weeks back:
"Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
"In the case of Obama’s government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."
I.e., it’s Democrats who are imposing this criterion, not just neocons!
I would take this analysis further. Rosenthal made several comments in her interview with Haaretz suggesting that this high White House official, whose office is on the same floor as Hillary Clinton’s at the State Department, regards Israel as her country.
"It is not 1939," she said. "We have the state of Israel…"
Although she did not say outright what she thought Israel should do regarding the peace process, when pressed, she said: "I lived in Israel in 1973 in the bomb shelters. I don’t want my kids or my grandchildren to have to ever come visit their homeland and to live in a bomb shelter – that is what I mean when I say the matzav [the situation/conflict]...MORE...LINK
One year later, an examination of how Israel provoked a war in order to murder and terrorize Gaza civilians
The American-Israeli War on Gaza
(OpEdNews) -- Jeremy R. Hammond --
One year ago today, Israel launched "Operation Cast Lead", a murderous full-scale military assault on the small, densely populated, and defenseless Gaza Strip. The operation resulted in the massacre of over 1,300 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, including hundreds of children.
This includes only those killed directly by military attacks. The actual casualty figure from Israel's policies towards Gaza, including the number of deaths attributable to its ongoing siege of the territory, is unknown.
The official pretext for the operation given by Israel and parroted unquestioningly in the Western media is that Israel had to respond with force as an act of self-defense against to an onslaught of rocket attacks against southern Israel from Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza.
Even if this were true, nations acting in self-defense against armed attacks must respect international law designed to protect civilians in time of war. Israel flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions and other relevant treaties governing the use of force during the course of its operation, committing numerous war crimes.
But the stated pretext itself does not stand up to scrutiny. Six months prior to the assault on Gaza, Israel and Hamas had agreed to a cease-fire. Under the terms of the truce agreement, Hamas would end its rocket attacks against Israel and Israel would similarly cease attacks against Palestinians in Gaza and lift its siege on the territory.
Hamas, for its part, lived up to its obligations under the truce. It fired no rockets into Israel and actively pressured other groups to similarly refrain from launching attacks.
Israel, on the other hand, never lived up to its obligations under the truce. From the beginning, Israel declared a "security zone" on Gaza's side of the border and Israeli soldiers repeatedly violated the truce by firing at Palestinians, guilty of merely trying to access their own land.
Israel also never eased its siege of Gaza. Israel controlled (and continues to control) the borders of Gaza, its airspace, and its coast, and implementing a near total blockade, including preventing by force the delivery of humanitarian goods into the territory.
Rather than easing the siege, Israel continued to let in only minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies (a practice that also continues today), just enough to prevent a total humanitarian catastrophe, thus keeping the population of Gaza in a state of despair and on the verge of human limits, with untold consequences on the health and mental well-being of the Palestinians.
The complete breakdown of the truce agreement came on November 4, when Israel launched air strikes and a ground incursion into Gaza, killing four Palestinians. This violation of the cease-fire resulted in its effective undoing.
Israel's official reason for the attack was its claim that militants were digging a tunnel under the border. The more credible explanation, however, was that Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into launching rockets and thus to claim a pretext for the full-scale military assault that Israel had, at that time, by its own account, already been planning.
Indeed, from the beginning of the truce, it appeared Israel's intent was to provoke a violent response in order claim a pretext for its military assault. While Hamas scrupulously observed the cease-fire, Israel took deliberate actions to undermine it. Besides those already noted, Israel also stepped up operations against Palestinians in the West Bank, such as the assassination of members of Islamic Jihad shortly after the announcement of the truce.
Islamic Jihad militants in Gaza responded to that incident by firing rockets into Israel, but Hamas criticized the attacks and pressured Islamic Jihad to cease, including with the threat of arrests, and the tenuous truce continued to hold, for a time.
A greater and more provocative action was necessary in order to completely undermine the truce, and Israel's November 4 attack proved to be that action. From that day forward, the so-called "cease-fire" consisted of tit-for-tat attacks on a daily basis, with Israel launching repeated attacks on Gaza and Hamas and other militant groups launching rockets into Israel...MORE...LINK
(OpEdNews) -- Jeremy R. Hammond --
One year ago today, Israel launched "Operation Cast Lead", a murderous full-scale military assault on the small, densely populated, and defenseless Gaza Strip. The operation resulted in the massacre of over 1,300 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, including hundreds of children.
This includes only those killed directly by military attacks. The actual casualty figure from Israel's policies towards Gaza, including the number of deaths attributable to its ongoing siege of the territory, is unknown.
The official pretext for the operation given by Israel and parroted unquestioningly in the Western media is that Israel had to respond with force as an act of self-defense against to an onslaught of rocket attacks against southern Israel from Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza.
Even if this were true, nations acting in self-defense against armed attacks must respect international law designed to protect civilians in time of war. Israel flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions and other relevant treaties governing the use of force during the course of its operation, committing numerous war crimes.
But the stated pretext itself does not stand up to scrutiny. Six months prior to the assault on Gaza, Israel and Hamas had agreed to a cease-fire. Under the terms of the truce agreement, Hamas would end its rocket attacks against Israel and Israel would similarly cease attacks against Palestinians in Gaza and lift its siege on the territory.
Hamas, for its part, lived up to its obligations under the truce. It fired no rockets into Israel and actively pressured other groups to similarly refrain from launching attacks.
Israel, on the other hand, never lived up to its obligations under the truce. From the beginning, Israel declared a "security zone" on Gaza's side of the border and Israeli soldiers repeatedly violated the truce by firing at Palestinians, guilty of merely trying to access their own land.
Israel also never eased its siege of Gaza. Israel controlled (and continues to control) the borders of Gaza, its airspace, and its coast, and implementing a near total blockade, including preventing by force the delivery of humanitarian goods into the territory.
Rather than easing the siege, Israel continued to let in only minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies (a practice that also continues today), just enough to prevent a total humanitarian catastrophe, thus keeping the population of Gaza in a state of despair and on the verge of human limits, with untold consequences on the health and mental well-being of the Palestinians.
The complete breakdown of the truce agreement came on November 4, when Israel launched air strikes and a ground incursion into Gaza, killing four Palestinians. This violation of the cease-fire resulted in its effective undoing.
Israel's official reason for the attack was its claim that militants were digging a tunnel under the border. The more credible explanation, however, was that Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into launching rockets and thus to claim a pretext for the full-scale military assault that Israel had, at that time, by its own account, already been planning.
Indeed, from the beginning of the truce, it appeared Israel's intent was to provoke a violent response in order claim a pretext for its military assault. While Hamas scrupulously observed the cease-fire, Israel took deliberate actions to undermine it. Besides those already noted, Israel also stepped up operations against Palestinians in the West Bank, such as the assassination of members of Islamic Jihad shortly after the announcement of the truce.
Islamic Jihad militants in Gaza responded to that incident by firing rockets into Israel, but Hamas criticized the attacks and pressured Islamic Jihad to cease, including with the threat of arrests, and the tenuous truce continued to hold, for a time.
A greater and more provocative action was necessary in order to completely undermine the truce, and Israel's November 4 attack proved to be that action. From that day forward, the so-called "cease-fire" consisted of tit-for-tat attacks on a daily basis, with Israel launching repeated attacks on Gaza and Hamas and other militant groups launching rockets into Israel...MORE...LINK
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Clan political opportunism the real reason Carter is again appeasing Zionists?
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Jimmy Carter is asking the Jewish community for forgiveness -- and insists it’s not simply because his grandson has decided to launch a political career with a run for the Georgia state Senate.
Jason Carter, 34, an Atlanta-area lawyer, is considering a run to fill a seat covering suburban DeKalb County should the incumbent, David Adelman, win confirmation as President Obama's designated ambassador to Singapore...
In a statement issued through his campaign manager, the younger Carter said the statement was not connected to his campaign.
"While I was very happy to see my grandfather's letter, it was completely unrelated to my campaign. The letter is a product of discussions with some of his friends in the Jewish community that have been going on for a long time. I, like many others, see this as a great step towards reconciliation," Jason Carter said in the statement. "As for my campaign, I intend to reach out to all people in District 42 and work hard to earn their trust and their votes. Ultimately, this campaign will focus on the people of this district and the issues that a good advocate in the Georgia State Senate can affect, including fixing a broken transportation system, getting the economy moving again, and providing a first-class education to our kids."
It seemed clear, however, that Jason Carter saw the apology, issued earlier this month through JTA, as a means of outreach. The younger Carter has been trying for days to reach Liane Levetan, a former state senator and CEO of DeKalb County, and as soon as they connected Tuesday, he directed her to the JTA Web site to read the letter.
Levetan is one of 14 Jews who split with the Carter Center in 2006 after the publication of "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." ...MORE...LINK
Jason Carter, 34, an Atlanta-area lawyer, is considering a run to fill a seat covering suburban DeKalb County should the incumbent, David Adelman, win confirmation as President Obama's designated ambassador to Singapore...
In a statement issued through his campaign manager, the younger Carter said the statement was not connected to his campaign.
"While I was very happy to see my grandfather's letter, it was completely unrelated to my campaign. The letter is a product of discussions with some of his friends in the Jewish community that have been going on for a long time. I, like many others, see this as a great step towards reconciliation," Jason Carter said in the statement. "As for my campaign, I intend to reach out to all people in District 42 and work hard to earn their trust and their votes. Ultimately, this campaign will focus on the people of this district and the issues that a good advocate in the Georgia State Senate can affect, including fixing a broken transportation system, getting the economy moving again, and providing a first-class education to our kids."
It seemed clear, however, that Jason Carter saw the apology, issued earlier this month through JTA, as a means of outreach. The younger Carter has been trying for days to reach Liane Levetan, a former state senator and CEO of DeKalb County, and as soon as they connected Tuesday, he directed her to the JTA Web site to read the letter.
Levetan is one of 14 Jews who split with the Carter Center in 2006 after the publication of "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." ...MORE...LINK
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Have Zionist left-liberals now scalped the bulk of the U.S. Left on behalf of the Israel lobby and its agenda?
Progressive radio show in NY serves up neocon moonshine about Islam
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
Three years ago, London Review of Books editor Mary-Kay Wilmers offered a sage insight: "It seems that the American left also is claimed by the Israel lobby." I didn’t fully get it at the time. She was a leftish Jew, but she had glimpsed the extent to which American leftwing Jewish intellectual life shares the Zionist concerns of neoconservatives: as American Jews, we are guardians of the Jewish state, and it is threatened with extinction, and we must see to it that American power is deployed against Israel’s enemies.
This is the best framework in which to look at Brian Lehrer’s interview on WNYC public radio New York two days ago with Frank Gaffney, a leading neocon. Lehrer is progressive and thoughtful and has one of the best radio shows in the country. His politics are New York Jewish libleft: he would never platform a guest opposing abortion rights or opposing gay rights (without fierce opposition). But for 20 minutes or so he gave unchecked access to a neoconservative offering anti-Islamic views.
Gaffney said that by means of jihad and "stealth jihad," Islamists are trying to impose Sharia law around the world, including in the U.S. The Fort Hood massacre is a sign of this. These radical Islamists want to defeat the west, and they operate in a lot of "godforsaken" countries, including Yemen and the Sudan.
And Lehrer thanked Gaffney for these statements.
The strongest counterpoint he offered was when he quoted Jerrold Nadler, the NY congressman who is a good anti-war congressman except when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Lehrer said that Nadler might agree with your "premise" about who the enemy is, Mr. Gaffney, but he would oppose your means. Some demurral.
