Jews United Against Zionism

[blackbear]

Interesting + thoughtful..........video + comments..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&feature=PlayList&p=E66E6FAA C4A1E742&index=6

......http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/tenquestions.cfm

The Zionist "statesmen" have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against masses of hundreds of millions of Arabs.

AND THESE SAME ZIONIST "STATESMEN" HEEDLESSLY PUSH THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF ANOTHER TOTAL WAR - REVOLVING ENTIRELY AROUND THE HOLY LAND.

What may befall the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, of the Arab crescent, Europe, or the USA; is of no concern to these Zionist leaders. ...............

Which one in the video is ........the Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Melanie Phillips, Euston manifesto,etc...Or is supporting regime change in Iran.

[krisboro]

Oh, these guys are just self-hating jews...*sarcasm*

This is off topic, lock it at once.

[ian neal]

krisboro,

don't arrive on this forum and start posting critical comments about the forum's moderation without first knowing what the * you are talking about.

I suggest you start off doing a search on my post and the word zionism and try to understand what is and is not tolerated with regards the discussion of zionism. You will see that criticism of zionism is fine. Racism is not.

Oh and grow up and stop being such a sarky git on such a sensitive topic

[Zabooka]

check out www.jewsagainstzionism.com

[lowlight]

My God, I cant believe people still bring up the whole 'Jews against Zionism' phenomenon. I love the way people link to it like it is somekind of deep secret that no one knows about. And of course, if some Jews dont support Eretz Israel then the whole thing must be floored and Israel's existence has much less validity...

...but then i guess there's more to it than that. Many like to point to Neturai Karta and a couple of the other Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic communities as examples of the 'real' version of Judaism. But if they actually knew what Neturai Karta et al believe they would probably be less supportive. Rabbi Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, construed the Holocaust as a literal punishment from God for the perceived sins of assimilation and Zionism based on the idea that the three oaths set out in Ketubot 111a had been broken by some of the Jews. This itself is contentious as other Hasidic masters and Kabbalists give it a different treatment. However the point is that when these views are flagged up, the theological context of the statement it is rarely if ever mentioned, nor is it stated that these views are an extreme minority. The Ultra-Orthodox views on Israel are far from monochrome and many actually support Israel, seeing the Shoah as being the birth pangs of the Messiah.

[ian neal]

I will happily admit to not knowing what Neturai Karta et al believe in any detail (not being a big fan of organised religions and such).

Do you believe there is anything posted either on NKUSA or jewsagainstzionism that should concern the moderators as they seek to ensure that this site does not promote hatred, racism or anti-jewishness, without wishing to censor discussion of zionism or Israel?

[lowlight]

Hello Ian,

No i dont think that the linked website promotes anti-Jewishness or racism. However those types of sites are often linked to by left wing anti-semites, or people who generally bash Israel. Those who actually run the site (from what i can tell) are Jewish so there is no problem. I guess its just a case of being given context on certain things. Im all for free speech so i wouldnt want such sites banned at all.

[TonyGosling]

See the NWO monster scream when you touch its Achilles heel

[blackbear]

Hello Lowlight

I would be most interested in your list of ......left wing anti-semite..sites.......

Do you think the supremacist, racist, fascist, nazi, aparthied states of the world.........deserve the odd criticism or bashing......ask a palestinian or hezbollah member..

............Those who actually run the site (from what i can tell) are Jewish so there is no problem...........well that's nice to know....+ interesting.

I am sure every one is upset with the present day holocaust against the black moustaches.

"we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously ... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy..."......Gilad Atzmon

...........thousands didn't turn up for work.........a good day

[TonyGosling]

[lowlight]

Tony,

Israel in contemporary Jewish thought is indeed riven with conflicting ideas and feeling. The vast majority support Israel in principle, but that doesnt necessarily mean they support what Israel does, especially when it is helmed by secular imperialists like Olmert. The long quote from the site in question is a minority view. Many Orthodox Rabbis saw the Holocaust as marking the start of the historical redemption of the Jewish people, even more so after '48 and '67. I have no idea how these things will unfold. There will likely be a confontation between Israel and Iran sooner or later. If that goes badly for Israel then there could be large scale political changes...and any attack on Iran will likely lead to a worsening situation for Israel.


