|
« War on terror
Main Second thoughts at Canterbury » |
December 21, 2003
Jingle bells
This diary is now packing its sleigh for the duration. I'll be back on January 5 (apologies for earlier calendrical breakdown -- obviously too much mulled wine already!!). Best wishes for Chanukah, Christmas and the new year. Posted by melanie at December 21, 2003
Comments
September 5th ? Surely January ? Or are you 'going away' for 9 months ? Anyway, enjoy and return refreshed .... Posted by: l at December 21, 2003 11:37 PMHappy Holiday, Melanie! Let us hope and pray that next year in Jerusalem—peace. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 22, 2003 12:01 AMDo you really mean Sept 5 2004???? -Lawrie. Posted by: lawrie at December 22, 2003 02:24 AMSept?? Well, you must have a huge sleigh to unpack. Have a great holiday. Posted by: John Elliot at December 22, 2003 04:42 AMHave a great holiday Melanie! Posted by: Eursoc at December 22, 2003 11:37 AMJanuary 6th is Christmas Day....Orthox Calendar Posted by: Romulus at December 22, 2003 12:53 PMMy goodness, how un-PeeCee to wish someone a Happy Hanukkah or Merry Christmas! Isn't it called "Winterval" in Britain now? Best wishes to all. Posted by: Susan at December 22, 2003 07:32 PMHave a great holiday Melanie... happy Chanukkah, a Merry Christmas and please, not too many latkes and doughnuts after the lighting of the Menorah... :-) Posted by: nannette at December 22, 2003 10:15 PM"Isn't it called "Winterval" in Britain now" ONly in Birmingham with its Labour Council of Loons Posted by: Romulus at December 22, 2003 10:23 PMRom: Charles Dickens must be turning in his grave! And may God Bless us, everyone! Posted by: Susan at December 22, 2003 10:54 PMAnd a happy Bonza festival -- discovered by Tim Blair -- from here in Australia. Posted by: slatts at December 22, 2003 11:44 PMMerry Christmas one and all! Posted by: Gavin at December 23, 2003 01:02 AMBelow is a little Holiday cheer for you all and Melanie too: Santa & Crew: http://web.icq.com/shockwave/0,,4845,00.swf Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 23, 2003 06:02 AMThanks Lilith, that was neat! Posted by: Susan at December 24, 2003 07:36 PMYou are welcome, Susan! I loved the kitty! And the Reindeer were funny too! ------------- Speaking of funny: Now THESE people have the Christmas Spirit! "PA wants media outlets to pay to cover Bethlehem Christmas" "Fees will be charged all three dates of Christmas: December 24, for Catholics, Protestants and others; January 6 for Orthodox Christians; and January 18 for Armenians.. . . . . The fees will be $1,000 for users' fees and another $500 for film and sound crews for each of the three planned holiday dates. . . . . . The price for broadcasting the Midnight Mass for each of the three different Christmas dates is $2,000 for foreign television stations, while the news agencies will be charged $6,000 for each date. According to the letter, print journalists and stills photographers will not be charged for covering the ceremonies. . ." Full Article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/374357.html I take it all back. The Arab Muslims ARE entrepreneurial. We'll, can you blame them? They have to do SOMETHING to make up for the loss of Uncle Saddam's generous gifts. Between this and "al Qaeda magazine"http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP63203 it's been a laugh a minute this Christmas. Lili
The Palestinian Broadcasting Authority has sent letters in the past few days to international and Arab television and satellite broadcasting networks, notifying them of an unprecedented decision by the Palestinian Authority to charge fees from any networks wishing to broadcast on Christmas from the area near the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Fees will be charged all three dates of Christmas: December 24, for Catholics, Protestants and others; January 6 for Orthodox Christians; and January 18 for Armenians. The letter was sent by the deputy head of the authority, Ali Abu Rian. He explained that this year - as opposed to previous years - the Palestinian police and the Broadcasting Authority will supervise and arrange all the broadcasts from the Manger Square outside of the church. The fees will be $1,000 for users' fees and another $500 for film and sound crews for each of the three planned holiday dates. Every year dozens of television stations from all over the world broadcast the Christmas ceremonies from Bethlehem and the PA is expected to receive a large sum from the broadcast fees. In addition, the mass and ceremonies inside the Church of the Nativity will be produced and filmed exclusively by the official Palestinian television station, and no other stations will be allowed to film inside the church. The letter details the procedures for broadcasting inside the church, and networks that want to show these ceremonies live will have to pay for the rights. Demand for these broadcasts is high throughout the Christian world. The price for broadcasting the Midnight Mass for each of the three different Christmas dates is $2,000 for foreign television stations, while the news agencies will be charged $6,000 for each date. According to the letter, print journalists and stills photographers will not be charged for covering the ceremonies. The letter has been met with an angry response from networks, since most conduct live broadcasts from Bethlehem during all the days of the Christmas holidays. Pictures from the church on Christmas reach hundreds of millions of viewers all over the world. The Christian communities that are part of the ceremony are also incensed over the fees. One of the patriarchs who serves in the Palestinian Authority said, "They are trafficking in Christian holidays, which should be available to every Christian." The patriarch had previously raised the issue with Arafat, and sources say that in the past various groups had charged journalists for rights to broadcast. This year, for the first time since the start of the current intifada, a number of tourist groups are visiting Bethlehem, and hotel and shop owners in the city are hoping for some recovery in the holiday trade. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/374357.html ============== Arrrgh! Sorry, I posted the whole artice by accident. Drat! Too much eggnog. ;-) Posted by: Lilith at December 25, 2003 01:20 AM"Save us from the evils which rend humanity in these first years of the third millennium," he said, speaking seated on a throne from the steps of St Peter's Basilica. "Save us from the wars and armed conflicts which lay waste to whole areas of the world, from the scourge of terrorism and from the many forms of violence which assail the weak, the vulnerable. . . . . ."Save us from discouragement as we face the paths to peace, difficult paths indeed, yet possible and therefore necessary; paths which are always and everywhere urgent, especially in the land where you (Jesus) were born, the Prince of Peace. . ." Amen!