Lehrer pushed Gaffney to say why the U.S. needed a giant nuclear arsenal, and Gaffney said, for peacemaking, and then specifically cited Hillary’s threat during the 2008 campaign to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. So the neocons’ Israel-centrism came into the conversation, without any commentary or demurral from Lehrer.
The issue here isn’t merely Gaffney/the neocons’ incredible survival in the public space in spite of the Iraq war disaster they pushed (which is about money). It is progressives’ collusion in that survival. During the Iraq buildup, many progressives became neoliberals; and Lehrer’s acceptance of Gaffney’s nutty statements about taking on Islam everywhere demonstrates the continuing passivity of the left when it comes to these feverish ideas.
How is this evidence that the left is claimed by the Israel lobby? Because at the core of Gaffney’s ideas are the claims that Israel is a democracy and that Arab/Muslim anger toward Israel has nothing to do with its policies/occupation but with its very existence. And at the core of Lehrer’s passivity with respect to neocon nostrums is (this is surmise but as a fellow media Jew I’m confident of it): a Jewish identification with the needs of the state and a reluctance to criticize it publicly...MORE...LINK
--------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
It just goes to show how Judeofascism colonizes and co-opts nearly everything it touches on behalf of its own interests and agenda.
Also, I have to question how "liberal" Diaspora Jewry has ever really been. I don't doubt that it prescribes liberalism, "tolerance" (for Jews, primarily) and open borders for the countries in which it dwells in the Diaspora out of its own narrow self-interests, (while prescribing the opposite of those policies for Israel), and Weiss cites traditional liberal Jewish-American support for abortion and homosexual rights as proof of its liberalism, for example, but I doubt the majority of American Jews would be very supportive of the abortion of the unwanted product of a coupling between two Jews (on the other hand, many would likely advocate for the abortion of a wanted product of a Jew/Gentile coupling out of racialism, which might explain a component of their support for abortion); and how supportive of homosexual marriage between two Jews would Jewry be? Homosexual marriage between Gentiles, though, it's all for, because that leads to fewer enemy Gentile pests down the line, and is another means of softening-up Gentile society in order to make it less resistant to Judeofascism and its goal of co-opting Gentile resources in pursuit of its own interests and agenda.
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
Three years ago, London Review of Books editor Mary-Kay Wilmers offered a sage insight: "It seems that the American left also is claimed by the Israel lobby." I didn’t fully get it at the time. She was a leftish Jew, but she had glimpsed the extent to which American leftwing Jewish intellectual life shares the Zionist concerns of neoconservatives: as American Jews, we are guardians of the Jewish state, and it is threatened with extinction, and we must see to it that American power is deployed against Israel’s enemies.
This is the best framework in which to look at Brian Lehrer’s interview on WNYC public radio New York two days ago with Frank Gaffney, a leading neocon. Lehrer is progressive and thoughtful and has one of the best radio shows in the country. His politics are New York Jewish libleft: he would never platform a guest opposing abortion rights or opposing gay rights (without fierce opposition). But for 20 minutes or so he gave unchecked access to a neoconservative offering anti-Islamic views.
Gaffney said that by means of jihad and "stealth jihad," Islamists are trying to impose Sharia law around the world, including in the U.S. The Fort Hood massacre is a sign of this. These radical Islamists want to defeat the west, and they operate in a lot of "godforsaken" countries, including Yemen and the Sudan.
And Lehrer thanked Gaffney for these statements.
The strongest counterpoint he offered was when he quoted Jerrold Nadler, the NY congressman who is a good anti-war congressman except when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Lehrer said that Nadler might agree with your "premise" about who the enemy is, Mr. Gaffney, but he would oppose your means. Some demurral.
Lehrer pushed Gaffney to say why the U.S. needed a giant nuclear arsenal, and Gaffney said, for peacemaking, and then specifically cited Hillary’s threat during the 2008 campaign to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. So the neocons’ Israel-centrism came into the conversation, without any commentary or demurral from Lehrer.
The issue here isn’t merely Gaffney/the neocons’ incredible survival in the public space in spite of the Iraq war disaster they pushed (which is about money). It is progressives’ collusion in that survival. During the Iraq buildup, many progressives became neoliberals; and Lehrer’s acceptance of Gaffney’s nutty statements about taking on Islam everywhere demonstrates the continuing passivity of the left when it comes to these feverish ideas.
How is this evidence that the left is claimed by the Israel lobby? Because at the core of Gaffney’s ideas are the claims that Israel is a democracy and that Arab/Muslim anger toward Israel has nothing to do with its policies/occupation but with its very existence. And at the core of Lehrer’s passivity with respect to neocon nostrums is (this is surmise but as a fellow media Jew I’m confident of it): a Jewish identification with the needs of the state and a reluctance to criticize it publicly...MORE...LINK
--------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
It just goes to show how Judeofascism colonizes and co-opts nearly everything it touches on behalf of its own interests and agenda.
Also, I have to question how "liberal" Diaspora Jewry has ever really been. I don't doubt that it prescribes liberalism, "tolerance" (for Jews, primarily) and open borders for the countries in which it dwells in the Diaspora out of its own narrow self-interests, (while prescribing the opposite of those policies for Israel), and Weiss cites traditional liberal Jewish-American support for abortion and homosexual rights as proof of its liberalism, for example, but I doubt the majority of American Jews would be very supportive of the abortion of the unwanted product of a coupling between two Jews (on the other hand, many would likely advocate for the abortion of a wanted product of a Jew/Gentile coupling out of racialism, which might explain a component of their support for abortion); and how supportive of homosexual marriage between two Jews would Jewry be? Homosexual marriage between Gentiles, though, it's all for, because that leads to fewer enemy Gentile pests down the line, and is another means of softening-up Gentile society in order to make it less resistant to Judeofascism and its goal of co-opting Gentile resources in pursuit of its own interests and agenda.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Zionists demand Germany pay hundreds of millions more in Holocaust reparations; (No word on Jewry compensating Palestinians for ongoing Nakba)
Israel to seek another 1b euros Holocaust in reparations from Germany
(Haaretz) -- By Moti Bassok --
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will demand between 450 million to 1 billion euros in reparations from Germany on behalf of Jews forced into slave labor during the Holocaust, it emerged on Sunday.
Minister Steinitz will reportedly present German government with the demand on behalf of 30,000 Israeli survivors of forced labor in wartime ghettos, during a joint session scheduled to take place in early 2010 in Berlin.
Israeli officials estimate that according to a ghetto workers act passed by the German parliament in 2002, all of the 30,000 living forced labor survivors are entitled to a retroactive payment of approximately 15,000 euros each...MORE...LINK
(Haaretz) -- By Moti Bassok --
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will demand between 450 million to 1 billion euros in reparations from Germany on behalf of Jews forced into slave labor during the Holocaust, it emerged on Sunday.
Minister Steinitz will reportedly present German government with the demand on behalf of 30,000 Israeli survivors of forced labor in wartime ghettos, during a joint session scheduled to take place in early 2010 in Berlin.
Israeli officials estimate that according to a ghetto workers act passed by the German parliament in 2002, all of the 30,000 living forced labor survivors are entitled to a retroactive payment of approximately 15,000 euros each...MORE...LINK
Jewry plays Holocaust-card yet again in continuing program to manipulate Catholic Church
Jewish leaders condemn Vatican's plan to venerate Pope Pius XII
(CNN)
Jerusalem, Israel (CNN) -- It was a Vatican announcement guaranteed to spark controversy.
"With this decree the Pope says that Pius XII is a person that we have to admire, recognize as a model of Christian virtues, and it is very, very important that the church gives officially this appreciation of this important pope that we know was guiding the church in very difficult times," said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi.
The move by the sitting Pope, Benedict XVI, brings the controversial World War II pontiff, Pius XII, a step closer to sainthood, despite persistent allegations from historians and Jewish groups that he did not do enough to help prevent the murder of six million Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany.
In Israel the news has been met with a mixture of disappointment, bewilderment and anger by Jewish leaders.
Rabbi Yisrael Lau told CNN: "I say with all the respect. Don't do it, especially not now when many survivors are still alive and it will hurt them deeply knowing that the man who could save, could do much more and did not do it. Don't make him holy. This is a shame I think for the church. It is not a good education for generations to come."
The Vatican maintains Pius XII worked quietly behind the scenes to save Jewish lives during the war, but church archives that might shed more light on his actions remain sealed despite repeated requests from historians for access...MORE...LINK
(CNN)
Jerusalem, Israel (CNN) -- It was a Vatican announcement guaranteed to spark controversy.
"With this decree the Pope says that Pius XII is a person that we have to admire, recognize as a model of Christian virtues, and it is very, very important that the church gives officially this appreciation of this important pope that we know was guiding the church in very difficult times," said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi.
The move by the sitting Pope, Benedict XVI, brings the controversial World War II pontiff, Pius XII, a step closer to sainthood, despite persistent allegations from historians and Jewish groups that he did not do enough to help prevent the murder of six million Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany.
In Israel the news has been met with a mixture of disappointment, bewilderment and anger by Jewish leaders.
Rabbi Yisrael Lau told CNN: "I say with all the respect. Don't do it, especially not now when many survivors are still alive and it will hurt them deeply knowing that the man who could save, could do much more and did not do it. Don't make him holy. This is a shame I think for the church. It is not a good education for generations to come."
The Vatican maintains Pius XII worked quietly behind the scenes to save Jewish lives during the war, but church archives that might shed more light on his actions remain sealed despite repeated requests from historians for access...MORE...LINK
Venal and cowardly collaborators with Judeofascist colonization of America stay shamefully silent on its crimes in the Levant, too
Oh just imagine if the Palestinian resistance movement were happening in Iran!
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
Imagine if the Palestinian resistance movement were taking place in Iran!
Dashing Mohammad Othman now rotting in detention would be a global cause. The middle-of-the-night arrest of Abdallah Abu Rahmah would be on the Nightly News. The New York Times would tell the stories of international freedom riders, the Gaza Freedom March, and the role of Twitter in the resistance.
The video of Abu Rahme’s murder during a peaceful protest of the unending landgrab would be viral. The all-night protests of the East Jerusalem evictions that are being carried out a racial basis– ethnic cleansing!– would fire the conscience of kings and counselors. Columnists would go on TV and decry the crushing of a popular resistance movement. College students would sing out the words, Sheikh Jarrah! and talk about 8000 political prisoners and a Foreign Minister whose foreign policy is directed at the Arabs inside his own country…
The Council on Foreign Relations would talk about the regime’s possession of nukes, and how that affects the outcome of the popular movement.
Politico would righteously expose the tax-deductible U.S. sponsors of the landgrab and ask, Where is the Israeli FW de Klerk???
Wake up now: it’s not happening in Iran. It’s happening in Israel and Palestine, the sovereign territory of the Israel lobby. So our politicians are silent, our media are ball-gagged and duct-taped, Jewish leadership talks about the Holocaust and the existential threat to the Jewish people, the most important political website is a bed of Israel supporters (from Josh Gerstein to Josh Kraushaar), and the left has its tail coiled tightly between its legs...MORE...LINK
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
Imagine if the Palestinian resistance movement were taking place in Iran!
Dashing Mohammad Othman now rotting in detention would be a global cause. The middle-of-the-night arrest of Abdallah Abu Rahmah would be on the Nightly News. The New York Times would tell the stories of international freedom riders, the Gaza Freedom March, and the role of Twitter in the resistance.
The video of Abu Rahme’s murder during a peaceful protest of the unending landgrab would be viral. The all-night protests of the East Jerusalem evictions that are being carried out a racial basis– ethnic cleansing!– would fire the conscience of kings and counselors. Columnists would go on TV and decry the crushing of a popular resistance movement. College students would sing out the words, Sheikh Jarrah! and talk about 8000 political prisoners and a Foreign Minister whose foreign policy is directed at the Arabs inside his own country…
The Council on Foreign Relations would talk about the regime’s possession of nukes, and how that affects the outcome of the popular movement.