Blackbear,

"I would be most interested in your list of ......left wing anti-semite..sites......."

I dont remember saying i have a list.

"Do you think the supremacist, racist, fascist, nazi, aparthied states of the world.........deserve the odd criticism or bashing......ask a palestinian or hezbollah member.. "

Of course they do.

"I am sure every one is upset with the present day holocaust against the black moustaches."

?

"...........thousands didn't turn up for work.........a good day"

nice to know where you are coming from.

[blackbear]

The Zionist Agenda ­ Part I
Exclusive to Rense.com
Commentary By Ted Lang
1-14-7

Zionism can now be defined as the political movement which wraps and camouflages itself in the Jewish faith, having as its primary mission the destruction of all sovereign national governments, religions and social structures with the objective of removing these obstacles to the establishment of a one world global government: the "New World Order."

Zionism is also the belief in the "Jewish" state, the primary one being the United States, and of secondary significance, the state of Israel. The latter will serve as the "trigger" to provoke World War III by inciting belligerent political and religious interests in the Middle East to war against each other. Thus, by taking advantage of the competing hostile religious and political divides in the region, the military chaos that could be launched and the horrific world war that would follow, leaves but only one way out for the human race. Mankind will then come to realize that its salvation can come only through a beneficent New World Order government. Predecessors of the NWO are, of course, The League of Nations and the UN.

The Zionist agenda can be attributed as the chief contributing causal factors behind virtually every war on the planet since 1776, especially those involving US. And although it was a revelation, when only a short time ago I first came to realize the Zionist fingerprints all over our very own American Revolution and nation's first war, I am now aware of Zionism's continued and intensified involvement in our second war, the War of 1812. In fact, all our wars after 1776 were not only engineered by Zionists, but can also be shown to be interconnected to each other via the cult of powerful international Zionist bankers. The Zionist bankers, headed by the international House of Rothschild-Rockefeller, have deliberately incited global conflicts and then made astonishing profits funding both sides of the conflicts they created.

Zionism can be shown to be a product of Jewish origin, and these origins have been "thoroughly studied" by Professor Kevin MacDonald, a psychologist at Cal-State. He briefly articulates the origins of Zionism using the presently accepted and politically correct euphemism of "neoconservatism." As MacDonald has offered in his September 18, 2003 essay, written for V-Dare.com entitled, "Thinking About Neoconservatism," he states, "there is nothing conservative about their goals." I would hasten to add that there is nothing new about their agenda either; nor is their agenda in any way shape or form "American." It is called neoconservatism, but it is really one thing only:

Zionism! And there is authoritative source material that offers viable arguments that Zionist Jews aren't really Jews at all, but an Asiatic race originating from a land formerly identified as Khazar in the country known today as Georgia. The population was "converted" to Judaism merely because their king had converted in 720 A.D.

Zionism, through its founder, Theodor Herzl, charges Jews with his vision as offered in his book "The Jewish State" (1896): "We are one people!" What is meant by this is that although Jewish people may have divergent interests, backgrounds and goals, Zionism charges all Jews to put their differences behind themrecognizing that they are different from all other people. This serves to create the double-edge sword that is Zionism; 1) all Jews are both Zionists and Jews; and 2) Jews are a race, thereby justifying the charge of "racism" to be used against anyone and everyone who questions Zionism. It justifies the use of the racist term "anti-Semite."

But Zionism is not a religion; it is a political agenda. Political agendas are normally the product of a state, or at least are intended to result in state action. The latter characteristic approach launching political agendas via state mandate is usually the product of a secret, or powerful and possibly even a dangerous cabal that represents only the interests of their own group. This is usually in conflict with the best interests of either the national population, or possibly Mankind in general.