"Arrrgh! Sorry, I posted the whole artice by accident. Drat! Too much eggnog. ;-)" Why don't you peddle your BS propaganda someplace else Goebells? Mike Talismann - why on earth do you think that the truth is propaganda? Are you that severely delusional that this type of truth hurts? Posted by: nannette at December 26, 2003 04:47 PMHere is some more Holiday truth and reality from the "Religion of Peace." "A holly jihadi Christmas" " Persecution of Christians is becoming an increasingly familiar feature of the global landscape, and shows no signs of letting up. . . . . .These threats are just the latest in a long line. A Christmas attack against Christians making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land was headed off in 1999. The next year, 49 bombs were planted outside Indonesian churches just before Christmas – 18 exploded, killing 15 people and wounding almost 100 others. And on Christmas 2002, attackers threw hand-grenades into a Pakistani church, killing three and wounding 14. . . . . .In Egypt, meanwhile, last month a mob of 500 radical Muslims attacked Coptic Christian villagers in the village of Gerza-Ayiat-Giza, wounding 11 and setting fire to numerous homes, businesses and even fields and crops. Police denied victims the opportunity to file charges, and made no arrests. This comes in the context of a widespread crackdown on Muslim converts to Christianity. . . . . it is illegal in Egypt for Muslims to change their religious affiliation (although Christians face no such obstacles in converting to Islam) – Christian converts often have no choice but to use falsified papers. Otherwise, they will be considered Muslims under Egyptian law, which would require them to marry Muslims and raise their children as Muslims. But those who are caught falsifying the papers – like Makar – are jailed. Radical Muslim hostility to Christians has even cost the life of "the Mother Theresa of Africa." Sr. Annalena Tonneli, an Italian nun who spent 30 years in Somalia. After founding schools and orphanages, she was murdered recently in front of the hospital she founded. . . . . .According to the Barnabas Fund, the group declared all Christian Somalis to be "treated as apostates from Islam who ought to be killed." . . . The list goes on and on: • A Christian teenager, Zeeshan Gill, was kidnapped recently in Pakistan. The Barnabas Fund reports he was "taken to an Islamic religious school where he was beaten and forced to become a Muslim." " For all those who value a pluralistic society, that should be an instructive and sobering Christmas message." Full article here: Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 26, 2003 06:08 PMIf all the above idiot is going to do is lazily parrot the opinions of polemic others, then I shall retaliate in kind. ----------------------------- The Jewish Choice: Human Equality
I gave a talk on Thursday to a group of bright students from Council Rock South HS. Of course, it was about the Palestine/Israel conflict. I knew that most of the students were Jewish and likely to have strong opinions, but I was not prepared, initially at least, for an onslaught before I had presented less than five minutes of my talk. The gist of their questions and comments boiled down to a belief that the land between the Mediterranean and Jordan River rightfully belongs to Israel and that Palestinians, who have existed on that land for centuries, millennia even, are but trespassers, squatter, mere accidents of history. From the corner of my ear, I caught the smiling comment of one boy, "Israel kicked their butts and the rest is war booty." While I pretended not to hear, I will admit that I felt a burning at my core. With such ironic, unrepentant racism, a Jewish American high school student had reduced my entire family and the whole nation to which we belong, to "war booty." For a good few moments, I struggled to subdue images bubbling in my mind: Of my grandmother, the heir to a beautiful stone home inside the Old City wall, rotting away as a refugee in a bug infested shack, while an immigrant Jewish family enjoyed the fruits of her heritage, her furniture, money and personal belongings; The ancient olive farms, passed on from one Palestinian generation to the next like family heirlooms, confiscated and then uprooted to make way for another Jews-only settlement; The countless images of ineffable suffering of human beings dispossessed of home and heritage, of dignity and freedom, of water and life. The most vociferous students were battle ready. Of these, few came with open ears. And I conceded that anyone is entitled to believe that an immigrant population from Europe, Russian and New York has the right to forcefully take possession of property belonging to the indigenous population; that a soldier has the right to shoot an unarmed child for throwing rocks at an occupation military; or that it is acceptable to promote the welfare of a select group based on their religion, to the terrible detriment of those who do not belong to that religion. But such beliefs do not stand on moral ground, certainly not on legal ground. I have never understood how an abused child grows up to be an abuser of children, and I shall never understand how a people who endured the foulest racism should come to violate and oppress another people as the Israelis have done for the past half-century. I believe that I shan't ever understand how American Jews, liberal and compassionate defenders of Civil Rights, continue to defend and excuse Israel's horrendous abuses of Palestinians. How does one fight against segregated housing and schooling in the US, and at the same time support a nation that has marked 93% of the land off limits to purchase or lease by non-Jews? How does one fight for equal opportunity in the US, and on the other hand support giving 85% of water resources in Hebron to 600 Jewish settlers while the remaining 15% is rationed among Hebron's 240,000 Palestinians inhabitants? One can invoke suicide bombings, the Jewish holocaust or the Old Testament, but the very simple fact remains, Israel is a nation founded on the notion of Jewish entitlement to a land that already had a people. Those ancient stone homes, of which Israel often boasts, were built by Palestinians. The orange and pomegranate orchards and olive groves were planted and nurtured by Palestinians long before any European arrived to claim it as Jewish heritage. Yet, Palestinians are only asking for 22% of their historic and rightful homeland, namely the West Bank and Gaza. Despite such a painful concession by the natives of the land, Israel continues to confiscate and colonize the West Bank and Gaza, imprisoning a whole people like cattle, denying them at every turn, be it education, work, medical care or the basic elements of life: water and shelter. I posed this question to a student in the audience: why does a foreign Jew who has no personal attachment to the land (not to be confused with the religious attachment that every Jew, Christian and Muslim has), have the right to a farm that has been in a Palestinian family for centuries? Why does an American, French or German Jew have an automatic right to dual citizenship when Palestinian refugees linger in human wastelands without a nation or passport? At the heart of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not only the land, but also the fundamentally racist belief that ones religion is the ultimate criteria for human worth and the final determinant for access to liberty. There are many who will argue that granting equal rights to Palestinians will overwhelm the "Jewish character" of Israel. But this is an ancient argument dating long before Israel was even a glimmer in Herzl's eye. Slave owners made that same argument about freeing their human property. Then white folks made that argument when it came time to grant Black American civil rights. It was the argument made by Apartheid South Africa and every other imperial power to pass its force across the earth. Jewish people, American Jews in particular, must choose whether they support the notion that "all men are created equal" or they support Israel. The choices are mutually exclusive. http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/abulhawa.htm ------------------------------ Susan Abulhawa is a writer and founder of Playgrounds For Palestine. She is currently working on her first novel and can be reached at: "Yet, Palestinians are only asking for 22% of their historic and rightful homeland, namely the West Bank and Gaza" Hey, nice link to a racist magazine you got there Mikey-boy! No wonder you're so warped, reading that tripe day and night. Posted by: rand narkum at December 27, 2003 05:48 PMIt's like this, gentlemen. Some people have the need to behave like a cacophonous-dung beetle, rolling up the terrorists' steaming piles into what they imagine to be HUGE, useful balls for public consumption. Ah the venerable scarab, without which we would all be up to our eyeballs in you-know-what. ===================== Excerpts below from Palestinian sermons or why I cannot get up much sympathy for the Palestinians. Can you imagine clerics in the "infidel" world saying such things at any time, much less on a regular basis from the pulpit? The Muslims would be SCREAMING and demonstrating: "discrimination," "racism," "religious bigotry." ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! ----- Antisemitism and Calls to Kill Jews "Annihilating" Jews by Palestinians becoming suicide bombers and "detonating" themselves in their midst, and by saving "a bullet is order to stick it in a Jew's head," are examples of the many calls for killing Jews in Palestinian sermons. Islamic Hadiths are often cited as inspiration for such actions. Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi explained, "Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders - just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism… A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' - that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' - Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah… Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land… Oh Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens… Oh Allah, show the Jews a black day… Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters… Oh Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land… Oh Allah, forgive our sins…" [19] Similarly, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya stated, "O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists - are the Jews… They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them… The Jews are like a [gas] pedal - as long as you step on it with your foot, it doesn't move, but if you lift your foot from it, it hurts you and punishes you. This is the case of the Jews." [20] Within sermons, Jews are commonly referred to as the descendants of pigs and apes, and as calf-worshippers. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "All spears should be directed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah, the nation that was cursed in Allah's book. Allah has described them as apes and pigs, the calf-worshipers, idol-worshipers… Whoever can fight them with his weapons, should go out [to the battle]; whoever can fight them with a machinegun, should go out; whoever can fight them with a sword or a knife, should go out; whoever can fight them with his hands, should go out; This is our destiny… The Jews have exposed their fangs. Nothing will deter them, except the color of their filthy people's blood; nothing will deter them except for us voluntarily detonating ourselves in their midst. They have nuclear power, but we have the power of the belief in Allah… We blow them up in Hadera, we blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya." [21] On another occasion, Sheikh Madhi added: "Oh beloved of Allah… One of the Jews' evil deeds is what has come to be called 'the Holocaust,' that is, the slaughter of the Jews by Nazism. However, revisionist [historians] have proven that this crime, carried out against some of the Jews, was planned by the Jews' leaders, and was part of their policy… These are the Jews against whom we fight, oh beloved of Allah. On the other hand, [what is our belief] about the Jews? Allah has described them as donkeys." [22] On the September 11th Attacks Conspiracy theories against America and Jews are the subject of many sermons dealing with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the September 11, 2001 attack. Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, speaking about the first attack, stated, "Oh those who pray, you have brothers wrongly and aggressively jailed in America. They have been forgotten. They were charged with false claims about the bombing of the World Trade [Center] in New York. We, from the Al-Aqsa Mosque and on your behalf, demand the release of these prisoners, who are monotheistic Muslims." [29] Weeks after September 11th, Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri stated again that Muslims were not involved, and in fact that Americans were responsible: "Oh Muslims, oh brothers, believers, everywhere, our Prophet used to deal in Friday's sermons with current events of his time and I will follow him and also discuss some religious rulings connected to the current international events following the [attacks] that took place in America on the 11th of this month. First, there is a religious legal rule that man is innocent, namely, in Islam, a human being is innocent until he is proven guilty. It is not allowed to blame a human being and then tell him 'prove you're innocent.' Therefore we tell America: 'It is forbidden to accuse a person before the beginning of the investigation.' Until now, the American administration could not present proof to convict the accused in the [attacks] in New York and Washington, [because] it is possible that there are other elements inside America who carried out these [attacks]." [30] ----- "We are convinced of the [future] victory of Allah; we believe that one of these days, we will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors, enter Haifa as conquerors, enter Ramle and Lod as conquerors, the [villages of] Hirbiya and Dir Jerjis and all of Palestine as conquerors, as Allah has decreed… 'They will enter Al-Aqsa Mosque as they have entered it the first time…' "Anyone who does not attain martyrdom in these days should wake in the middle of the night and say: 'My God, why have you deprived me of martyrdom for your sake? For the martyr lives next to Allah'… "Our enemies suffer now more than we do. Why? Because we are convinced that our dead go to Paradise, while the dead of the Jews go to Hell, to a cruel fate. So we stand firm and steadfast, in obedience to Allah… "The Jews await the false Jewish messiah, while we await, with Allah's help… the Madhi and Jesus, peace be upon him. Jesus's pure hands will murder the false Jewish messiah. Where? In the city of Lod, in Palestine. Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders - just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism… "A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' - that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' - Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah… Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. "But the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. "We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land… Read a compilation of these horrific "sermons" by tolerant clerics of "Peaceful Islam," given in their places of worship, here: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403 ---- The Palestinians and radical Muslims are like the proverbial dog who chases the car. Once they 'catch' the car will they know what to do with it? Back to the 7th century "paradise" of Islam. . .