Politico would righteously expose the tax-deductible U.S. sponsors of the landgrab and ask, Where is the Israeli FW de Klerk???
Wake up now: it’s not happening in Iran. It’s happening in Israel and Palestine, the sovereign territory of the Israel lobby. So our politicians are silent, our media are ball-gagged and duct-taped, Jewish leadership talks about the Holocaust and the existential threat to the Jewish people, the most important political website is a bed of Israel supporters (from Josh Gerstein to Josh Kraushaar), and the left has its tail coiled tightly between its legs...MORE...LINK
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Washington forces American taxpayers to underwrite a gestating theocracy: "Step by step" plans to subordinate Israel to Jewish law
Justice Minister: Step by step, Torah law will become binding in Israel
By Yair Ettinger, Jonathan Lis and Ofra Edelman
Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman took to the Knesset podium Tuesday to try to calm the political storm he caused this week when he said that "step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel." Neeman made his controversial remarks Monday evening at a convention on Jewish law in Jerusalem.
On Tuesday Neeman clarified his statements, saying they had been taken out of context. He said he meant that since the Israeli justice system is overburdened, an alternative system like the rabbinical court system could help relieve the pressure.
After his words on Monday were broadcast on Army Radio a day later, Neeman appeared in the Knesset. But he did not retract his statements. "I hear the calls from all directions and I want to point things in the right direction," Neeman told the Knesset.
"It is difficult for me to accept the things that were attributed to me, as though I had said that the laws of this country should be replaced with Torah laws. Yesterday I emphasized the importance of the rabbinical court system to the State of Israel. The Knesset is the legislator in Israel, and the interpretation of its laws is determined by the courts."
The justice minister reiterated his praise for the courts that "resolve financial disputes in accordance with the principles of Jewish law."
He says that "we must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel. The Torah has the complete solution to all the questions we are dealing with."...MORE...LINK
By Yair Ettinger, Jonathan Lis and Ofra Edelman
Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman took to the Knesset podium Tuesday to try to calm the political storm he caused this week when he said that "step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel." Neeman made his controversial remarks Monday evening at a convention on Jewish law in Jerusalem.
On Tuesday Neeman clarified his statements, saying they had been taken out of context. He said he meant that since the Israeli justice system is overburdened, an alternative system like the rabbinical court system could help relieve the pressure.
After his words on Monday were broadcast on Army Radio a day later, Neeman appeared in the Knesset. But he did not retract his statements. "I hear the calls from all directions and I want to point things in the right direction," Neeman told the Knesset.
"It is difficult for me to accept the things that were attributed to me, as though I had said that the laws of this country should be replaced with Torah laws. Yesterday I emphasized the importance of the rabbinical court system to the State of Israel. The Knesset is the legislator in Israel, and the interpretation of its laws is determined by the courts."
The justice minister reiterated his praise for the courts that "resolve financial disputes in accordance with the principles of Jewish law."
He says that "we must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel. The Torah has the complete solution to all the questions we are dealing with."...MORE...LINK
Carter reverts to groveling, spineless liberalism so common to his presidency, begs Zionists for forgiveness
Jimmy Carter to U.S. Jews: Forgive me for stigmatizing Israel
By Haaretz Service
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has apologized to the American Jewish community for 'stigmatizing Israel' and asked for forgiveness for his actions, the JTA reported on Monday.
"We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel," Carter wrote in a letter to the JTA.
"As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so," Carter wrote, referring to the prayer said on Yom Kippur in which Jews ask God for forgiveness for any sins.
Carter has angered American Jews in the past by likening Israeli policy in the West Bank to apartheid South Africa in his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Flashback: Alan Dershowitz says Zionist Democrats banished Carter from Jewish-owned Democratic Party
By Haaretz Service
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has apologized to the American Jewish community for 'stigmatizing Israel' and asked for forgiveness for his actions, the JTA reported on Monday.
"We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel," Carter wrote in a letter to the JTA.
"As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so," Carter wrote, referring to the prayer said on Yom Kippur in which Jews ask God for forgiveness for any sins.
Carter has angered American Jews in the past by likening Israeli policy in the West Bank to apartheid South Africa in his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Flashback: Alan Dershowitz says Zionist Democrats banished Carter from Jewish-owned Democratic Party
Monday, December 21, 2009
Why is a menorah allowed on the White House lawn, but not a cross?
WILL THE HANUKKAH MENORAH TOPPLING
START A TREND?
(Real Zionist News) -- By Brother Nathanael Kapner --
THE JOINING OF JEWRY’S CULTURAL & POLITICAL DOMINANCE IN AMERICA was recently highlighted in a national event held on the “Ellipse” of the White House south lawn on December 13, 2009.
The event, The Lighting Of The US National Menorah, was sponsored by the joint collaboration of The American Friends of Lubavitch and the Jewish-dominated Executive Branch of the United States of America. The US Air Force Band was on hand to offer a “trumpet salute” to the new national symbol.
With a yarmulke on his head, White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was the guest of honor at this year’s White House Hanukkah celebration. Ascending upon a cherry picker, (paid for by US tax payers), that lifted him up to light one of the candles on the 40-foot-tall US National Menorah, Emanuel stood with Rabbi Levi Shemtov to confer the executive branch’s affirmation of the Jewish holiday.
Jewry’s oft-asserted “separation of Church and State” was not shouted out by either the ADL or the ACLU in protest of this obvious mixing of religion and government.
What the Jews really have in mind when calling upon “Separation of Church and State” to protest any public expression of Christianity (not Judaism), is to establish the “Uniting of Synagogue and State” in America.
Now that Americans have become habituated to saying “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!” — the Jews, after gaining equal time for their holiday, Hanukkah — have succeeded in TAKING OVER our once Christian season. In other words, give the Jews an inch and they will eventually TAKE IT ALL. (”Happy Holidays!” is a Jewish lie perpetrated in the 1960’s. Prior to that date there was only ONE HOLY DAY in December, and that was Christmas.)
In America it has become illegal to place a Cross or any Christian symbol on government property. But the Anti-Christ symbol of the Jewish Menorah which makes the statement, “Your Christ Is Not The Messiah,” is not only permitted on government property, but is exalted and applauded.
Due to the Jewish-run-and-funded ACLU creating a Supreme Court legal precedent allowing “cultural symbols,” that is JEWISH SYMBOLS, as “constitutional cultural displays” - but Christian symbols, as “unconstitutional religious displays” - the Jews have seized rule over religious expression in the public square...MORE...LINK
START A TREND?
(Real Zionist News) -- By Brother Nathanael Kapner --
THE JOINING OF JEWRY’S CULTURAL & POLITICAL DOMINANCE IN AMERICA was recently highlighted in a national event held on the “Ellipse” of the White House south lawn on December 13, 2009.
The event, The Lighting Of The US National Menorah, was sponsored by the joint collaboration of The American Friends of Lubavitch and the Jewish-dominated Executive Branch of the United States of America. The US Air Force Band was on hand to offer a “trumpet salute” to the new national symbol.
With a yarmulke on his head, White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was the guest of honor at this year’s White House Hanukkah celebration. Ascending upon a cherry picker, (paid for by US tax payers), that lifted him up to light one of the candles on the 40-foot-tall US National Menorah, Emanuel stood with Rabbi Levi Shemtov to confer the executive branch’s affirmation of the Jewish holiday.
Jewry’s oft-asserted “separation of Church and State” was not shouted out by either the ADL or the ACLU in protest of this obvious mixing of religion and government.
What the Jews really have in mind when calling upon “Separation of Church and State” to protest any public expression of Christianity (not Judaism), is to establish the “Uniting of Synagogue and State” in America.
Now that Americans have become habituated to saying “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!” — the Jews, after gaining equal time for their holiday, Hanukkah — have succeeded in TAKING OVER our once Christian season. In other words, give the Jews an inch and they will eventually TAKE IT ALL. (”Happy Holidays!” is a Jewish lie perpetrated in the 1960’s. Prior to that date there was only ONE HOLY DAY in December, and that was Christmas.)
In America it has become illegal to place a Cross or any Christian symbol on government property. But the Anti-Christ symbol of the Jewish Menorah which makes the statement, “Your Christ Is Not The Messiah,” is not only permitted on government property, but is exalted and applauded.
Due to the Jewish-run-and-funded ACLU creating a Supreme Court legal precedent allowing “cultural symbols,” that is JEWISH SYMBOLS, as “constitutional cultural displays” - but Christian symbols, as “unconstitutional religious displays” - the Jews have seized rule over religious expression in the public square...MORE...LINK
Israel/Obama rift a misdirection myth; Zionists couldn't be happier with administration's secret maneuvers on their behalf
U.S.-Israeli Arms Cooperation Quietly Growing
(Uruknet) -- By Nathan Guttman --
Washington — Leaders in Washington and Jerusalem have publicly locked horns over the issue of West Bank settlements. And Israeli public opinion has largely viewed America’s new administration as unfriendly. But behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing.
Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge — an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Among the new initiatives taken by the administration, the Forward has learned, are adjustments in a massive arms deal the Bush administration made with Arab Gulf states in response to Israeli concerns. There have also been upgrades in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation on missile defense. And a deal is expected next year that will see one of the United States’ most advanced fighter jets go to Israel with some of America’s most sensitive new technology.
Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration’s response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as "warm and immediate."
"We came to the Obama administration and said, 'Listen, we have a problem here,’" Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "The administration’s reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge]."...MORE...LINK
(Uruknet) -- By Nathan Guttman --
Washington — Leaders in Washington and Jerusalem have publicly locked horns over the issue of West Bank settlements. And Israeli public opinion has largely viewed America’s new administration as unfriendly. But behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing.
Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge — an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Among the new initiatives taken by the administration, the Forward has learned, are adjustments in a massive arms deal the Bush administration made with Arab Gulf states in response to Israeli concerns. There have also been upgrades in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation on missile defense. And a deal is expected next year that will see one of the United States’ most advanced fighter jets go to Israel with some of America’s most sensitive new technology.
Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration’s response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as "warm and immediate."
"We came to the Obama administration and said, 'Listen, we have a problem here,’" Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "The administration’s reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge]."...MORE...LINK
In the wake of Israeli organ-theft confirmation, a question: What else have the Judeofascists been lying about, and for how long?
(By Chris Moore) -- In the wake of the confirmation of the veracity of previous reports alleging illegal Israeli government organ harvesting by Israeli sources themselves, we now know that all the Jewish Zionists and their collaborators and allies who reacted with such outraged accusations as “blood libel” to claims that the Zionist regime was stealing organs from Palestinians were either lying through their teeth in order to mask the truth, or didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.
This whole episode and others like it also begin to raise questions about the historical narrative we in the West have been spoon fed by Judeofascist “scholars” and activists (and those who have partnered with them on both the Left and Right) for so long, too -- particularly about the alleged horrible “persecution” of Jewry by Christians and others throughout the course of Western civilization.
Were, for example, the periodical pogroms carried out from medieval times forward in Russia and Europe by those who came into regular contact with organized Jewry really out of the clear blue, completely unprovoked and totally unjustified? Or is this historical narrative of persecution just fabricated revisionist history, constructed by Judeofascists to mask and justify their contemporary murderous Zionist chicanery and political agenda as “defensive” and necessary to prevent another Holocaust of the Jewish people, and to extract money and material support from the West? And if the Judeofascists were lying about this narrative, just as they have once again been caught lying today, what were the fascist elements of organized Jewry really up to that might have provoked such ferocious attacks by Christians over those many years? And has the ferocity of those attacks also been exaggerated?