Zionism defends itself against its critics with racist-based charges of anti-Semitism purely because Zionists reserve for themselves the right to hide behind their adopted sovereignty of being a "nation" of people and the nation of "Israel." They offer that all Jews are a nation, but when convenient or deemed necessary, they invoke their "religion" to stave off criticism and analytical inquiry.

Are Jews BOTH a race and a religion? Is there such a thing as the "Protestant Race," or the "Catholic Race"? Can there be, therefore, such a thing as the "Jewish Race"? Depending upon the circumstances or the nature of inquiry or criticism, Zionists will either cry "religious persecution" or "racial discrimination" as a defense. These charges are consistently offered after they, Zionists, first perpetrate the persecution of others, and when it is they who first initiate racial discrimination towards others, most notably in the form of mass murder and acts of terrorism against the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern nations. They then cry anti-Semitism when questioned, defending their indefensible actions clearly recognized as such by the world. They insist that their "nation" has a right to exist, as they deny other nations that very same right.

Examining further MacDonald's V-Dare piece, he provides a hyperlink promoting his book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. MacDonald promotes what I feel is the standard refutation of the connectivity of a Zionist conspiracy, when he offers as its basic defense the disparity of Jewish cultural and intellectual diversity and the resultant conflicting points of view. To be fair, I have not read either the book or any additional evaluation of the contents therein; but I focus on this vignette to make the point of the common error that is always resurrected to defeat the "conspiracy theory."

MacDonald writes: "There is no implication here of a unified Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Since the Enlightenment, Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement, and there has clearly been a great deal of disagreement among Jews as to how to protect themselves and attain their interests during this period. The movements discussed in this volume (Boasian anthropology, political radicalism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the New York Intellectuals) were advanced by relatively few individuals whose views may not have been known or understood by the majority of the Jewish community. The argument is that Jews dominated these intellectual movements, that a strong sense of Jewish identity was characteristic of the great majority of these individuals, and that these individuals were pursuing a Jewish agenda in establishing and participating in these movements."

MacDonald does not examine, at least as far as I am aware due to my ignorance of his total efforts, the connection between Mayer Rothschild, the patriarch of the Rothschild dynasty, and Adam Weisshaupt, the founder of a satanic cult calling themselves the "Illuminati." It is believed that Rothschild encouraged or plotted with Weisshaupt for the Illuminati's infiltration of the Freemasons. Rank and file Freemasons are unaware of the satanic aspect of their organization, yet the connection between the rich and powerful Rothschilds, Weisshaupt, the Freemasons and Zionism is foolish to ignore. And although the connection has been brought to the fore by such as Dr. Henry Makow, the term "Illuminati" is simply too mystical and to colorful to believe, especially when denigrated by the towering intellects "who don't believe in conspiracy theories." The term "International Zionist bankers" offers a more believable base providing easier investigation and analysis.

Any connections to these theories, even those supported by factual, hard evidence, are then pounced upon by the Zionist network of liars, frauds, dirt and smear mongers, journalistic charlatans and other propagandists, and are decried as examples of "frauds" and "forgeries." The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, but of course, a "forgery." Never mind that they are on exhibit in the British Museum ­ the curators are obviously too stupid and have been duped. And "Hitler's bankers" are another fraud. And Israel's attack on the U.S.S. Liberty never happened, and 34 of our Navy personnel weren't really killed in that act of war. Everybody else is lying, but never the Zionists. They never lie or persecute or discriminate against anyone. That is why they need "hate crimes" protection!