Chapeau, Melanie. Have a good Holiday, but come back soon for we need you. Posted by: bunuel at December 27, 2003 11:53 PM"Mike Talismann - why on earth do you think that the truth is propaganda? Are you that severely delusional that this type of truth hurts?" If you are not aware that any form of news relation that is fundamentally polemical in perspective and does not deal with both sides of an issue, deliberately, is propaganda, than I have but one question for you. How did you ever manage to be born? "Yet, Palestinians are only asking for 22% of their historic and rightful homeland, namely the West Bank and Gaza" Unfortunately, not true. They were offered that at Camp David and turned it down." A lovely example of the "totally ignore all sense of context or detail" evasion technique. Very shallow though. Here, read this, it will help you understand "context": ---------------- 1. Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal? For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a `re-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation. 2. Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967? No. Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease." However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95 percent of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5 percent is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population. 3. Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap? The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise. 4. How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state? Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders, thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government. 5. How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem? The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and would remain separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem. 6. Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals? The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN [Security Council] resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign state on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them. 7. Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement? Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations [Security Council] Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives. 8. Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel? Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and reiterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52 percent since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party. 9. Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise? The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine (23 percent more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN Partition Plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22 percent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state. 10. Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine? The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution, however, is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and bypass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens. 11. Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees? The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. ----------------- Oh, and here's an article just for you, horseface. (You know who you are.) ----------------- The Problem is Chutzpah One day, during a session of the court, a young lawyer cried out: "Jews like you are not needed here anymore!"' I think almost everyone reading this will focus on the quote without its final word, that is, "Jews like you are not needed here." That's a pity, because the last word is a clue to an important discovery. "Anymore." We are told that the story of the Jews is one of ever-repeated persecution, that arises spontaneously and seemingly inevitably out of some kind of inherent flaw in (goy) humanity. Can this history be found? It can. It needs diligence and true objectivity, however. One has to have one's guard up, of course, vis-a-vis one-sided preferential interpretation. Most (though not all) that I have found is written by Jews and is especially accommodating to Jewish-defensive interpretation. It seems bizarre of course that some people would be attacked all the time just because they were what - different? They were attacked by people who usually didn't have much. Why would these attackers waste their limited resources so much on attacking Jews? Why would nature (the-survival-of-the-fittest) gear them up to waste themselves so on senseless attacks? If Jews have been simply disliked, why did this dislike occur time and again only after a period of warmth and cooperation with Gentiles? Jews in early fourteenth century Spain were prominent in positions of privilege and power and intermixed with, even married, the natives. LATER sentiment against Jews arose. Jews were prominent in the Weimar regime of Germany. There was much intermixing of Jews and Germans. LATER sentiment against Jews arose. Similarly in the USSR and the Soviet satellites. Somehow repeatedly the non-Jews got quite fed up with the Jews. Even in texts written by Jews there are hints why. The book Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, contains references by contemporary "antisemites" to "wealth (Jews) amassed through thieving and cheating" (to which Palestinians can relate) and the idea that Jewish absence would "make the German people again the master in its own house" (to which Americans can relate). We hear always that pograms and persecutions took place. Rarely we get a glimpse of what motivated them. But, briefly, in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Benjamin Ginsberg mentions Czechoslovakians being irritated by "tremendous influence" of Jews and "animosities" caused by "Jews in the government" being cited as the cause of a pogram in Poland. The Fatal Embrace importantly observes that Jews, through the centuries of their diaspora, frequently have assumed unpopular and coercive roles in government, such as that of tax collector and inspector. They characteristically have striven for positions within the frameworks of power. They have tended to be partisan, moreover, forming close ties with particular regimes; these ties would haunt them when regime change later occurred. Jews were highly associated with Soviet block Communism, being mutually supportive and probably mutually discrediting. These, and many other, references and my own personal observations indicate that Jews strive at life, at progress and prosperity, with exceptional gusto. Their drive and assertiveness is overwhelming to non-Jews and puts non-Jews at a considerable relative disadvantage. Therein lies the problem. They're just too pushy, they're hard to compete with. And, indeed, this is exactly what they have done. They've mastered an intricate task that Arabs have only just begun to realize exists: making America do exactly what they want AND with essentially no one who matters cognizant of it. (America is being plundered psychologically, as well as materially, and generally neither Americans nor their Arab foes recognize it.) In fact, what we have seen happen in Palestine is what you would expect if the problem was not (mindless) persecution of Jews, but a big dose of innate Jewish chutzpah. ------------------
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr. Posted by: Lilith at December 28, 2003 06:29 AM"Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations [Security Council] Resolutions 242 and 338. " ...and when it did not deliver these things, they chose to renew the conflict. Grim reaper. The usual crap. You randomly insert proposition (4) which has no relation to international law whatsoever. That the weaker side must negotiate or submit to the law of the stronger IS the law of the jungle. And on proposition (3), the 100% increase in settlements during the Oslo process hardly demonstrates Israeli commitment to the 4th Geneva Convention. Try again. Posted by: Brandon Sheaf at December 29, 2003 02:27 AMPalestinian Arab Violations of President Bush’s “Road Map” Plan A Survey of Week #34: December 16, 2003 - December 22, 2003 BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2002, President Bush set forth the conditions that the Palestinian Arabs must fulfill in order to merit U.S. support for the In March 2003, Yasir Arafat chose Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the number two On September 6, 2003, Abbas resigned; the next day, Arafat named his The Road Map requires the Palestinian Arabs to undertake concrete steps to This report analyzes Palestinian Arab violations of those obligations during What They Did During Week #34: During week #34, Dec.16 - Dec.22, 2003, (During the first 34 weeks since the Road Map was issued, there have been a December 17: Shooting attack on Israeli soldiers in Shechem (Nablus). II. “Call for Recognizing Israel and Ending Violence” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to “issue an What They Did During Week #34: No such statement was issued. III. “Arrest, Disrupt, and Restrain Terrorists” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to “undertake visible What They Did During Week #34: No such steps were taken. What They Did During Week #34: No such steps were taken. What They Did During Week #34: The PA did not outlaw Hamas, Islamic Jihad, VI. “End All Incitement” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map requires that “all official What They Did During Week #34: The PA’s official newspapers, television, VII. “End Arab States’ Support for Terror” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map states that during May 2003, “Arab states cut off public and What They Did During Week #34: There were no reports of any Arab states VIII. “Consolidate Security Forces” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map obligates the Palestinian Arabs to undertake “consolidation of What They Did During Week #34: Five different PA security organizations, IX. “Institute Democratic Reforms” What They Are Required to Do: The Road Map requires the Palestinian Arabs to undertake a number of steps to What They Did During Week #34: No such steps were taken. --- Plus ca change ... plus c'est la meme chose! Lili Terrorism, Anti-Semitism and The Sacred Cow by Mark P. Green Over a century ago, Mark Twain concluded, "the very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice". Indeed, every generation views history through its own tinted lens. And the 'received wisdom' of one era can appear antiquated--even morally unsound--to another. Penetrating the fog of history demands the test of time. But even this method can be compromised, since the war for ideological supremacy is often won, literally, on the battlefield. History is written by the victors. For the bulk of humanity, political values and religious beliefs are an accident of birth. Is the modern, cosmopolitan mind really so different? Or is cultural indoctrination merely explained away as education? How fortunate, it is, that America enjoys an unfettered 'marketplace of ideas' and that our press is free. But as A.J. Liebling observed, "the press is free to those who own one". Indeed, the past 20 years has seen an astounding consolidation of media