And what of the Holocaust itself? Judeofascists maintain it came out of the traditional European and Russian persecution of Jews, and was essentially another unprovoked pogrom in a long line, albeit more massive than any previous. Of course, thanks to the work of scholars like Yuri Slezkine and Kevin Macdonald, we now know that Jewish Bolshevism (along with Stalinism) used the totalitarian Soviet State to systematically murdered millions of Christians, peasants, dissidents and others for years on end prior to the Holocaust, which established the horrendous precedents of State-engineered mass murder followed by Hitler, Nazis and the fascists. Why, the Nazis even seemed to react with counter-emulation to the modus-operandi of the Judeofascists in other areas as well, including the formulation of mythological history, claims of historical Choseness (Nazis called it Aryanism), and a fanatical emphasis on group victimhood and historical grievance.
So is the widely retailed Holocaust narrative yet another example of an incomplete historical snapshot that informs neither the context nor the back story, just as the widely retailed (in the West) Zionist narrative of Israeli "victimization" at the hands of Arabs and Muslims is a snapshot that never fully informs the reality of the latter's plight at the hands of the Judeofascists? It would certainly seem so.
All of this begs another question: If a dirty bomb went off in the center of Tel Aviv tomorrow, would future Judeofascists revise history to maintain that Jewish Zionist Israelis were innocent as doves in the years leading up to the event, never harmed a hair on any Arab’s head, and were tormented and attacked by Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians simply for being Jews (just as they were allegedly singled out by Christians in the West), which culminated in the dirty bomb? Undoubtedly.
But of course, as the Zionist organ-theft back story confirms, we now know Judeofascists and their political allies on both the Left and Right lie through their teeth as routine about nearly everything. The only question that remains is: What else have they been lying about, and for how long?
This whole episode and others like it also begin to raise questions about the historical narrative we in the West have been spoon fed by Judeofascist “scholars” and activists (and those who have partnered with them on both the Left and Right) for so long, too -- particularly about the alleged horrible “persecution” of Jewry by Christians and others throughout the course of Western civilization.
Were, for example, the periodical pogroms carried out from medieval times forward in Russia and Europe by those who came into regular contact with organized Jewry really out of the clear blue, completely unprovoked and totally unjustified? Or is this historical narrative of persecution just fabricated revisionist history, constructed by Judeofascists to mask and justify their contemporary murderous Zionist chicanery and political agenda as “defensive” and necessary to prevent another Holocaust of the Jewish people, and to extract money and material support from the West? And if the Judeofascists were lying about this narrative, just as they have once again been caught lying today, what were the fascist elements of organized Jewry really up to that might have provoked such ferocious attacks by Christians over those many years? And has the ferocity of those attacks also been exaggerated?
And what of the Holocaust itself? Judeofascists maintain it came out of the traditional European and Russian persecution of Jews, and was essentially another unprovoked pogrom in a long line, albeit more massive than any previous. Of course, thanks to the work of scholars like Yuri Slezkine and Kevin Macdonald, we now know that Jewish Bolshevism (along with Stalinism) used the totalitarian Soviet State to systematically murdered millions of Christians, peasants, dissidents and others for years on end prior to the Holocaust, which established the horrendous precedents of State-engineered mass murder followed by Hitler, Nazis and the fascists. Why, the Nazis even seemed to react with counter-emulation to the modus-operandi of the Judeofascists in other areas as well, including the formulation of mythological history, claims of historical Choseness (Nazis called it Aryanism), and a fanatical emphasis on group victimhood and historical grievance.
So is the widely retailed Holocaust narrative yet another example of an incomplete historical snapshot that informs neither the context nor the back story, just as the widely retailed (in the West) Zionist narrative of Israeli "victimization" at the hands of Arabs and Muslims is a snapshot that never fully informs the reality of the latter's plight at the hands of the Judeofascists? It would certainly seem so.
All of this begs another question: If a dirty bomb went off in the center of Tel Aviv tomorrow, would future Judeofascists revise history to maintain that Jewish Zionist Israelis were innocent as doves in the years leading up to the event, never harmed a hair on any Arab’s head, and were tormented and attacked by Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians simply for being Jews (just as they were allegedly singled out by Christians in the West), which culminated in the dirty bomb? Undoubtedly.
But of course, as the Zionist organ-theft back story confirms, we now know Judeofascists and their political allies on both the Left and Right lie through their teeth as routine about nearly everything. The only question that remains is: What else have they been lying about, and for how long?
Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent
(guardian.co.uk) -- By Ian Black --
Israel has admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.
The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".
The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran's state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.
Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab MP, said the report incriminated the Israeli army.
The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.
Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."
Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.
She was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected, she felt the interview must be made public, because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, [is] something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."
Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic "blood libel". Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country. The foreign minister then cancelled a visit to Israel, just as Sweden was taking over the EU's rotating presidency...MORE...LINK
Israel has admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.
The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".
The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran's state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.
Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab MP, said the report incriminated the Israeli army.
The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.
Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."
Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.
She was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected, she felt the interview must be made public, because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, [is] something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."
Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic "blood libel". Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country. The foreign minister then cancelled a visit to Israel, just as Sweden was taking over the EU's rotating presidency...MORE...LINK
Petras critical survey of Zionism from the Left, but includes criticism of Zionist-servile and complicit "hegemonized American liberals and leftists"
Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics
(The People's Voice) -- By James Petras
...The Globalization of Zionist Power
In Canada under the Conservative Harper regime, Zionists have secured unprecedented influence and diplomatic and material support for Israel’s top priorities.67 These include support for the annexation of most of Palestinian East Jerusalem; repudiation of the Goldstone Report; support for Israeli war crimes during the 2008/09 invasion of Gaza; Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and pending legislations criminalizing criticism of Zionism as “anti-Semitism” among a host of other pro-Israel acts, decrees and trade privileges. The opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties compete with the Conservatives in pandering to the pro-Israel power configurations in order to secure campaign financing from millionaire real estate, financial and media moguls. In contrast, major Canadian trade unions and anti-Zionist Jewish campus and community organizations have organized boycotts of Israeli goods and academic organizations serving the bloody occupation. In France, life-long Zionist zealot, Foreign Minister Bernard “Bernie” Kouchner, has embraced Netanyahu’s extreme position of “unconditional negotiations” which allows massive land seizures and the construction of ‘Jews-only’ apartment complexes on illegally confiscated Palestinian land to continue while endless inconsequential “peace” negotiations take place.68 This position has been supported by Uber-Zionist Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
In Russia, eight of the top nine billionaire oligarchs have claimed dual Israeli citizenship. They illegally and violently seized hundreds of billions of dollars worth of formerly state-owned mines, factories and banks, and then transferred part of their illicit fortunes to overseas banks in Israel, the US, London and the money-laundering offshore island states and tax-havens. Zionist power peaked during the debauched Presidency of Yeltsin in the 1990’s, but residual influence is evident in the Putin-Mevedev regime. This is particularly apparent in the US- Russian accords to increase sanctions on Iran, a policy that jeopardizes billions of dollars in Russian investments and trade with Iran. Russia has resolutely refused to pressure Israel over its colonial settlement expansion. In a similar manner, Israel retains a decisive influence over Holland and Germany’s Middle East policy, via the exploitation of the Holocaust Memory, the Ann Frank legacy and the pressure of pro-Israel economic sectors.
The newest example of the “globalization” of Zionist power and the drive for new Israeli spheres of influence is found in Latin America. Major US Zionist organizations have contributed substantial financial resources to building, advising and orienting their counterparts, especially in Argentina, Brazil and Peru, while engaging in a systematic effort to curry favor with the US by demonizing President Chavez for his forthright defense of Palestinian rights and condemnation of Israel’s crimes against humanity during its blitz of Gaza.69 For these acts of courage the 51 US Jewish organizations branded Chavez an “anti-Semitic”, even going so far as to accuse him of fomenting an assault on a Jewish community center in Caracas. When the arsonists were arrested, the assault was revealed to have been carried out by center employees hired by the local Jewish notables.70...
Jewish-Zionist Cultural-Political Hegemony in the US
Jewish Zionist hegemony over the political narrative in the US has grown in recent years, evidenced by the support or, at most, tepid criticism, found in the major literary and political journals and magazines.80 In the beginning the ZPC imposed their view that Israeli conquest and wars against the native people of Palestine and its Muslim neighbors was a war of “national liberation” or “independence”. This first phase culminated with Jewish-Zionist success in convincing President Johnson to cover up Israel’s bombing of the USS Liberty during the Seven Day War.81 From the 1970-90 Zionist-Jewish hegemony extended from its traditional bastion in the film, TV and radio mass media to a whole series of former left-of-center and conservative weekly and monthly publications and the establishment of new publications on the far right.82 The formerly liberal New Republic became a pulpit for virulent attacks on any critics of Israel.83 Commentary, formerly a liberal cultural journal, became a mouthpiece for neo-conservative apologists of Israeli wars … and war crimes …The conservative National Review moved firmly into the ‘Israel First’ camp, purging any critical dissent on Israel and its unconditional supporters in the US. As Zionist hegemony in intellectual and popular cultural print and mass media was established, committed Israel-Firsters gained influential positions in US State Department and foreign policy apparatus.84 “Think Tanks”, thinly veiled propaganda mills, produced pro-Israel position papers.85 Their staff elbowed their way into the mass media as “experts” and into foreign policy advisory positions serving various politicians and Administrations. They rose to the highest levels of government in the Clinton Administration and expanded further during the Bush-Obama regimes.86 Zionist entry into key positions of structural political power mirrored their long march through the cultural institutions. Their influence was reinforced by billionaire Jewish-Zionists’ contributions to established think tanks, like the Brookings Institute, and to both political parties. Contributions influenced the nominations and candidates for office from local mayors to the Presidency of the United States.
It is estimated that as high as 60% of Democratic Party contributions came from Israel First benefactors, securing an automatic 90% Congressional vote on whatever issue the Israeli Foreign Office marks as priority for its US Fifth Column.87 With very rare exceptions neither liberal, progressive, radical or “Marxist” writers, academics, editors, journalists broach the issue of Zionist-Jewish cultural-political hegemony, nor its economic structural underpinnings.88 The “left” is equally hegemonized by Zionist-Jewish influence, to the point that not a few join the vile ad hominem chorus slandering critics of the ZPC as “veering on anti-Semitism:…89
Even today, at the end of the first year of the Obama regime, the Zionist presence in strategic positions in foreign policy making has been ignored by leftist and liberal critics of US Middle East policy. Few, if any critics, look at the structural determinants of that policy. One is more likely to find “data” in the business press. For example, an article in the Financial Times, criticizing President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “inconsistent” position on Israeli settlements in Palestine’s West Bank, points to the “…problems with the administrations message – including its inconsistent policy on Israel-Palestine – can be traced back to the White House, where Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (dual Israeli-US citizen) keeps a firm grip on foreign policy. Some ex-diplomats say they have never seen power so centralized … Mrs. Clinton’s own deputy, Jim Steinberg, is widely perceived as a White House enforcer, who polices even relatively minor policy statements that often leaves State Department spokesmen (sic) mouthing near meaningless talking points.”90 Emanuel has been active in the Israeli military and is suspected of ties to its spy agency (MOSSAD). Steinberg is just a high powered “native born” Israel Firster, marginalizing the State Department from any alternative policies to pandering to Israel and its US Fifth Column.