MacDonald seems to have fallen into the same Zionist trap that befalls most critics of "Judaism." Let's think about that for a moment. Let's reflect for a moment on Hitler's views of the "Jewish bankers" who betrayed Germany via the Versailles Treaty. Let's reflect upon Mel Gibson's outburst while in an inebriated state blaming all the world's wars on "Jews." How about Henry Ford in his Zionist "451"-banned book, The International Jew? It can be shown that "Jews" were clearly identified as being heavily involved in both initiating World War I and in cutting up all the pieces of the Versailles victory pie for themselves. To be sure, "Jews" presided over both the beginnings of World War I, as well as in its spoils, one of them being the guarantee of a "Jewish state" in the captured Ottoman territory identified as Palestine. But were these "Jews" really Jews, or were they in fact Zionists? Failing to separate the two designations is what discredits Hitler, Ford, Gibson, Lindbergh, Mearsheimer, Walt, Judt, Freedman, and now probably even former President Jimmy Carter.

I fear that the genre of "conspiracy theory" dismissal rhetoric offered by such as Professor MacDonald, misses badly on the real driver that should be at the heart of any discussion involving the international political future of our planet. And the driving force of world politics is not, nor has it ever been, Judaism. The threat is Zionism! It has always been Zionism, and will continue to be such unless we stop their current dangerous stooge, G. Bush, from launching World War III. Our unelected Chief Executive Moron has his finger on the button, and the Zionists, not neoconservatives, are the puppet masters pulling his strings.

Tony, you might be interested in the discussion between Gilad Atzmon and Michael Rosen. This also involves SWP/Respect and Harry's Place/other blogs.

William Rodriguez........thousands of jews didn.t turn up for work...

An Israeli friend, said to me in relation to Iraq.... maybe we will get someone to do our fighting for us.....I presume that might include Iran now...

[wepmob2000]

[lowlight]

Wow Blackbear,

Do you, well you know...actually believe that Rense/Ted lang piece? I mean seriously, do you think that is accurate? Do you actually know about the Khazars? I mean, have you read the material on them? Not the silly pseudo-scholarly clap-trap that gets mentioned in the piece, i mean actual history that is not idelogically motivated by a wish to denigrate Jewish origins.

I thought people stopped using Rense as a reliable source years ago, but there you go i guess.

Did you notice how there was no evidence in that piece? Seriously, there was nothing. It was just the opinion of someone who hates Israel.

I must stress this. The linked piece actually has no knowledge of A. Jewish origins, and B. the history of Zionism. Sorry to shatter the illusion but ted lang and all the other great and learned of Rense.com know 2 things, and 2 things only, about Judaism and Zionism. The first is 'Jack', the second is 's**t'. Why not go and read actual histories of Judaism, you know, something by Scholem, or Gilman, or even Cohn-Sherbok for an basic way in. Oh right...I forgot, commitment to truth seems sparse around here sometimes.

[rodin]

Anyone here familiar with the Talmud? I understand it permits Jews to treat Gentiles as inferiors. Is this itself not racism?

[rodin]

What drew me tp at least look at alternative views of the Holocaust was the fact that it was forbidden to do so. Thought/Speech crime is right out of 1984. Big red flag.

[lowlight]

Rodin,

All systems of belief (be it Judaism, Voodoo, or Capitalism) have an ugly side. The Talmud is literally thousands of pages long. Some rabbinic contributors will almost certainly have seen gentiles as inferior, others will not. Talmud (consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara) is essentailly a commentary on Torah through the process of dialectical discussion, point and counter-point. Some parts are sexist, describing women as 'pitchers of filth whose mouths are full of blood', other parts are sublime expositions on the nature of suffering in the face of death - see Rabbi Akiba's martyrdom. To label such a vast work, constructed by numerous Rabbis and sages over hundreds of years, as racist, would be like saying 'life is murderous'. Does that mean life is worthless? Does that mean life is not sometimes safe? beautiful? good? true?

[rodin]

So the translations that are bandied about of some of the more damning bits have been taken out of context?

Like the stuff about sex etc?

It it true that the word 'goyim' or 'goy' translates as cattle? Are we the herd?