franchise. Today, fewer than ten transnational media conglomerates effectively administer the information needs for the bulk of the English-speaking world, as the major institutions of political analysis fall into fewer and fewer hands. Big Media increasingly overlords political discourse. Larger and fewer corporations hire and fire the elite class of pundits and editors who frame the international discussion. These gatekeepers define history, concoct its vital lessons, and disseminate meaning. Great narratives emerge, often with the help of great myths. French philosopher Paul Valery reminds us however, "history justifies whatever we want it to. It teaches absolutely nothing, for it contains everything and it gives examples of everything." Indeed, the lessons of history are often assertions by The Few, providing guidance for The Many. Consider the bewilderment expressed by most European allies at America's mind-numbing inconsistencies. On the one hand, U.S. courts lead the world in upholding the rights of minorities, separating religious dogma from government decree, and in forging a secular, multicultural democracy with equal protection before the law for all. These legal principles will surely stand the test of time. With the global spread of democratic values and the rise of American political dominance on a similar scale, there is the growing expectation that our nation provide a kind of 'equal protection' to all its subjects; that the U.S. apply legal standards and political safeguards for all nations in equal measure. This hope however is being dashed in the Middle East. There, America has institutionalized political inequality. The case in point is the 'special relationship' between the U.S. and the state of Israel, though 'relationship' fails to convey the magnitude of this extraordinary affair. Indeed, since Israel captured Arab territory in the 1967 Six Day War, the U.S. alliance with Israel has become a political phenomena without equal. For the past 30 years, there have been endless streams of Congressional delegations to Israel, U.S.-sponsored treaties and initiatives; along with even greater quantities of foreign aid, diplomatic arm twisting, and raw military power. All in service to a geographically tiny nation sitting thousands of miles from American soil. Decades of unconditional aid to Israel have produced a burning resentment in the Arab world. Indeed, the U.S. punishes our Arab trading partners--both economically and militarily--for actions which Israel commits routinely. In the Middle East, it is Israel alone that maintains both a nuclear stockpile and lesser weapons of mass destruction. This salient fact breezes past most of the elite American authorities in their discussions about the origins of terror or how to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The plain fact is that Israel's nuclear capabilities have fueled a regional arms race. Even more destabilizing is Israel's unique, historical mission: to create a Jewish country in a territory already occupied by over a million non-Jews. The perception that Israel (with American complicity) formally and purposefully discriminates against these indigenous people is what has given us the suicide bomber. In Western parlance this phenomena of resistance is called 'terrorism'. Conventional wisdom explains that terrorists are motivated by a primitive rejection of Modernism. Often the syndrome is pigeonholed as "Islamo-fascism", and viewed as a kind of incurable, political virus. The recommended 'treatment' is quarantine, suppression or outright eradication. But world opinion is turning against this one-sided view. Following 9/11, the familiar chime became, "Why do they hate us?" President Bush explained, "it's because of our freedoms...our way of life". But if that were so, then why don't these terrorists target other Western cities like Tokyo, Paris, Toronto or Rome? Subsequent speech writers have had President Bush allege that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, posed an imminent threat to the region and had significant links to Al Queda. All these allegations proved false. Significantly, over the past thirty years, the (regional) enemies of (Zionist) Israel have become the global enemies of (secular) America. This may suit the long-term military needs of the Jewish State, but what about the damage done to America's economy, security and reputation? Is there no cost we should be unwilling to pay? In fact, the case can be made that the very hostilities between American and the Arab world is the byproduct of U.S.-subsidized political discrimination at the hands of Israel. As the world's greatest consumers of oil, we Americans have vital and mutual economic ties with energy producers. These oil exporters, many of them Arab, are similarly dependent on U.S. consumption for their economic health. Herein lie the clear motives for sustained, mutual cooperation. But instead of symbiosis, we find enmity. The spoiler in this equation are the political aspirations and security demands of the Jewish state, which have trumped U.S. economic interests for more than a generation. Israel's advocates have successfully leveraged American power to wage war against the very nations which supply us with oil. As America wages war on Iraq, neoconservative strategists are planning to 'reform' the entire Arab world, largely to make the region safe for an expanding Jewish state, since Israel seems determined to hold onto, if not increase, the Arab land it captured in 1967. The blunt surgical instrument is military force. Follow up procedures will include American money, weponry, investment, media spin and diplomatic pressure. The 'end game' is to crush Arab resistance to Zionist and American hegemony. In the meantime, the U.S. is playing a pivotal role in a military campaign that's producing a political and humanitarian nightmare. In the Palestinian Territories, Israel leads the democratic world in extra-judicial assassinations, collective punishment and state-sponsored, ethnic discrimination. Living conditions and political freedoms have plummeted there while unemployment, injury and disease have skyrocketed. Home demolitions are routine, leaving thousands of Palestinians homeless. Though contrary to international law and the Geneva Convention, this policy has been upheld by Israeli courts. Notwithstanding the Arab 'suicide bomber', the kill-ratio favors Jews over Palestinians by a ration exceeding three-to-one. Latest reports indicate that some 22% of Palestinian children are (now) malnourished and that the average Palestinian family survives on approximately $2 per day. While these economic circumstances are no worse than Bangladesh or many drought-stricken regions in sub-Saharan Africa, there's a key difference. Palestine's three-fold increase in measurable deprivations has been 'achieved' not by drought, flood or bad economic planning, but by Israeli design. The relative serenity of pre-Zionist Palestine has been replaced by living conditions resembling a food-starved, open-air prison, complete with checkpoints and curfews. To be Palestinian under Israeli occupation is to know the meaning of terror. How did we get here? U.S. policies have granted special favor to the Jewish state for over a generation. The peculiar uniqueness of the 'special relationship' between American and Israel first burst on the scene during Israel's 1967 'Six Day War'. On June 8th, Israeli plans strafed and bombed the American ship, USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 U.S. servicemen and wounding 171. No Israeli has ever been held accountable for this act of war. Both American and Israeli governments continue to maintain a shroud of secrecy over the incident. So began the special relationship. In the aftermath of Israel's victorious 1973 'Yom Kippur War' (where Arab armies attacked Isreal) former Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AK) said flatly, "Israel controls the (U.S.) senate". For that sin of indiscretion, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee soon found himself out of office. His remarks have since been airbrushed from political memory. By 1975, President Ford was threatening to "reappraise" U.S. relations with the Zionist state. But the pro-Israel lobby rose to the occasion, lining up 71 U.S. senators who signed a letter formally demanding The President to back off, which he did. Ford later lost his bid for re-election. Similarly, the first President George Bush, who was also viewed as 'unreliable' by pro-Israel partisans, failed in his bid for re-election. In the intervening years, countless other voices have have been expunged from public life for violating Israeli-related taboos. This has not gone unnoticed by America's ruling class. And today, with the triumph of neoconservative dogma and the rise of Christian Zionism, the friends of Israel have secured an even greater presence in Washington. Consequently, over the past generation, the Jewish state has received more U.S. assistance than all of sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America combined. Official figures put the transfer of American money to Israel at about 100 billion, but one analyst calculates that additional, indirect costs associated with the special relationship have cost the U.S. a whopping 1.6 trillion. That, according to Washington, D.C. economic analyst, Thomas Stauffer who, in the Christian Science Monitor (12/10/02), concluded that America's defense of Israel has cost the U.S. twice what we spent on the Viet Nam war. Though widely reported on the internet, Big Media shunned this meticulous, though provocative, analysis. Let it be said the next largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid is Egypt (an Arab country). But this autocratic state only began receiving its annual, multi-billion dollar stipend after signing the 1979 Camp David Accords; a deal which established a formal 'peace' between Egypt and Israel, but left the Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians and Palestinians out in the cold. The 'Arab Street', including most Egyptians, view this historic treaty with disdain. Clearly, if not for U.S. diplomatic cover, Israel would be isolated, and its international status downgraded. Incredibly (and typically), mainstream media makes little mention of the fact that this 'rogue democracy' stands in defiance of 68 UN resolutions, a world record. Iraq, by contrast, has spurned a total of 16 resolutions. Indeed, Israel's very status as a 'democracy' is increasingly under fire, since the Jewish state's commitment to ethnic and religious segregation, as well as laws which discriminate against non-Jews, leaves it isolated in an increasingly pluralistic and integrated world. The mainstream media's omission of these compelling facts belie their significance. Indeed, the influence of this ethnic lobby permeates America's intellectual culture. Even the vast majority of best-selling commentators are not immune. Conservative firebrands like like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly--the very people who detect "media bias" under every rock--carefully avoid criticizing Israel's unique status. In similar fashion, the left wing anti-war movement of the 60's and early 70's never made a peep about the Jewish state's pre-emptive strike against the Arabs in the 1967 Six Day War, or America's decisive intervention on behalf of Israel in it's 1973 war. That, despite the ensuing Arab oil embargo which sent our nation into recession, costing our economy untold billions. True to form, America recently spared the Jewish state from formal UN censure when their plan to kill Palestinian President Yassir Arafat became known. Israel's controversial 'security fence' (a wall twice as high and four times longer than the Berlin Wall) is also being protected in the UN by American wrangling, as was Israel's recent bombing mission in Syria. U.S. decrees excusing Israel often stand alone. Is the problem global anti-Semitism, or American acquiescence before Israeli resolve? To much of the world, Israel's sweetheart deal with the American taxpayer is evidence that Democracy is no barrier to corruption. Millions view the U.S.