Hegemonized American liberals and leftists maintain their “support” for Israel on the basis of the fiction that the “bad” Israelis are the fanatical Likud party leaders while Labor and Kadima party leaders and the Israeli people want peace and a just settlement. Unfortunately for these supporters of “progressive” Zionism, the Defense Minister Barak who directed the bloody massacre in Gaza is the leader of the Labor Party and is backed by his party in support of all the new aggressive Israeli land seizures and colonial settlements. The genocidal wars and violent settlements have the support of the vast majority of the Israeli Jewish population. Public opinion polls carried out by the Israel National News published in mid-November 2009 reveals that 53.2% of Israeli’s say the solution to the conflict with the Palestinian people is their forceful dispossession and ethnic cleansing – “transfer” is the Zionist euphemism for a crime against humanity.91 Such are the “just wars” receiving unconditional support by the ‘51’ Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations.
The point is that not even the Israeli-Jewish majority’s embrace of a totalitarian final solution shakes Zionist hegemony in the US. The embrace of inconvenient positions, such as genocide approval, is not publicized in the Zionist mass media. Instead we continue to hear the chattering classes mouthing the clichés of a “dialogue” and “negotiated solution” between the expropriators and the dispossessed.
The question of Zionist cultural and political hegemony, where it is even been acknowledged by non-Jews and Jews, revolves around several mistaken partially distorted conceptions. One key idea held by anti-Semites and Zionists alike is that Jews possess special qualities (“blood” or “genetic”). Many cite the importance of a Jewish historical tradition, which emphasizes education and learning. Others still, claim success and power comes from knowledge, merit and achievement. Recent studies refute the idea of a special, unique Jewish “gene pool” – as most contemporary Askanazi Jews are descendants of Central Asian Khazari converts to Judaism in the 8th Century A.D., who subsequently were pushed into Eastern Europe by the Mongols and beyond.92 Israelis are not descendants of the ancient Jews of Israel, many of whom converted to Christianity and later Islam and whose descendants are most certainly the modern-day Palestinians (as conceded by early Zionists myth-makers, like David Ben-Gurion).
Secondly, for over one thousand years Jewish “scholarship” revolved around sterile debates and exegeses of the minutiae of the Talmud and bodies of law based on religious myths. Critical philosophers like Spinoza were looked at as renegades. The rise of scholarship and scientific thinking among Jews coincided with the growth of the Enlightenment and the establishment of liberal laws, which opened doors for promising Jewish scholars, scientists to break out of the sterile confines of the Rabbinal intellectual ghettos. Many of the great thinkers were called “Jews” because of their ancestry, like Spinoza, Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky although they did not practice Judaism nor identify as “Jews”. Recognition and success of Jews came from business and financial activity as well as from occupations like money managers in the West and overseers of feudal lords in PolandP.93 A Jewish authored scholarly history of the Jewish people was not written till the 19th century and even then it treated biblical legends as fact.94
Equally questionable is the notion that the rise of Jewish-Zionist hegemony is a product of “merit” or “achievement”. But here we must distinguish between the mass of Jews who occupy middle or lower middleclass positions in society and those few individuals who have made major contributions. Moreover it is important to not confuse the rise of individuals to economic power through the exploitation of labor, the extraction of rent from tenants and speculation and achievement through “merit”, namely, skills applied to advancing knowledge for the greater good of working people. Zionists’ “superior race” theorists lump successful Wall Street speculators with innovative scholars as examples of “Jewish superiority” justifying or “explaining” hegemony. Zionist race theories, which claim a homogenous ‘Jewish’ people bound by common history and horizontal and vertical ties, is more an ideological manifesto ignoring profound class and even ideological divisions (at least in the past and perhaps emerging today).
Jewish-Zionist hegemony in the US is the result of a supra or meta-historical mythology with mystical religious foundations in the Old Testament. The rise of American Zionism is tied to a virulent exclusivist tribal religious loyalty to Israel as the “mother state”. The driving force of US Zionism is the subordination of US civil society organizations and the instrumentalization of the US military and economic resources to service Israeli colonial expansion and projections of power in the Middle East.
What needs to be understood is that the present subjection of our Middle East policy to the Zionist Power Configuration is a result of the latter’s accumulation of power and political-cultural conditions within the US, which weakened the articulation of alternative values and policies and a defense of American working class interests embodied in a democratic foreign policy...MORE...LINK
(The People's Voice) -- By James Petras
...The Globalization of Zionist Power
In Canada under the Conservative Harper regime, Zionists have secured unprecedented influence and diplomatic and material support for Israel’s top priorities.67 These include support for the annexation of most of Palestinian East Jerusalem; repudiation of the Goldstone Report; support for Israeli war crimes during the 2008/09 invasion of Gaza; Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and pending legislations criminalizing criticism of Zionism as “anti-Semitism” among a host of other pro-Israel acts, decrees and trade privileges. The opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties compete with the Conservatives in pandering to the pro-Israel power configurations in order to secure campaign financing from millionaire real estate, financial and media moguls. In contrast, major Canadian trade unions and anti-Zionist Jewish campus and community organizations have organized boycotts of Israeli goods and academic organizations serving the bloody occupation. In France, life-long Zionist zealot, Foreign Minister Bernard “Bernie” Kouchner, has embraced Netanyahu’s extreme position of “unconditional negotiations” which allows massive land seizures and the construction of ‘Jews-only’ apartment complexes on illegally confiscated Palestinian land to continue while endless inconsequential “peace” negotiations take place.68 This position has been supported by Uber-Zionist Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
In Russia, eight of the top nine billionaire oligarchs have claimed dual Israeli citizenship. They illegally and violently seized hundreds of billions of dollars worth of formerly state-owned mines, factories and banks, and then transferred part of their illicit fortunes to overseas banks in Israel, the US, London and the money-laundering offshore island states and tax-havens. Zionist power peaked during the debauched Presidency of Yeltsin in the 1990’s, but residual influence is evident in the Putin-Mevedev regime. This is particularly apparent in the US- Russian accords to increase sanctions on Iran, a policy that jeopardizes billions of dollars in Russian investments and trade with Iran. Russia has resolutely refused to pressure Israel over its colonial settlement expansion. In a similar manner, Israel retains a decisive influence over Holland and Germany’s Middle East policy, via the exploitation of the Holocaust Memory, the Ann Frank legacy and the pressure of pro-Israel economic sectors.
The newest example of the “globalization” of Zionist power and the drive for new Israeli spheres of influence is found in Latin America. Major US Zionist organizations have contributed substantial financial resources to building, advising and orienting their counterparts, especially in Argentina, Brazil and Peru, while engaging in a systematic effort to curry favor with the US by demonizing President Chavez for his forthright defense of Palestinian rights and condemnation of Israel’s crimes against humanity during its blitz of Gaza.69 For these acts of courage the 51 US Jewish organizations branded Chavez an “anti-Semitic”, even going so far as to accuse him of fomenting an assault on a Jewish community center in Caracas. When the arsonists were arrested, the assault was revealed to have been carried out by center employees hired by the local Jewish notables.70...
Jewish-Zionist Cultural-Political Hegemony in the US
Jewish Zionist hegemony over the political narrative in the US has grown in recent years, evidenced by the support or, at most, tepid criticism, found in the major literary and political journals and magazines.80 In the beginning the ZPC imposed their view that Israeli conquest and wars against the native people of Palestine and its Muslim neighbors was a war of “national liberation” or “independence”. This first phase culminated with Jewish-Zionist success in convincing President Johnson to cover up Israel’s bombing of the USS Liberty during the Seven Day War.81 From the 1970-90 Zionist-Jewish hegemony extended from its traditional bastion in the film, TV and radio mass media to a whole series of former left-of-center and conservative weekly and monthly publications and the establishment of new publications on the far right.82 The formerly liberal New Republic became a pulpit for virulent attacks on any critics of Israel.83 Commentary, formerly a liberal cultural journal, became a mouthpiece for neo-conservative apologists of Israeli wars … and war crimes …The conservative National Review moved firmly into the ‘Israel First’ camp, purging any critical dissent on Israel and its unconditional supporters in the US. As Zionist hegemony in intellectual and popular cultural print and mass media was established, committed Israel-Firsters gained influential positions in US State Department and foreign policy apparatus.84 “Think Tanks”, thinly veiled propaganda mills, produced pro-Israel position papers.85 Their staff elbowed their way into the mass media as “experts” and into foreign policy advisory positions serving various politicians and Administrations. They rose to the highest levels of government in the Clinton Administration and expanded further during the Bush-Obama regimes.86 Zionist entry into key positions of structural political power mirrored their long march through the cultural institutions. Their influence was reinforced by billionaire Jewish-Zionists’ contributions to established think tanks, like the Brookings Institute, and to both political parties. Contributions influenced the nominations and candidates for office from local mayors to the Presidency of the United States.
It is estimated that as high as 60% of Democratic Party contributions came from Israel First benefactors, securing an automatic 90% Congressional vote on whatever issue the Israeli Foreign Office marks as priority for its US Fifth Column.87 With very rare exceptions neither liberal, progressive, radical or “Marxist” writers, academics, editors, journalists broach the issue of Zionist-Jewish cultural-political hegemony, nor its economic structural underpinnings.88 The “left” is equally hegemonized by Zionist-Jewish influence, to the point that not a few join the vile ad hominem chorus slandering critics of the ZPC as “veering on anti-Semitism:…89
Even today, at the end of the first year of the Obama regime, the Zionist presence in strategic positions in foreign policy making has been ignored by leftist and liberal critics of US Middle East policy. Few, if any critics, look at the structural determinants of that policy. One is more likely to find “data” in the business press. For example, an article in the Financial Times, criticizing President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “inconsistent” position on Israeli settlements in Palestine’s West Bank, points to the “…problems with the administrations message – including its inconsistent policy on Israel-Palestine – can be traced back to the White House, where Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (dual Israeli-US citizen) keeps a firm grip on foreign policy. Some ex-diplomats say they have never seen power so centralized … Mrs. Clinton’s own deputy, Jim Steinberg, is widely perceived as a White House enforcer, who polices even relatively minor policy statements that often leaves State Department spokesmen (sic) mouthing near meaningless talking points.”90 Emanuel has been active in the Israeli military and is suspected of ties to its spy agency (MOSSAD). Steinberg is just a high powered “native born” Israel Firster, marginalizing the State Department from any alternative policies to pandering to Israel and its US Fifth Column.
Hegemonized American liberals and leftists maintain their “support” for Israel on the basis of the fiction that the “bad” Israelis are the fanatical Likud party leaders while Labor and Kadima party leaders and the Israeli people want peace and a just settlement. Unfortunately for these supporters of “progressive” Zionism, the Defense Minister Barak who directed the bloody massacre in Gaza is the leader of the Labor Party and is backed by his party in support of all the new aggressive Israeli land seizures and colonial settlements. The genocidal wars and violent settlements have the support of the vast majority of the Israeli Jewish population. Public opinion polls carried out by the Israel National News published in mid-November 2009 reveals that 53.2% of Israeli’s say the solution to the conflict with the Palestinian people is their forceful dispossession and ethnic cleansing – “transfer” is the Zionist euphemism for a crime against humanity.91 Such are the “just wars” receiving unconditional support by the ‘51’ Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations.
The point is that not even the Israeli-Jewish majority’s embrace of a totalitarian final solution shakes Zionist hegemony in the US. The embrace of inconvenient positions, such as genocide approval, is not publicized in the Zionist mass media. Instead we continue to hear the chattering classes mouthing the clichés of a “dialogue” and “negotiated solution” between the expropriators and the dispossessed.