[blackbear]

The Thirteenth Tribe
The Khazar Empire and its Heritage
Arthur Koestler

This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in A.D. 740 converted to Judaism. Khazaria, a conglomerate of Aryan Turkish tribes, was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Han, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the craddle of Western (Ashkenazim) Jewry...
The Khazars' sway extended from the Black sea to the Caspian, from the Caucasus to the Volga, and they were instrumental in stopping the Muslim onslaught against Byzantium, the eastern jaw of the gigantic pincer movement that in the West swept across northern Africa and into Spain.
Thereafter the Khazars found themselves in a precarious position between the two major world powers: the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium and the triumphant followers of Mohammed. As Arthur Koestler points out, the Khazars were the Third World of their day, and they chose a surprising method of resisting both the Western pressure to become Christian and the Eastern to adopt Islam. Rejecting both, they converted to Judaism.
The second part of Mr. Koestler's book deals with the Khazar migration to Polish and Lithuanian territories, caused by the Mongol onslaught, and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He produces a large body of meticulously detailed research in support of a theory that sounds all the more convincing for the restraint with which it is advanced.
Mr. Koestler concludes: "The evidence presented in the previous chapters adds up to a strong case in favour of those modern historians - whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish - who, independently from each other, have argued that the bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian origin. The mainstream of Jewish migrations did not flow from the Mediterranean across France and Germany to the east and then back again. The stream moved in a consistently westerly direction, from the Caucasus through the Ukraine into Poland and thence into Central Europe. When that unprecedented mass settlement in Poland came into being, there were simply not enough Jews around in the west to account for it, while in the east a whole nation was on the move to new frontiers" ( page 179, page 180).
"The Jews of our times fall into two main divisions: Sephardim and Ashkenazim.
The Sephardim are descendants of the Jews who since antiquity had lived in Spain (in Hebrew Sepharad) until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the countries bordering the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. They spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino, and preserved their own traditions and religious rites. In the 1960s, the number of Sephardim was estimated at 500000.
The Ashkenazim, at the same period, numbered about eleven million. Thus, in common parlance, Jew is practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew." ( page 181).
In Mr. Koestler's own words, "The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated."

Mr. Koestler was an Ashkenazi Jew and took pride in his Khazar ancestry. He was also a very talented and successful writer who published over 25 novels and essays. His most successful book, Darkness at Noon, was translated in thirty-three languages.
As expected, The Thirteenth Tribe caused a stir when published in 1976, since it demolishes ancient racial and ethnic dogmas...At the height of the controversy in 1983, the lifeless bodies of Arthur Koestler and his wife were found in their London home. Despite significant inconsistencies, the police ruled their death a suicide...

Too much truth.
Concentrate on the present day holocaust against the muslims.....
The dancers knew the time of the show.

[lowlight]

I guess you would be right. If Koestler was right. But he wasnt. He was wrong.

Genetic testing has shown that...

"the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews was of Middle Eastern origin, containing mutations that are also common among Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced primarily to the Middle East.[1] A 2006 study by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE.[2]"

1. Hammer, M. F.; A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir (May 9 2000). "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

2. Behar, Doron M.; Ene Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Alessandro Achilli, Yarin Hadid, Shay Tzur, Luisa Pereira, Antonio Amorim, Lluı's Quintana-Murci, Kari Majamaa, Corinna Herrnstadt, Neil Howell, Oleg Balanovsky, Ildus Kutuev, Andrey Pshenichnov, David Gurwitz, Batsheva Bonne-Tamir, Antonio Torroni, Richard Villems, and Karl Skorecki (March 2006). "The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event". The American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (3): 487-97. PMID 16404693

Not so much truth after all...

[blackbear]

Lowlight....a one minute paste from wikipedia. I will stick with AK thanks.

Try looking on that independent site for references to the ongoing holocaust against the black moustaches/muslims.

Shall we do a IQ test next.

Back to Harry's place for you.

Read a good forgery.......

[wepmob2000]

Hi Lowlight

Welcome to the forum, I sincerely hope your first encounter with Blackbear and his ilk doesn't discourage you from posting here.

The vast majority of people who post here are really good types who happen to care passionately about injustices and lies, wherever they happen to be perpetrated.