-Israeli 'special relationship' as a manipulative euphemism for 'preferential treatment'. Empire America has assigned Arabs an inferior status on the world stage. As the lone, global superpower, America now enjoys unique privileges. We've become a kind of roving 'super-judiciary', enforcing and ignoring international laws at will. In the case of the U.S.-lead war on Iraq, most of the UN Security Council and virtually all the member nations of that world body opposed our pre-emptive strike. But the Bush Administration moved forward anyway, with impunity. The checks and balances designed to inhibit government excess here at home do not readily protect the peoples outside our borders. As such, America is increasingly viewed as a 'loose canon', if not an arrogant bully. U.S. saber-rattling has put the entire Arab world on notice. Many leftists cling to the idea that U.S. bellicosity is centered around oil and, presumably, secret plans to expropriate it. If that were so, the U.S. would surely behave most fiercely towards Saudi Arabia, holder of the world's greatest oil reserves. But instead, the U.S. is applying greater pressure to Iran and Arab states which border Israel, like Syria, Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Jordan, none of which produce any oil at all. In fact, the much-ballyhooed "No Blood for Oil" theory was advanced and tested in the 1991 Gulf War. What happened? America lead international forces into Iraq, pulverized Hussein's overrated army, liberated Kuwait for the sheiks, and left all the oil behind. The big winner was Israel, who had American forces lead an international brigade against its chief rival in the Arab world. Were contemporary America a rational, self-interested democracy, all foreign entanglements--even traditional alliances--would be on the table well before experiencing decades of political failure. But certain U.S. options in the Middle East remain 'non-starters'. Why is this? In Oct., 2001, an Israeli radio station reported that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a moment of pique towards his foreign minister, Shimon Peres, bellowed, "Don't worry about American pressure (on Israel). We (the Jewish People) control America, and Americans know it". Hyperbole aside, the Prime Minister revealed that even the darkest suspicions about the U.S.-Israeli alliance are not without some merit. That this outrageous remark failed to see the light of day anywhere outside of Israel or on the internet is of great concern to those devoted to free speech, national sovereignty and intellectual freedom. If that alleged quote sounds unbelievable, please recall another humiliating spectacle which was widely observed. In April, 2002, when the (Israeli-Palestinian) "Road Map to Peace" still had a pulse, President Bush ordered the Israeli Prime Minister to get (Israelis) "out of the West Bank...without delay". Sharon responded by neither removing the settlers, making excuses, or offering to compromise. Settlement building continued and U.S. aid never slacked. Is there a word for this? Soon thereafter there was yet another suicide bombing in Israel, and Sharon ordered the invasion of the Palestinian city of Jenin. The assault there left scores of Palestinians dead and thousands homeless. President Bush followed up by denouncing Palestinian terrorism and calling the Israeli leader a "man of peace". This head-spinning scenario underscores the sad political fact that every American administration is duty-bound to line up behind every Israeli administration. End of story. Indeed, the contrived romance between secular, multicultural America and Jewish Israel has taken on the aura of an 'arranged marriage', with divorce not being an option. But there are additional ironies, too. If the special relationship between our countries is indeed genuine, why are we Americans hammered daily about anti-Semitism, The Holocaust (as if there are no others) and ubiquitous images of Jewish suffering? Here we enter the realm of myth and manipulation. Author, scholar and Nobel laureate, Elie Wiesel, says that anti-Semitism is an "irrational disease" that remains just as "virulent" and resilient as it was in previous centuries. In a keynote speech before the Anti-Defamation League's Conference on Global Anti-Semitism in 2002, the famous Holocaust survivor explained that, "hatred is very strange because it has a face, and it has a setting, and it is not limited to frontiers. It has no culture or boundaries," he said. "It is more than one country. The anti-Semite hates people who have not been born yet, which means that anti-Semitism is not linked to something a person has done or will do. It is a sickness. There is mental sickness and there is moral sickness, and an anti-Semite is morally sick. He is sick because he lives in a delusion." Wiesel's overview of anti-Semitism however may itself be itself a kind of delusion, given its self-serving simplicity. He has reduced the complex, cryptic interplay of centuries-long, inter-group competition to one, all-encompassing idea. Is there no 'yin and yang' to this story? The message to Americans is clear. Resist 'bad' thoughts about Israel. Don't speak out. And do not draw, or act upon, conclusions which could imperil the sanctity of the Israeli-American alliance. When public opinion goes the other way, experts are summoned to reverse the presumably irrational "rise in anti-Semitism", treating it as if it were disease. Assuming a tone and employing jargon normally reserved for physicians, designated political authorities 'diagnose treatment' for combating these "virulent strains" (of public opinion) which "have no proper place" in American society. Discussion over. The ever-present ghoul in this scenario is the genocidal, fire-breathing demon commonly identified as The Anti-Semite. As the human embodiment of pure evil, this archetype serves to remind the world of the ever-present, terrible tendencies found within the gentile soul. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) provides the false, ironic summary: "The intrinsic bond between the American and Israeli people has never been more evident". The 'post-Holocaust' milieu enables the allegation of anti-Semitism to de-legitimize resistance to Zionism. This is no accident. Widespread media imagery has succeeded in linking harsh criticism of Israel to racial intolerance. 'Anti-Semitism's' fuzzy definition provides the unique underpinnings. Decades of news spin and propaganda planted in entertainment media have created a particular moral tapestry. Merge this with continuous images of Hitler, concentration camps, Klan rallies and the like, and you have a subconscious morality play running in the minds of television viewers everywhere. Once this mindset is formed, a political dispute involving 'something Jewish' can be maneuvered away from the point of contention to the (dark, hidden) motives of those in opposition. Anti-Semitism has become the Scarlet Letter of American politics. Careers in public life can be ruined by the very accusation. No other ethnic group enjoys comparable protection. The final irony is that within Israel, Zionist doctrine inherently condones discrimination against all non-Jews. Adding to these layers of subterfuge is the misapplication of the very term itself, since 'anti-Semitism' is a kind of misnomer. Granted, anti-Semites may hate Jews (and are similarly hated by them) but the 'Semite-ness' of the Jews (their ethnic, 'Semitic' profile) is often incidental to the conflict. Many identified anti-Semites are more Semitic than the Jews they allegedly despise! The complaints of these vilified outcasts invariably concern Jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish abuse of power. Contrary to popular belief, many anti-Semites feel themselves victimized and oppressed by Jews. Just ask the Semitic people of Palestine. In truth, most 'anti-Semitic' operatives simply oppose international Zionism and its multifaceted permutations. So why not properly label anti-Semites as 'anti-Zionist' or 'anti-Jewish'--which more accurately describes their motivating animus? The reason is simple. A different term might add an unwanted layer of complexity to the Official Narrative. The greatest myth of 'anti-Semitism' is that it has nothing to do with Jewish conduct. Indeed, when Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, recently alleged that "Jews run the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them", his now-infamous assertion was either ignored, or immediately denounced and dismissed. Without elaboration, Pres. Bush scornfully called the Prime Minister's remarks "divisive and wrong". True to form, the President didn't explain why. All that was clear was that the Malaysian Prime Minister committed the modern sin of 'anti-Semitism'. It doesn't matter, apparently, that Prime Minister Mohamad was offering an informed political analysis. It doesn't matter that he received a standing ovation for his remarks, that he speaks for, and understands the viewpoint of, tens of millions of Muslims worldwide. All that mattered was that his remarks offended Jews. Can we talk? No. Instead of confronting and dealing with the points of his argument, the usual experts bombarded the Prime Minister with ad hominem mud. Following that, the issues he raised were shelved. The question became instead: does he or does he not have an unacceptably 'bad attitude' about Israel? Case closed. Here in the Land of the Free, tales of inter-group conflict involving the Chosen People are to be described in moral shades of black and white; thus, the allegation of 'anti-Semitism' is designed for one purpose: to separate the bad actors from the good, and to bring a quick, simple close to complex disputes. This is not to imply that anti-Semitism (so-called) is contrived. No doubt, Jews have been sporadically victimized and persecuted for centuries, with horrific results. But the story is more complicated and the moral dimensions are surely more nuanced than found within the Official Story. The rising tension between historic myth and political excess are producing cracks in the facade of international order. America's moral posture has been co-opted, and with that, our national sovereignty. In an effort to further the imperial interests of a foreign power, Israel's gifted advocates have bypassed America's customary checks and balances. This endangers America and the entire world.