The question of Zionist cultural and political hegemony, where it is even been acknowledged by non-Jews and Jews, revolves around several mistaken partially distorted conceptions. One key idea held by anti-Semites and Zionists alike is that Jews possess special qualities (“blood” or “genetic”). Many cite the importance of a Jewish historical tradition, which emphasizes education and learning. Others still, claim success and power comes from knowledge, merit and achievement. Recent studies refute the idea of a special, unique Jewish “gene pool” – as most contemporary Askanazi Jews are descendants of Central Asian Khazari converts to Judaism in the 8th Century A.D., who subsequently were pushed into Eastern Europe by the Mongols and beyond.92 Israelis are not descendants of the ancient Jews of Israel, many of whom converted to Christianity and later Islam and whose descendants are most certainly the modern-day Palestinians (as conceded by early Zionists myth-makers, like David Ben-Gurion).
Secondly, for over one thousand years Jewish “scholarship” revolved around sterile debates and exegeses of the minutiae of the Talmud and bodies of law based on religious myths. Critical philosophers like Spinoza were looked at as renegades. The rise of scholarship and scientific thinking among Jews coincided with the growth of the Enlightenment and the establishment of liberal laws, which opened doors for promising Jewish scholars, scientists to break out of the sterile confines of the Rabbinal intellectual ghettos. Many of the great thinkers were called “Jews” because of their ancestry, like Spinoza, Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky although they did not practice Judaism nor identify as “Jews”. Recognition and success of Jews came from business and financial activity as well as from occupations like money managers in the West and overseers of feudal lords in PolandP.93 A Jewish authored scholarly history of the Jewish people was not written till the 19th century and even then it treated biblical legends as fact.94
Equally questionable is the notion that the rise of Jewish-Zionist hegemony is a product of “merit” or “achievement”. But here we must distinguish between the mass of Jews who occupy middle or lower middleclass positions in society and those few individuals who have made major contributions. Moreover it is important to not confuse the rise of individuals to economic power through the exploitation of labor, the extraction of rent from tenants and speculation and achievement through “merit”, namely, skills applied to advancing knowledge for the greater good of working people. Zionists’ “superior race” theorists lump successful Wall Street speculators with innovative scholars as examples of “Jewish superiority” justifying or “explaining” hegemony. Zionist race theories, which claim a homogenous ‘Jewish’ people bound by common history and horizontal and vertical ties, is more an ideological manifesto ignoring profound class and even ideological divisions (at least in the past and perhaps emerging today).
Jewish-Zionist hegemony in the US is the result of a supra or meta-historical mythology with mystical religious foundations in the Old Testament. The rise of American Zionism is tied to a virulent exclusivist tribal religious loyalty to Israel as the “mother state”. The driving force of US Zionism is the subordination of US civil society organizations and the instrumentalization of the US military and economic resources to service Israeli colonial expansion and projections of power in the Middle East.
What needs to be understood is that the present subjection of our Middle East policy to the Zionist Power Configuration is a result of the latter’s accumulation of power and political-cultural conditions within the US, which weakened the articulation of alternative values and policies and a defense of American working class interests embodied in a democratic foreign policy...MORE...LINK
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Lying Jewish Zionists called the accusation "blood libel," but Israeli government admits illegal organ harvesting
Israel harvested organs in '90s without permission
By MARK LAVIE -- (AP) --
JERUSALEM — Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.
The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel's Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.
Parts of the interview were broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 TV over the weekend. In it, Hiss said, "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
The Channel 2 report said that in the 1990s, forensic specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
In a response to the TV report, the Israeli military confirmed that the practice took place. "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer," the military said in a statement quoted by Channel 2.
In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."...MORE...LINK
By MARK LAVIE -- (AP) --
JERUSALEM — Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.
The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel's Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.
Parts of the interview were broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 TV over the weekend. In it, Hiss said, "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
The Channel 2 report said that in the 1990s, forensic specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
In a response to the TV report, the Israeli military confirmed that the practice took place. "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer," the military said in a statement quoted by Channel 2.
In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."...MORE...LINK
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Outrage as Canadian government sides with Israeli Jews over domestic Christian coalition with backhanded declaration of church group anti-Semitism
Fury grows over anti-Semitism charge
Churches want answers from PM after senior Tory levels accusation against aid group they support
(TheStar.com) -- OTTAWA–The United Church of Canada and other Canadian churches are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain why one of his cabinet ministers accused them of being anti-Semitic.
The United, Catholic and Anglican churches are part of KAIROS, an aid group that was shocked to hear Immigration Minister Jason Kenney say its funding was lifted as part of the Conservatives' effort to cut off anti-Semitic organizations.
"It's a horrible charge to make, and to do it with so little thought cheapens the reality of anti-Semitism in the world and diminishes the very careful attention that it deserves," said United Church spokesperson Bruce Gregersen. "We're quite disappointed in the government on this.
"The policies of KAIROS have all been approved by the collective board of KAIROS, so in a sense what Mr. Kenney is doing is accusing Canadian churches of being anti-Semitic and I think that's really unfortunate," Gregersen said in an interview.
Sam Carrière, director of communications for the Anglican Church of Canada, said the church supports a statement released Friday by KAIROS, which condemned Kenney's remarks as false and warned the Harper government against letting politics dominate Ottawa's foreign aid priorities.
Besides the United and Anglican churches, Toronto-based KAIROS's members include the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Mennonite Central Committee – Canada.
Working with 21 partner organizations around the world, KAIROS sponsors projects promoting social and economic justice in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Canada's development community appeared stunned after Kenney, in a speech in Jerusalem, cited Ottawa's decision to end 35 years of funding for KAIROS as an example of the Conservatives' push to cut funding for anti-Semitic groups...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
How truly outrageous that Kenney, in his capacity as a government official, would travel to Jerusalem and declare fealty to the Zionists there over his own countrymen, whom he denounces as anti-Semitic enemies.
But this is how international Zionism and its collaborators operate: Buy off, infiltrate and intimidate sovereign governments, commit those governments to doing Israeli and international Zionism's bidding, and when domestic individuals or groups object, declare them anti-Semitic hate criminals beyond the pale, and use the girth of Big Government to bully, marginalize and squeeze them until they learn their lesson to either keep their mouths shut, or join in with the Judeofascist coalition. This was the technique used in Washington to instigate the Iraq war on behalf of Israel, and this was the technique used in the Soviet Union by the Jewish Bolsheviks following the Communist coup against the domestic Christian population.
Unless confronted and defeated, the inevitable outcome of this state of affairs is that the government eventually digs itself so deep that the People become the enemy of the government, which is then forced to resort to oppression, gulags and mass murder of its citizenry in order to save its own skin.
The best way to arrest this process is to outlaw foreign lobbies and even domestic elements lobbying by those seeking to co-opt sovereign governments for their own corporatist or globalizationist agenda, including international finance, international socialism, and international Zionism.
Churches want answers from PM after senior Tory levels accusation against aid group they support
(TheStar.com) -- OTTAWA–The United Church of Canada and other Canadian churches are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain why one of his cabinet ministers accused them of being anti-Semitic.
The United, Catholic and Anglican churches are part of KAIROS, an aid group that was shocked to hear Immigration Minister Jason Kenney say its funding was lifted as part of the Conservatives' effort to cut off anti-Semitic organizations.
"It's a horrible charge to make, and to do it with so little thought cheapens the reality of anti-Semitism in the world and diminishes the very careful attention that it deserves," said United Church spokesperson Bruce Gregersen. "We're quite disappointed in the government on this.
"The policies of KAIROS have all been approved by the collective board of KAIROS, so in a sense what Mr. Kenney is doing is accusing Canadian churches of being anti-Semitic and I think that's really unfortunate," Gregersen said in an interview.
Sam Carrière, director of communications for the Anglican Church of Canada, said the church supports a statement released Friday by KAIROS, which condemned Kenney's remarks as false and warned the Harper government against letting politics dominate Ottawa's foreign aid priorities.
Besides the United and Anglican churches, Toronto-based KAIROS's members include the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Mennonite Central Committee – Canada.
Working with 21 partner organizations around the world, KAIROS sponsors projects promoting social and economic justice in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Canada's development community appeared stunned after Kenney, in a speech in Jerusalem, cited Ottawa's decision to end 35 years of funding for KAIROS as an example of the Conservatives' push to cut funding for anti-Semitic groups...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
How truly outrageous that Kenney, in his capacity as a government official, would travel to Jerusalem and declare fealty to the Zionists there over his own countrymen, whom he denounces as anti-Semitic enemies.
But this is how international Zionism and its collaborators operate: Buy off, infiltrate and intimidate sovereign governments, commit those governments to doing Israeli and international Zionism's bidding, and when domestic individuals or groups object, declare them anti-Semitic hate criminals beyond the pale, and use the girth of Big Government to bully, marginalize and squeeze them until they learn their lesson to either keep their mouths shut, or join in with the Judeofascist coalition. This was the technique used in Washington to instigate the Iraq war on behalf of Israel, and this was the technique used in the Soviet Union by the Jewish Bolsheviks following the Communist coup against the domestic Christian population.
Unless confronted and defeated, the inevitable outcome of this state of affairs is that the government eventually digs itself so deep that the People become the enemy of the government, which is then forced to resort to oppression, gulags and mass murder of its citizenry in order to save its own skin.
The best way to arrest this process is to outlaw foreign lobbies and even domestic elements lobbying by those seeking to co-opt sovereign governments for their own corporatist or globalizationist agenda, including international finance, international socialism, and international Zionism.
Sanctions on Iran are for Israel until Zionists can convince Washington to attack
No Attack on Iran
(Seattle Times) -- By Bruce Ramsey --
...Sanctions are economic. And political leaders do not give away important political goals for economic gain.
I attended a forum Dec. 16 at Town Hall organized by opponents of sanctions. There were three speakers: Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering at the University of California; Ian Lustick, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Keith Weissman, former deputy director of AIPAC, the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The sanctions on Iran are mainly in defense of Israel. Lustick argued, “There is no strategic military threat to Israel” in Iran getting the bomb. If Iran is really trying to build a nuclear bomb—and Lustick said, “I assume they are”—it is not to drop on Israel, which has its own bombs and would drop them on Iran. Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent, which is the same reason Israel has.
Muhammad Sahini, an ethnic Iranian, agreed with that point. He said, “The lesson of George W. Bush invading Iraq and leaving North Korea alone is that if you have a nuclear bomb, the United States will leave you alone.”
Sahini said, “Iran’s nuclear program is supported by all political factions in Iran,” including the pro-democracy side. The difference is that the reformists want to reach a peaceful accommodation with the West, and the current leaders don’t.
He said Iran has no territorial claims on any of its neighbors and hasn’t invaded any of them in 275 years. He noted that several countries in Iran’s neighborhood—Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel—have nuclear weapons already.
He said an attack on Iran “will only play into the hands of the hardliners,” which is probably true.
Weissman argued that sanctions “hurt American business more than they hurt Iran. And they don’t stop what you intend to stop. They might make you feel good if you’re in Congress.”
Lustick said sanctions “are a placeholder,” an alternative to war that can “constrain American power.” He said he didn’t expect them to “work” in the sense their supporters claimed—implying, I think, that even their supporters, the intelligent ones, were smart enough to see that.
Lustick said he didn’t think Israel would attack Iran. If they did, he said, “it’s going to put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Israel will ever be accepted in the region. And that means Zionism will fail.”
“They’re trying to get the United States to do it,” he said...MORE...LINK
(Seattle Times) -- By Bruce Ramsey --
...Sanctions are economic. And political leaders do not give away important political goals for economic gain.