Unfortunately the board does tend to attract a small minority who don't care about truth, but see the board as a convenient bandwagon from which to bang their particular drum. Often that drum is an anti Jewish/Israeli one, while the 'black moustaches' are used as a tool for justification.

Seriously, do read Blackbears posts, and do a rough tally of 911 posts versus anti Israeli posts, one type vastly outnumbers the other, I'll leave it to you to guess which.

P.S. Don't in any way criticise Hezbollah, it really upsets him....

[wepmob2000]

[lowlight]

Hello Webmob2000,

nice to know there are some open minded people here. I have been signed up for ages, but have hardly ever posted because much of the content has only ever depressed me. Plus i knew that i would end up in endless arguments with people who have no training in what they are talking about. From what i have seen of this site over the last year i would have to say there are a few people with extraordinary holds on what they percieve as truth. Some in the 9/11 truth movement literally live it as a religion. It has become the central point of meaning in their life and if evidence arises against particular claims, then to them it appears as if you are insulting their faith. Anyway, i am aware that not all are like this here and for that i am glad. Some islands of the sane are needed.

But now to Blackbear...

Dont you see? A one mintute post from Wiki is all that is needed to show the Khazar theory is false. Simple as. I would sooner lay it to rest with a quick cut and paste which gives you the sources to go to if you want to check up on it, rather than pay £15 to get to the Library to photocopy said journals and then type out the data word for word, when clearly that wouldnt be good enough for you anyway...because you have already made your mind up. A literary author who propounded a theory long since discredited is aceepted as gospel because you want it to be. It fits your view on Zionism and Judaism. There is no evidence that could be presented to you to change your mind. What training do you have in relation to Judaism? How many actual books have you read on the subject? How many degrees do you have on Judaism? Everyone who posts here can see your myopia from this thread. There is nothing more i wish to say on this issue with you because it would be a pointless exercise.

What i will say is that it is so off putting to people who come here knowing a little about 9/11 to be confronted with such cretinous arguments and ideas. I speak as someone who actually knows quite a bit about 9/11. I even gave a lecture on it that some of the people here came to last year. What has happened to the 9/11 truth movement is truely depressing. The game is already over. The truth will never be told, it will never come out in the mainstream, other than in the form of 'crazy conspiracy' programs. It has been tarred too often by foolishness, bigotry and paranoia. It is virtually a dead subject and in a few more years it will be like the Kennedy murder, intresting historically but of no real world consequence anymore. People wont even care. They will just go back to eating burgers and doing dead end jobs. Because as long as you can pay the bills, who really cares? Apathy, stupidity and fundalmentalist attitudes have consigned 9/11 truth to history. I wish i was wrong.

[blackbear]

The Zionist Agenda ­ Part II
By Ted Lang
Exclusive to Rense.com
1-15-7

Towering intellects and celebrated American philosophers of note will tell you that they simply don't believe in "conspiracy theories." Brilliant! The secret beer hall cabal of Hitler socialists never rose to dominate Germany as the Nazis. And there was no conspiracy in baiting the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. And JFK, RFK, and JFK, Jr., are all just coincidences of bad luck. And Enron never happened. And Oklahoma City never happened. And 9/11 never happened. These are all just "theories." If you are on a railroad track in the dark, and someone warns you that a train is rapidly approaching you from the rear, do you challenge them by calling them a fool, or do you at least turn to look?

Dismissing, therefore, the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," is a serious mistake, and as the free world might soon learn, may translate as well into a fatal one as well. By using the same selective methods attributable to our Zionist, mainstream establishment corporate media, let's just examine the more relevant sections of the Zionist's bible and detailed plan of action. There are, of course, a myriad of pertinent tactics to be found therein, tying in neatly to an overall strategy design for world dominance and control. Yet, all of these Protocols should rightfully be deemed foolish as well as totally impossible considering the excellent arguments of Professor MacDonald in citing the total improbability of a "monolithic" Jewish conspiracy.