Mark Green is the host of FLASHPOINT on CMAC-TV (Cable Ch17) in Santa Barbara. He can be reached at: markgreen@flashpoint-tv.net "You randomly insert proposition (4) which has no relation to international law whatsoever. That the weaker side must negotiate or submit to the law of the stronger IS the law of the jungle. " Armed conflict is a trial of strength, where might is right and Allah is on the side of the big battalions. "And on proposition (3), the 100% increase in settlements during the Oslo process hardly demonstrates Israeli commitment to the 4th Geneva Convention. " Why should there be any such commitment? Either both sides agree to respect a set of "rules of war" or neither does. You really should pay more attention. Posted by: GrimReaper at December 29, 2003 07:12 PM"Even more destabilizing is Israel's unique, historical mission: to create a Jewish country in a territory already occupied by over a million non-Jews. The perception that Israel (with American complicity) formally and purposefully discriminates against these indigenous people is what has given us the suicide bomber." "The muslim fundamentalists are not a peace-loving group driven to violence against Jews by Jewish behaviour; they are actively engaged in Holy War against Russia, India, Indonesian Christians, African Christians and moderate muslims everywhere." With that in mind, here is a Christmas message from peaceful, tolerant Islam: "Threats of Terrorist Attack Continue: New Letter Surfaces Christmas Eve on Internet" "ALBUQUERQUE, NM (Talon News) -- A letter to the Bush administration from an alleged representative of al Qaeda and the Islamic Jihad Brigade Black Death Squad makes reference to a document supposedly sent to the White House last week that contained a laundry list of requirements for the government. . . Daleel Almojahid (the Jihadi's Guide") says: "Don't ever think that your 'orange alert' system will help you although you know very well that even 'severe is less than the situation you are in.' Nothing will help you but delivering our demands and as soon as possible. Your arrogance and childish acts of dictatorship are leading you directly to the cave of darkness. We have not seen a single step that reflects any logic thinking of any sort, nor clear and wise decisions, and no fast actions. You're fooling yourself and the American people, making them believe that you can defend them, when you know very well that you're totally helpless." . . . "Are you really still wondering if we have weapons of mass destruction? Why are you lying to your people, Bush? Tell them what you know, we bet you to tell them what you and the administration know. Tell them ... 'we have been losing all the wars with al Qaeda since they ever started.' Tell them that al Qaeda is simply unbeatable! Tell them that they have won the war before it has even started! You are leading your nations into total destruction, and time is slipping away from under our hands." . . . "The returning of the old borders known to you and we press on the northern borders, the release of all our prisoners in your jails whom you know and we know only. The dismantle of the so called (United Nations and its council) in an international decision." . . . "We will give you a prior few minutes notice before our blessed attack so that you will be able to watch your destruction with your own satellite, as we would be by then have passed the skies of the seventh sky to heaven and your nation to the fires of hell." Full story: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/december/1229_terror_threat.shtml Now let me get this straight, Muslims all over the world live in abject poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and misery—yet, they have lots of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, to fund international Islamic terrorism as well as the development and deployment of WMD. Favorite words used by critical-thinking-impaired-Islamofascists, as well as ordinary Muslims, are: "Arrogant" (which Muslims certainly are, despite the fact that they have nothing to be arrogant about). "Logic" (of which they have none) and "childish" (which they are with their 7th century paradisical fantasies.) Well, if they do make a "blessed attack" with WMD then the whole world will suffer— not just the US. Which is, of course EXACTLY what the Islamo-anarchists want—TOTAL destruction of the world economy so they can take us all back to the fantastic paradise of 7th century Islam. "Balkan Routes for Smuggling Prostitutes Could Offer Terrorists Backdoor Into Europe": http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAEG4XVSOD.html I wonder what they will do with their laptops and cell phones not to mention all those trained kimikaze pilots? Perhaps they will go back to yodeling across valleys or sending carrier pigeons for communication? Guess you could always use donkeys and camels loaded with catapults filled with rocks and run these into your enemies' mud huts. The whole world will soon look like Bam: "Long Live Israel, Long Live America" http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4077.shtml BAM!!! Won't need those jihadi websites any longer once the "new age" of Islam is here. . . ;-) Do these Islamic-morons have any idea how many people are splitting a gut laughing at them? If they keep this up Islam and ALL its adherents who don't protest against Islamic terrorism will find themselves the pariahs of the universe! The more terror Islam threatens and commits the more the WHOLE world will recognize Islam for what it is—a misanthropic, misogynistic political, social, legal and cultural system masquerading as a religion. Perhaps we should go to a "green alert" system? Green is the color of Islam. Green WITH a scimitar could replace "red." ROTFLMAO!!!!! Careful what you wish for Islamic ummah, you might get it! Lili Israelis and supporters of Israel better watch out: Mike T.'s got you sussed. And he's calling people "horseface"! From the article posted to the aforementioned epithet: Yeah, exactly, the Jews are too good, so we must put them down, hobble them, limit their ability to achieve anything. That's logical! Deny a people the right to self-determination on the grounds that they're just too capable. Hey, why not just forcibly spread them around the globe and force a determined quota of them to perform slave labor for whatever "host country" they are assigned to. That way, they'll make a positive contribution to human society without arousing the ire of the mediocre hordes. Perfect! "Israelis and supporters of Israel better watch out: Mike T.'s got you sussed. And he's calling people "horseface"!" LOL!!! That is not all he's called people, kid: "You can't ignore me, because you are a petty, lonely old bitch that has nothing to do with her Chritmas [sic] than get the last word in. You have ignored every single post that I made that was on topic. You did not so much as touch my topic showing how Barak's peace deal WASN'T a peace deal. So fuck off, you insignificant little piece of shit. You are an armchair warrior, who will be thrilled to send off 18 year-olds from every other family but your own, to fight wars that cooler heads are working to avoid. Go to hell, you fuck." Posted by Mike Talismann at December 25, 2003 01:17 AM http://www.melaniephillips.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=232 But, there is hope, he's made a promise. . . "From now onwards, I am making my policy to ignore outright any posts on this subject that are purile ad Hominem attacks, or facile strawman distractions. . . " Posted by Mike Talismann at December 19, 2003 07:46 AM http://www.melaniephillips.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=232 Too bad he cannot seem to keep it. ;-) Being a cacophonous-dung beetle, rolling up the terrorists' steaming piles into what he imagines to be HUGE, useful balls for public consumption—is so addictive. Ah the venerable scarab, without which we would all be up to our eyeballs in you-know-what. "Hey, why not just forcibly spread them around the globe and force a determined quota of them to perform slave labor for whatever "host country" they are assigned to. That way, they'll make a positive contribution to human society without arousing the ire of the mediocre hordes. Perfect!" What an idea! I can't wait until the Muslims start running the world. Mikey will look sooo cute, in a full beard, caterpillar eyebrows and one of those little skull caps waving his backside in the air for Islam. ;-) Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 30, 2003 01:52 AMOur "special" friends the Saudis showing their special brand of love for the rest of non-Muslim humanity this New Year's. These are the Wahhabi pious, holier-than-thou, extremists who are exporting their brand of Islamic tolerance all over the globe, including to the US. Imagine the West banning Muslim holiday celebrations. Just imagine! Would they SCREAM "racism, bigotry, extremism"? You bet they would! Would they issue fatwas and dispatch jihadis to "take care of us" infidels? You bet they would. As the Ayatollah Khomeini said: "There is no joy in Islam!" Amazing that these people expect us to take them seriously. "Morality Police" ROTFLMAO!!!!! How about we issue a secular fatwa against Islamic bigotry and terrorism directed at innocents? http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20031228.html Happy New Year one and all! Lili "Saudi morality police to ban New Year trinkets" "RIYADH (Reuters) - Morality police in southern Saudi Arabia plan to conduct raids to ensure that shops do not sell flowers, candles and gifts to those planning to celebrate New Year, a local newspaper has reported." ". . .The Arabic-language al-Watan said the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (APVPV) in Aseer province was determined to uphold a ban by the conservative Muslim kingdom on non-Muslim celebrations. . . . . .The authority -- a pillar of the ultra-conservative kingdom since its founding -- had also banned Christmas ornaments from shops. It also bans shops from carrying Valentine's Day gifts. "For Muslims, there are only two holidays in a year: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha," . . ."