I attended a forum Dec. 16 at Town Hall organized by opponents of sanctions. There were three speakers: Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering at the University of California; Ian Lustick, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Keith Weissman, former deputy director of AIPAC, the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The sanctions on Iran are mainly in defense of Israel. Lustick argued, “There is no strategic military threat to Israel” in Iran getting the bomb. If Iran is really trying to build a nuclear bomb—and Lustick said, “I assume they are”—it is not to drop on Israel, which has its own bombs and would drop them on Iran. Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent, which is the same reason Israel has.
Muhammad Sahini, an ethnic Iranian, agreed with that point. He said, “The lesson of George W. Bush invading Iraq and leaving North Korea alone is that if you have a nuclear bomb, the United States will leave you alone.”
Sahini said, “Iran’s nuclear program is supported by all political factions in Iran,” including the pro-democracy side. The difference is that the reformists want to reach a peaceful accommodation with the West, and the current leaders don’t.
He said Iran has no territorial claims on any of its neighbors and hasn’t invaded any of them in 275 years. He noted that several countries in Iran’s neighborhood—Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel—have nuclear weapons already.
He said an attack on Iran “will only play into the hands of the hardliners,” which is probably true.
Weissman argued that sanctions “hurt American business more than they hurt Iran. And they don’t stop what you intend to stop. They might make you feel good if you’re in Congress.”
Lustick said sanctions “are a placeholder,” an alternative to war that can “constrain American power.” He said he didn’t expect them to “work” in the sense their supporters claimed—implying, I think, that even their supporters, the intelligent ones, were smart enough to see that.
Lustick said he didn’t think Israel would attack Iran. If they did, he said, “it’s going to put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Israel will ever be accepted in the region. And that means Zionism will fail.”
“They’re trying to get the United States to do it,” he said...MORE...LINK
Zionists have reduced UK to a groveling banana republic
'The UK is not a banana republic'
(Al Jazeera) -- By Daud Abdullah --
David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, has apologised to his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, after the humiliation and embarrassment caused by the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister.
The arrest warrant was issued over Livni's suspected war crimes role during Israel's war on Gaza, but was later withdrawn after she cancelled her visit to London.
Miliband also promised to begin work immediately to change UK laws to ensure that no such warrants would be issued for Israeli officials in the future. As an added sweetener to the act of contrition, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, also personally called Livni to assure her she would always be welcomed to visit the UK.
All of this is easier said than done. Already there is a huge outcry in Britain over the mere thought of changing UK laws or reneging on treaty obligations simply to protect Israeli officials involved in the serial breach of international law.
In their deluded fantasy the Israelis claim that the judicial order in London will seriously impair bi-lateral relations between London and Tel Aviv, jeopardise the Middle East peace process and undermine Britain's image in the region.
Historic Middle East role
What a gross distortion. Britain's historic relationship and role in the Middle East is unquestioned. Even though it has on many occasions acted against the national interests of the people of the region and the Palestinians in particular, it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it could be excluded from future negotiations.
Instead of being eternally grateful to Britain for creating their state in Palestine, Israeli officials are today attempting to bite the very hand that fed them.
To claim that Britain is in trouble or would be the loser because of the court order is disingenuous. Actually, the only losers are those who planned, commissioned and executed the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.
They are the ones in hot water, so to speak, and the greatest service Brown could make on behalf of universal jurisdiction is to leave them to stew in it.
These sentiments were expressed by his former cabinet colleague Clare Short, a member of the Labour Party and an independent MP, while addressing a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, in London.
A former minister for international development, Short said the crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last year marked a defining moment in the conflict. She criticised how Israel has undermined the international system by its cavalier breach of conventions and established norms in an apparent attempt to tell the world that there are special laws for certain states and that it is a state above the law.
She derided the hypocrisy of those who seek to prosecute Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, while at the same time they refuse and obstruct efforts to investigated and prosecute Israeli criminals.
Violations of international law
The groveling apology to Israel, after the British ambassador was summoned for a reprimand by the Israeli foreign ministry, is the type of reaction expected from a banana republic, not from Great Britain...MORE...LINK
(Al Jazeera) -- By Daud Abdullah --
David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, has apologised to his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, after the humiliation and embarrassment caused by the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister.
The arrest warrant was issued over Livni's suspected war crimes role during Israel's war on Gaza, but was later withdrawn after she cancelled her visit to London.
Miliband also promised to begin work immediately to change UK laws to ensure that no such warrants would be issued for Israeli officials in the future. As an added sweetener to the act of contrition, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, also personally called Livni to assure her she would always be welcomed to visit the UK.
All of this is easier said than done. Already there is a huge outcry in Britain over the mere thought of changing UK laws or reneging on treaty obligations simply to protect Israeli officials involved in the serial breach of international law.
In their deluded fantasy the Israelis claim that the judicial order in London will seriously impair bi-lateral relations between London and Tel Aviv, jeopardise the Middle East peace process and undermine Britain's image in the region.
Historic Middle East role
What a gross distortion. Britain's historic relationship and role in the Middle East is unquestioned. Even though it has on many occasions acted against the national interests of the people of the region and the Palestinians in particular, it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it could be excluded from future negotiations.
Instead of being eternally grateful to Britain for creating their state in Palestine, Israeli officials are today attempting to bite the very hand that fed them.
To claim that Britain is in trouble or would be the loser because of the court order is disingenuous. Actually, the only losers are those who planned, commissioned and executed the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.
They are the ones in hot water, so to speak, and the greatest service Brown could make on behalf of universal jurisdiction is to leave them to stew in it.
These sentiments were expressed by his former cabinet colleague Clare Short, a member of the Labour Party and an independent MP, while addressing a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, in London.
A former minister for international development, Short said the crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last year marked a defining moment in the conflict. She criticised how Israel has undermined the international system by its cavalier breach of conventions and established norms in an apparent attempt to tell the world that there are special laws for certain states and that it is a state above the law.
She derided the hypocrisy of those who seek to prosecute Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, while at the same time they refuse and obstruct efforts to investigated and prosecute Israeli criminals.
Violations of international law
The groveling apology to Israel, after the British ambassador was summoned for a reprimand by the Israeli foreign ministry, is the type of reaction expected from a banana republic, not from Great Britain...MORE...LINK
Friday, December 18, 2009
In touch "with their Zionist sides," American Jews confess nationalist bloodlust following screening of Tarantino's gory Jewish revenge fantasy
‘Inglourious Basterds’ at JTS
(JTA) -- By Ami Eden --
There are many wonderful things to say about the Jewish Theological Seminary, but let’s face it -- it’s not exactly where all the hipsters meet. Honestly, how many times do you find yourself saying: I’m going to a really cool event at JTS tonight.
Important. Interesting. I’ll even give you provocative (sometimes). But, cool?
So I had no choice but to RSVP yes when I received the following press release last week:
"A screening with Quentin Tarantino of his newest film, Inglourious Basterds, followed by a panel discussion addressing “Jewish Persecution and the Fantasy of Revenge,” will take place on Wednesday, December 16, at The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), 3080 Broadway (at 122nd Street), New York City.
"Panelists will include Lawrence Bender, producer, Inglourious Basterds; Professor Arnold M. Eisen, chancellor of JTS; Dr. Amy Kalmanofsky, JTS; and Rabbi Jack Moline, Agudas Achim Congregation, Alexandria, Virginia."
How did it go? Well, Eisen announced at the start of the screening that Tarantino would be arriving later in the evening. After the film ended and the panel discussion began, however, Bender broke the news that the director had made the cross-country flight from L.A., but was sick and had lost his voice, so he wouldn’t be coming after all.
I’m not complaining, just needed to mention it. The truth is, the seminary’s big night still turned out to be pretty important, interesting, provocative and, yes, even kind of cool.
In a weird sort of way, the expectation of seeing Tarantino in the room when the lights came on somehow created enough energy and buzz to overcome any disappointment over his not showing up. And, of course, Bender -- an Oscar-winning producer with plenty to say from a Jewish perspective -- was a good get in his own right.
Or maybe I was too distracted to be disappointed. By what? The man and woman sitting in the press row next to me who started hugging and smooching during the ending credits (Heeb?). In general, the crowd was definitely into the film, laughing as the Basterds made a bloody mess of Nazi after Nazi and giving the film a round of applause at the end.
The panelists sounded just about as one-sided as the crowd did when it came to the central question: Is it OK for Jews to take pleasure in fantastical acts of Jewish-on-Nazi brutality?
Bender echoed several thoughts from a phone interview a few days prior to the screening, in which he told JTA how moved he was when he first read the finished script last year.
“He said to me, ‘You're the first Jewish person to read it. How do you react as a Jewish person?,” Bender recalled in the phone interview. "I told Quentin that as a fan and as his producing partner and as a memeber of the tribe, I couldn’t be more thrilled, this was like a dream for me. I told him, ‘Quentin you are about to make your Bar Mitzvah movie, you are going to be officially let into the tribe.’”
Unlike “Munich” and “Defiance” that soften their Jewish tough guys with self-doubt and moral questioning, Tarntino’s band of Basterds exhibit not an ounce of guilt -- only pleasure -- when scalping their Nazi prey.
Bender dismissed any suggestion that the film’s unmitigated embrace of revenge could lead to real-life acts of violence. “We're getting to live out a fantasy of revenge, getting do what every Jew probably dreamed of,” Bender said. “There might be some people on the extremes who would act a certain way, but they would do that anyway. The greater good is served by rejoicing in the fantasy of the worst bad guys being killed.”
Bender’s embrace of the film should come as no surprise -- after all, he produced it.
What about the three rabbi/professor types on the panel? In theory, you could have expected at least one of them could to get morally bent out of shape over the film, not to mention the audience’s joyous reaction. Pretty quickly, however, they all essentially came down in a similar place.
Yes, Eisen kicked off the panel by citing Rabbi Irwin Kula, who suggested that people walk out of the film feeling great, yet wake up the next morning saying, “Shit, I’m Jewish, I’m not supposed to feel that way.”
But Kalmanofsky quickly put that argument to bed, noting that Jewish texts have always embraced revenge fantasies, from the destruction of the Egyptians in Exodus and Haman & Co. in Megillat Esther. And Moline -- echoing the message of one of his Yom Kippur sermons from earlier this year -- also praised the film, describing it as a way of helping American Jews shed some of their Holocaust baggage and getting more comfortable with their Zionist sides.
Back in September, Moline told his congregants: “To my surprise, my complete and utter surprise, there was something cathartic and deeply satisfying watching this revenge fantasy play out. It was as if something I did not dare admit -- my secret blood lust to do unto them what they did unto us -- was being acknowledged, permitted and validated. I was liberated from victim hood.”...MORE...LINK
(JTA) -- By Ami Eden --
There are many wonderful things to say about the Jewish Theological Seminary, but let’s face it -- it’s not exactly where all the hipsters meet. Honestly, how many times do you find yourself saying: I’m going to a really cool event at JTS tonight.
Important. Interesting. I’ll even give you provocative (sometimes). But, cool?
So I had no choice but to RSVP yes when I received the following press release last week:
"A screening with Quentin Tarantino of his newest film, Inglourious Basterds, followed by a panel discussion addressing “Jewish Persecution and the Fantasy of Revenge,” will take place on Wednesday, December 16, at The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), 3080 Broadway (at 122nd Street), New York City.
"Panelists will include Lawrence Bender, producer, Inglourious Basterds; Professor Arnold M. Eisen, chancellor of JTS; Dr. Amy Kalmanofsky, JTS; and Rabbi Jack Moline, Agudas Achim Congregation, Alexandria, Virginia."
How did it go? Well, Eisen announced at the start of the screening that Tarantino would be arriving later in the evening. After the film ended and the panel discussion began, however, Bender broke the news that the director had made the cross-country flight from L.A., but was sick and had lost his voice, so he wouldn’t be coming after all.
I’m not complaining, just needed to mention it. The truth is, the seminary’s big night still turned out to be pretty important, interesting, provocative and, yes, even kind of cool.
In a weird sort of way, the expectation of seeing Tarantino in the room when the lights came on somehow created enough energy and buzz to overcome any disappointment over his not showing up. And, of course, Bender -- an Oscar-winning producer with plenty to say from a Jewish perspective -- was a good get in his own right.
Or maybe I was too distracted to be disappointed. By what? The man and woman sitting in the press row next to me who started hugging and smooching during the ending credits (Heeb?). In general, the crowd was definitely into the film, laughing as the Basterds made a bloody mess of Nazi after Nazi and giving the film a round of applause at the end.
The panelists sounded just about as one-sided as the crowd did when it came to the central question: Is it OK for Jews to take pleasure in fantastical acts of Jewish-on-Nazi brutality?
Bender echoed several thoughts from a phone interview a few days prior to the screening, in which he told JTA how moved he was when he first read the finished script last year.
“He said to me, ‘You're the first Jewish person to read it. How do you react as a Jewish person?,” Bender recalled in the phone interview. "I told Quentin that as a fan and as his producing partner and as a memeber of the tribe, I couldn’t be more thrilled, this was like a dream for me. I told him, ‘Quentin you are about to make your Bar Mitzvah movie, you are going to be officially let into the tribe.’”
Unlike “Munich” and “Defiance” that soften their Jewish tough guys with self-doubt and moral questioning, Tarntino’s band of Basterds exhibit not an ounce of guilt -- only pleasure -- when scalping their Nazi prey.
Bender dismissed any suggestion that the film’s unmitigated embrace of revenge could lead to real-life acts of violence. “We're getting to live out a fantasy of revenge, getting do what every Jew probably dreamed of,” Bender said. “There might be some people on the extremes who would act a certain way, but they would do that anyway. The greater good is served by rejoicing in the fantasy of the worst bad guys being killed.”
Bender’s embrace of the film should come as no surprise -- after all, he produced it.
What about the three rabbi/professor types on the panel? In theory, you could have expected at least one of them could to get morally bent out of shape over the film, not to mention the audience’s joyous reaction. Pretty quickly, however, they all essentially came down in a similar place.
Yes, Eisen kicked off the panel by citing Rabbi Irwin Kula, who suggested that people walk out of the film feeling great, yet wake up the next morning saying, “Shit, I’m Jewish, I’m not supposed to feel that way.”
But Kalmanofsky quickly put that argument to bed, noting that Jewish texts have always embraced revenge fantasies, from the destruction of the Egyptians in Exodus and Haman & Co. in Megillat Esther. And Moline -- echoing the message of one of his Yom Kippur sermons from earlier this year -- also praised the film, describing it as a way of helping American Jews shed some of their Holocaust baggage and getting more comfortable with their Zionist sides.
Back in September, Moline told his congregants: “To my surprise, my complete and utter surprise, there was something cathartic and deeply satisfying watching this revenge fantasy play out. It was as if something I did not dare admit -- my secret blood lust to do unto them what they did unto us -- was being acknowledged, permitted and validated. I was liberated from victim hood.”...MORE...LINK
British government cave on Livni arrest warrant makes clear its political class is firmly under Zionist control
Britain’s Foreign Office Surrenders to the War Criminals
(Dissident Voice) -- by Stuart Littlewood --
The British public must be wondering what has happened to the nation’s backbone – and its moral compass – when they see news items like these.
“British Foreign Secretary David Miliband yesterday apologized to MK Tzipi Livni and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for the arrest warrant issued against Livni in London earlier this week. He also promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws that enable the issue of arrest warrants against Israeli officials accused of war crimes.”
Who does this foreign secretary think he is, apologising in our name for the operation of British law, especially when the warrant was issued to answer well-founded charges of war crimes?
Livni claims it was not personal. “It’s about the entire State of Israel and our ability to go on working together against common threats.”
What common threats? We have nothing in common. The threats Israel faces are caused by its racist expansion, land theft, general lawlessness and hateful attitude towards its neighbours, and by the lethal threat Israel itself presents to others in the region. Our government puts us in harm’s way by associating so closely with the regime and continually taking its side.
As for ex-night club bouncer Lieberman, a deranged loudmouth who lives in an illegal Jewish settlement in the Palestinian West Bank and thrives on extremist language, since when did he merit a British apology?
“Miliband called the warrant intolerable and said he had spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Jack Straw to find an urgent solution. Prosor [the Israeli ambassador in London] chastised the British secretary saying it was time the British government took action.”
Prosor “chastised” a Minister of the Crown… demanded a change to our laws? Your own laws need changing more than ours, Prosor.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office also released a statement: ‘We will not agree to a situation in which [former prime minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak and [opposition leader and former foreign minister] Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the bench. We utterly reject the absurdity that is happening in Britain.’”
Get your tanks off Palestine’s lawn, Netanyahu, and your squatters off Palestinian land before you criticize anyone else.
The Israelis’ arrogance is breath-taking. Livni would gladly repeat the atrocities in Gaza last December-January. Her office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead. And speaking at a conference at Tel Aviv’s Institute for Security Studies, she said: ”I would today take the same decisions.”
Leave the law on arrest warrants alone
Miliband’s grovelling, especially to the Lieberman and Livni, is enough to make any red-blooded UK citizen cringe with shame. Few of us, surely, would touch these people with a barge-pole.
This abandonment of principle and descent into the abyss is explained in the Foreign Office statement: “The UK is determined to be a strategic partner of Israel.”
Why? I have always wanted to know how this serves our best interests.
The law on arrest warrants, of course, should be left undisturbed. It’s all quite simple. If Israel behaved in a civilised manner there would be no need for them.
This diplomatic ruckus helps us to see clearly the lunacy of stacking the British Foreign Office with Israel-lovers. There’s Miliband, of course, with his ethnic links. He voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war and against an investigation.
Then there’s our minister in charge of Middle East affairs, Ivan Lewis. He’s a former vice-chairman of Labour Friends of Israel. He too voted for the Iraq war and against any investigation. In January, with the sickening stench of Israel’s blitzkrieg on Gaza in the world’s nostrils, Lewis told a rally in Manchester: “This community stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel in the good and the bad times. We do not apply double standards to Israel…”
The trouble is, his kind don’t apply any standards at all.
In July, with the blood of 1,400 dead Gazans (including 320 children and 109 women) on the hands of the Zionist devils, and with thousands more horribly maimed, the insensitive Lewis told the House of Commons: “Israel is a close ally of the UK and we have regular warm and productive exchanges at all levels.”
Lewis is also chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Along with Miliband, he is the face of British diplomacy in the explosive Middle East.
Add to the team Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary, Matthew Gould, just promoted as Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel with effect from next year. Gould told Haaretz that he and his wife will keep a Jewish household and bring up their kids in the Jewish tradition. “The fact that I’m Jewish means I will come with a particular insight and sympathy and understanding, because the story of my family is in certain respects the story of the people of the State of Israel. But fundamentally I’m going as the British ambassador, to pursue British policies and advance British interests.”
That’s difficult to believe, and some will point to a hopeless conflict of interests not only for Gould but also Miliband, Evans and others who feel an affinity with the appalling “story” of Israel.
Presiding over all this is our disaster-prone prime minister Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund, which is an organization set up to facilitate the confiscation and development of illegally occupied Palestinian lands...MORE...LINK
(Dissident Voice) -- by Stuart Littlewood --
The British public must be wondering what has happened to the nation’s backbone – and its moral compass – when they see news items like these.
“British Foreign Secretary David Miliband yesterday apologized to MK Tzipi Livni and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for the arrest warrant issued against Livni in London earlier this week. He also promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws that enable the issue of arrest warrants against Israeli officials accused of war crimes.”
Who does this foreign secretary think he is, apologising in our name for the operation of British law, especially when the warrant was issued to answer well-founded charges of war crimes?
Livni claims it was not personal. “It’s about the entire State of Israel and our ability to go on working together against common threats.”
What common threats? We have nothing in common. The threats Israel faces are caused by its racist expansion, land theft, general lawlessness and hateful attitude towards its neighbours, and by the lethal threat Israel itself presents to others in the region. Our government puts us in harm’s way by associating so closely with the regime and continually taking its side.
As for ex-night club bouncer Lieberman, a deranged loudmouth who lives in an illegal Jewish settlement in the Palestinian West Bank and thrives on extremist language, since when did he merit a British apology?
“Miliband called the warrant intolerable and said he had spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Jack Straw to find an urgent solution. Prosor [the Israeli ambassador in London] chastised the British secretary saying it was time the British government took action.”
Prosor “chastised” a Minister of the Crown… demanded a change to our laws? Your own laws need changing more than ours, Prosor.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office also released a statement: ‘We will not agree to a situation in which [former prime minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak and [opposition leader and former foreign minister] Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the bench. We utterly reject the absurdity that is happening in Britain.’”
Get your tanks off Palestine’s lawn, Netanyahu, and your squatters off Palestinian land before you criticize anyone else.
The Israelis’ arrogance is breath-taking. Livni would gladly repeat the atrocities in Gaza last December-January. Her office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead. And speaking at a conference at Tel Aviv’s Institute for Security Studies, she said: ”I would today take the same decisions.”
Leave the law on arrest warrants alone
Miliband’s grovelling, especially to the Lieberman and Livni, is enough to make any red-blooded UK citizen cringe with shame. Few of us, surely, would touch these people with a barge-pole.
This abandonment of principle and descent into the abyss is explained in the Foreign Office statement: “The UK is determined to be a strategic partner of Israel.”
Why? I have always wanted to know how this serves our best interests.
The law on arrest warrants, of course, should be left undisturbed. It’s all quite simple. If Israel behaved in a civilised manner there would be no need for them.
This diplomatic ruckus helps us to see clearly the lunacy of stacking the British Foreign Office with Israel-lovers. There’s Miliband, of course, with his ethnic links. He voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war and against an investigation.
Then there’s our minister in charge of Middle East affairs, Ivan Lewis. He’s a former vice-chairman of Labour Friends of Israel. He too voted for the Iraq war and against any investigation. In January, with the sickening stench of Israel’s blitzkrieg on Gaza in the world’s nostrils, Lewis told a rally in Manchester: “This community stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel in the good and the bad times. We do not apply double standards to Israel…”
The trouble is, his kind don’t apply any standards at all.
In July, with the blood of 1,400 dead Gazans (including 320 children and 109 women) on the hands of the Zionist devils, and with thousands more horribly maimed, the insensitive Lewis told the House of Commons: “Israel is a close ally of the UK and we have regular warm and productive exchanges at all levels.”
Lewis is also chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Along with Miliband, he is the face of British diplomacy in the explosive Middle East.
Add to the team Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary, Matthew Gould, just promoted as Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel with effect from next year. Gould told Haaretz that he and his wife will keep a Jewish household and bring up their kids in the Jewish tradition. “The fact that I’m Jewish means I will come with a particular insight and sympathy and understanding, because the story of my family is in certain respects the story of the people of the State of Israel. But fundamentally I’m going as the British ambassador, to pursue British policies and advance British interests.”
That’s difficult to believe, and some will point to a hopeless conflict of interests not only for Gould but also Miliband, Evans and others who feel an affinity with the appalling “story” of Israel.
Presiding over all this is our disaster-prone prime minister Gordon Brown, a Zionist sympathizer and patron of the Jewish National Fund, which is an organization set up to facilitate the confiscation and development of illegally occupied Palestinian lands...MORE...LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)