The comments by Mike T went right to the heart of the matter; Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is both illegal and unjust. Diatribes about 'Islamo-fascism' and al-Qaeda are entirely beside the point, and only serve to deflect attention from arguments which supporters of a greater Israel know they can't win. The continuing occupation of Palestinian land, and the unrelenting subjugation of the Palestinian people are indefensible on moral and legal grounds; it is only money, and the failure of the West to display anything approaching evenhandedness, that prevent justice from being served. The idea that 'they hate our freedom', which seems to be the ultimate point of messages posted here by people like Lilith is an entirely different issue; I happen to believe it's a complete load of crap, but in the end, my opinion is irrelevant too. For a start, a good proportion of Palestinians are Maronite Christians, and the main aim of the *Palestinian* struggle (note: there is an important distinction between this and wider issues in the Arab and Muslim worlds) is national self-determination. Save all your gleeful links to the anti-Western ravings of mad Muslim clerics for another argument: they simply have no relevance to this issue. This is about a historical wrong that needs to be righted. Whether one believes it should exist on 22%, 50% or 100% of Israeli land, there are no rational grounds for arguing against the need for an independent Palestinian state. The longer those who pull the strings in Israel and the US fail to see this, the worse the situation will become. Suicide bombings are hardly the most desirable form of protest, but in wars of independence, questionable tactics have always been used; look at the methods favoured by certain Zionist 'terror' groups in the 1940s. This should not be a case of 'might is right'; the fighting will only stop when Israel accepts that it must return what it stole, and coexist on an equal basis with those it continues to oppress. Posted by: Chris at December 30, 2003 03:10 PMChris, the comments of Mike T. are typically over the top. When people disagree with him or finally ignore his, not well thought out, rants or spam he resort to name calling. Now, you may believe that is just fine. No problem, you can respond to Mr. T. Others will continue to ignore him. I have said over and over that the occupation is wrong as are the settlements. However, the issue is that Palestinians have brought this upon themselves. As also stated over and over again, the Palestinians could have declared a state from the very beginning and had one as late as 2000. Instead, they called the 2nd intefadah. Their Arab "brothers" have not exactly been helpful in anything but supporting Palestinian terror. I for one, do not believe that if Israel dismantled all its settlements, and tore down the wall opened all the borders that this would stop Palestinian attacks or Islamofascist attacks on innocents around the world. The Palestinians have shown they are not willing to negotiate for peace—but they are willing to MURDER innocents for it. They want it all. They want to push the Jews into the sea. They have said so over and over again. Palestinian school books show NO Israel AT ALL! Palestinians teach their children that Jews are to be killed! And that shahada, martyrdom, is somehow "beautiful" and the best that one can aspire to in this life. This is the same thing that many Muslim states teach their children. Read their school books some time, Chris. I can provide links but you would consider them "ravings." Nevertheless, the Palestinians have managed to make a whole society psychotic with such indoctrinations. You may not see the connection with Islamofacism but many people appear to see it. Islam teaches that it should rule the world and those who won't "submit" to Islam should be killed. READ THE QU'RAN! I have also stated over and over again that the world should cut off ALL recipients of moneys for this insanity. The problem is that as long as Muslims continue to fund Islamic terrorism, then what should we do—sit around until they are at the gates of Vienna again? Actually, they are already there—as immigrants. It is estimated that by mid century (or sooner) over 50% of Dutch children will be Muslims. Sorry, but I have a problem with Western civilization being run by the misanthropic, misogynistic cult of Islam. If Muslims will abide by Western customs, norms, the rule of law and be loyal to the secular state instead of the Ummah, then no problem. But, what we are seeing is the agitation of Muslims for special privileges all over the world for THEIR way of life–at the expense of the host cultures. I have never said, "They hate our freedom." What I have said is that Muslims want to use our freedoms against us. And that is EXACTLY what they are doing! All is connected old boy. Palestinian terrorism is Islamic terrorism, SPONSORED by Islamic states, like Saudi Arabia and ordinary Muslims all over the world via zakat. Those states have breed, supported, funded and exported Islamic terrorism all over the world. If you can't see that, then I am sorry for you. Good though that most governments do see it. Here is an excellent article about Pakistan's "little terror problem" that I suggest you read because what happens in Pakistan as well as the rest of the Islamic world will directly affect ours: "Fighting a mindset, not just terrorism" ". . .Lurking just below the surface, Islam has always had an anarchic streak, legitimised on the basis of Amr and Nahi. Al-Ghazali tried to shift the responsibility for Amr and Nahi to the state. He argued, sensibly, that the practice of Amr and Nahi at the private level could create chaos: hence it must be the preserve of the state. But here one runs into another problem. What is the nature of the state in Islam? Does the state enjoy innate sovereignty or merely surrogates for God’s Sovereignty (Hakmiyat-e Illahiya)? If the state is not endogenously sovereign, as Islamic literature maintains, then there is a problem. What happens if a group decides that the state is not Islamic enough; or that it is seen to be militating against the interests of Islam and the Muslims? If the state loses its legitimacy as the true surrogate of Allah, the responsibility vested in it for that reason — derived rather than innate — would pass on to the individual or a group. . .Internally, democracy is incompatible with an Islamic state in the presence of these two concepts — the state has to be conceived in ahistorical terms, based on eternal principles, rather than as an evolving entity. . . " —Ejaz Haider http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-12-2003_pg3_3 People with the "Islam is Peace" mindset will be led off like sheep to the slaughter for "reversion" to Islam. I am not up for becoming a Muslim nor am I ready for dhimmitude. If you are, then keep going with your "Islam is Peace" illusion. Here is a very funny (except it's not) little photo show of Muslim Dreams by 2006. They may be raving and dreaming but real people are being murdered by Islamofacism! Be sure to look at the montage of London, Chris and see Lady Liberty in her new burqa holding the Qu'ran in her hand. It might bring a smile to your face—or perhaps not. http://www.aes-group.org/ip.asp?number=10 Here is something that is being proposed in the US in our schools in educational programs funded by Ford. An amendment of our Constitution against—BLASPHEMY! "Ford Has a Better Idea: One Nation Under Allah" “The First Amendment shall not be interpreted to protect blasphemous speech. States shall be free to enact anti-blasphemy laws as long as they prohibit offensive speech against all religions.” Students are asked to define blasphemy, explain the “strong” Islamic reaction to Rushdie’s novel, and assume the role of a U.S. Senator considering the amendment. They are not asked to discuss the Sharia punishment for blasphemy, which traditionally has been death. Such condemnations occur to this day. . ".http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11513 It is a fallacy to differentiate between "Militant Islam" and "Peaceful Islam." There is no such thing as "Militant Islam" because Islam IS militant. While all Muslims are not militant or violent, ALL Islamic terrorists are Muslims! And these have spread the violent message of fundamental Islam all over the world with virtually daily Islamic terrorist attacks against innocents. The teachings of the Qu'ran, as dictated by Mohammed, are militant. Regardless of the school of Islam that a Muslim follows he reads the same, immutable, unchangeable Qu'ran. A Qu'ran that has hundreds of violent, militant passages urging the "True believer" to kill the Jew and the "infidel." While the initial passages of the Qu'ran were peaceful, in that these were based on the tenets of Judaism and Christianity, the later passages, that supersede the earlier ones, are most militant and violent against anyone who is not a Muslim. Those are the passages that Islamic terrorists, clerics, leaders and ordinary people alike quote to justify murderous, Islamic jihad against the “unbelievers.” • Qu'ran: "Slay those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay jaziah out of hand and are utterly subdued" Surah Al-Tawbah (Repentence), Ayah 29, . . Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 30, 2003 04:57 PM"This is about a historical wrong that needs to be righted. Whether one believes it should exist on 22%, 50% or 100% of Israeli land, there are no rational grounds for arguing against the need for an independent Palestinian state." "Iran Thanks U.S. for Help, but Refrains From an Embrace" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/international/middleeast/31QUAK.html?th . . .""Humanitarian issues should not be intertwined with deep and chronic political problems," Mr. Khatami said at a news conference in Kerman, the provincial capital. "If we see a change both in the tone and behavior of the U.S. administration, then a new situation will develop in our relations.". . . --- Amazing! Muslims always want something from us, "dirty" American money is always welcome. But, they are too proud, arrogant or stubborn to give anything in return besides a grudging, half hearted—thank yous. We helped Iran with earthquake relief in 1990, that time they never even thanked us at all. So much for Islamic "good manners"! American wealth is always wanted, but then discounted and derided. I would say that it is Iran that "must attract OUR confidence" and not vice versa, given that Iran supports Islamic terrorism. It is Iran that needs to change its attitude toward the WHOLE non-Mulism world and not vice versa! It is Iran, and other Islamic nations that must respect the sovereignty of the Western nations and stop trying to Islamize the West! When the world sees a change in "both in the tone and behavior" of Iran as well as other Islamic nations, then perhaps there will be progress and a change in our relations. Lili "The Western Disease ". . . The so-called Arab street and its phony intellectuals sense that influential progressive Westerners will never censure Middle Eastern felonies if there is a chance to rage about Western misdemeanors. It is precisely this parasitic relationship between the foreign and domestic critics of the West that explains much of the strange confidence of those who planned September 11. It was the genius of bin Laden, after all, that he suspected after he had incinerated 3,000 Westerners an elite would be more likely to blame itself for the calamity — searching for “root causes” than marshalling its legions to defeat a tribe that embraced theocracy, autocracy, gender apartheid, polygamy, anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. And why not after Lebanon, the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassies in Africa, murder in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole? . . " " . . . Hatred of Israel is the most striking symptom of the Western disease. On the face of it the dilemma there is a no-brainer for any classic liberal: A consensual government is besieged by fanatical suicide killers who are subsidized and cheered on by many dictators in the Arab world. The bombers share the same barbaric methods as Chechens, the 9/11 murderers, al Qaedists in Turkey, and what we now see in Iraq. Indeed, the liberal Europeans should love Israel, whose social and cultural institutions — universities, the fine arts, concern for the “other” — so reflect its own. Gays are in the Israeli military, whose soldiers rarely salute, but usually address each other by their first names and accept a gender equity that any feminist would love. And while Arabs once may have been exterminated by Syrians, gassed in Yemen by Egypt, ethnically cleansed in Kuwait, lynched without trial in Palestine, burned alive in Saudi Arabia, inside Israel proper they vote and enjoy human rights not found elsewhere in the Arab Middle East. When Europe frets over the “Right of Return” do they mean the over half-million Jews who were sent running for their lives from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq? Or do they ever ask why a million Arabs live freely in Israel and another 100,000 illegally have entered the “Zionist entity”? Does a European ever ask what would happen should thousands of Jews demand “A Right of Return” to Cairo? Instead, the elite Westerner talks about “occupied lands” from which Israel has been attacked four times in the last 60 years — in a manner that Germans do not talk about an occupied West they coughed up to France or an occupied East annexed by Poland. Russia lectures about Jenin, but rarely its grab of Japanese islands. Turkey is worried about the West Bank, but not its swallowing much of Cyprus. China weighs in about Palestinian sovereignty but not the entire culture of Tibet; some British aristocrats bemoan Sharon’s supposed land grab, but not Gibraltar. . . . . .All these foreign territories that were acquired through blood and iron and held on to by reasons of “national security” are somehow different matters when Jews are not involved. Yet give Israel a population of 250 million, massive exports of oil and terrorists — and wipe away anti-Semitism — and even the Guardian or Le Monde would change its tune. . ."
Jews Struggle with Admitting Jewish Power The following perspicacious comments were made by Robert Silverman and distributed in one of Israel Shamir’s e-letters. I am posting them with his permission. Stephen Sniegoski said "There are more than a few leftist Jews who are quite willing to condemn Zionism, but at the same time condemn those who imply the existence of anything that might imply Jewish power. The simple fact of the matter is that alluding to Jewish power and influence is a far greater taboo than criticizing the policies of Israel, or even calling for the elimination of the Jewish state." I think the above statement is accurate. I know many leftist Jews who are actively opposed to the Israeli occupation and who are in favor of a single binational lay state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean . Few are able or willing to acknowledge that the main cause of the massive and unrelenting US support for Israel comes from the political power of AIPAC in influencing and controlling US policy in the Mideast. Last October I visited occupied Palestine in the framework of a monitoring visit sponsored by PAJU , Palestinians and Jews United of Montreal, Canada. I was asked to speak about my observations by a Canadian Trotskyist group , the International Socialist and to share the platform with a leader of that party who is an anti-Zionist Jew. We discussed later the causes of the US extreme support for Israel and she was convinced this was in the interests of the American capitalist class while I attributed it largely to the influence of the organized Jewish communities in the US. She disagreed and informed that she had recently resigned from the board of directors of the leftist Canadian forum for having published an article by James Petras on the influence of the organized Jewish Lobby in determining US policy in the Middle East. As far as Iraq is concerned the implications are even more grotesque. Only the country Israel benefited from the conquest of Iraq and the regime change. This is no secret. In the Spanish national daily, El Pais, in November , the Israeli minister of External Relations, states that the Arab states are now speaking to us as before they were too afraid of Saddam Hussein to do so.In March, the front page of the Canadian Jewish News ran an article by Elie Wiesel called " Some Wars Are Just" referring to the US invasion. The evidence supplied by Mark Bruzonsky editor of the Middle East Review and the Shamir reader as well as the Guardian of England and other publications have convinced me that the Organized Jewish American lobby orchestrated and convinced a not too intelligent US president to launch that Many Jewish leftists like Weinstein are squeezed. They are obviously For the Jewish Zionist lobbyist in Washington the destruction of Iraq is just fine for the enemies of Israel are one less and some of them like to show off their muscles and influence. This is about Jewish self-denial. Self-denial on any matter is not healthy for anyone. HERE we are seeing it on a massive and collective scale. I also until recently was in denial of Jewish power in America and its influence on US policy in the Middle East. But experts, wiser people than I, and the facts have led me to face the ugly truth. This is my first contribution to the Shamir reader and I invite comments. Robert Silverman, rsilverman2004@yahoo.ca this is silly Posted by: Tramadol at January 31, 2004 11:01 PMReally? Posted by: buy Vioxx at February 4, 2004 01:17 AM
Posted by: side effects ultram at February 5, 2004 03:18 AM
is that a fact Posted by: buy Ultram at February 5, 2004 08:23 AM |