But as Professor MacDonald dismisses both a Jewish conspiracy and the Protocols, he fails to connect to both the astonishing and staggering power of the Zionist international banking cabal. The massive power MacDonald fails to consider is the largest wealth and power base in the world. It is this international wealth and power that controls virtually all governments of the world. It is the House of Rothschild-Rockefeller international bankers.

Considering the Protocols and their content is, of course, the highest possible insult to those of the Jewish faith. H.L. Mencken, who dismissed portions of the Talmud as pure anti-Christian filth and not to be taken seriously, would probably, in all likelihood, dismiss the Protocols as similar filth. But when one considers the proclivities of the House of Rothschild, to plot and incite wars, and then enjoy huge profits in financing ALL the belligerents, perhaps the Protocols are not that far-fetched. Of course, anyone that makes such analogy, or even demonstrates a modicum of curiosity as to what is stated therein, will simply be written-off as 'anti-Jewish' and 'anti-Semitic.' Their content is verboten! But what is really forbidden is it what is actually stated in the Protocols, more so than merely the desire to learn about them relative to the New World Order.

When one studies all the wars since 1776, the year assigned as the beginning of the Rothschild world banking conglomerate that has existed for two centuries and has been expanded across Europe by the patriarch and his five sons, it has ultimately manifested itself globally in the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of the United States of America deliberately misnamed "The Federal Reserve System." There is nothing either "federal" or "reserve" about our Rothschild-created "national bank." President Andrew Jackson stopped a bullet fired at him by a Rothschild assassin, hired to kill him for his monumental efforts in saving America from the international criminal plot via the establishment of a "national bank" for America. Both Jefferson and Jackson agreed that such a bank would ultimately destroy our nation.

It has also been speculated, and strongly played down as well, that when the "real" Abraham Lincoln launched his war and invasion of the South at the behest of northern industrialists, Lincoln, rebuffed by the "New York City" [Zionist] bankers in refusing to underwrite bond loans to the Union to finance the war, printed his own "greenbacks" thereby avoiding Zionist control of our money system. The New York banks wanted to create "debt money" financed by interest rates as high as 24 to 36 percent. But Lincoln's war was financed by the clever bond marketing program created by "money man" Jay Cooke.

Here is how The First American-The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin author, H.W. Brands, diplomatically puts it in his book, The Money Men-Capitalism, Democracy, and the Hundred Years' War Over the American Dollar: "Chase [Samuel, U.S. Treasurer] invited Cooke to join him in appealing to the financial communities of New York and Boston in the same way Cooke had appealed to Philadelphia. Boston cooperated readily enough, but New York was a hard sell. Throughout the war New York would be notorious for its apathy ­ at times violent apathy ­ toward the war effort; this shortfall of Union patriotism was exacerbated in the financial community by the international connections of many of New York's bankers, whose foreign partners had no emotional stake inAmerica's fight."

Brands' description is totally factual, but offering that the Rothschilds "had no emotional stake in America" is pure unadulterated nonsense! The Zionist banking conglomerate was rooting for the Confederacy, which had already been printing its own money. Two Americas would be easier to convert to the Zionist banking scheme than one powerful free and independent nation that could print its own money without them.

Lincoln printed his own greenbacks and Chase was able to extort some financial support from the New York Zionist bankers by threatening to "bury them in paper" and inflate their holdings. This was done without Rothschild supervision or their granting of debt money "credit." Lincoln was assassinated, and there are strong indications that the Zionists were behind that act of terrorism, considering as well the attempt on President Andrew Jackson's life.

In addition to the Zionist threat from inside the nation via the New York bankers, Tsar Alexander II of Russia was also having problems with the Rothschild international banking criminals. Alexander II saw through the Rothschild plot for carving up America into two pieces to cash in, and immediately dispatched his fleet to provide Lincoln naval support to prevent the Rothschild manipulation of our "Civil War." The Rothschild's remembered this, and almost half a century later, Jacob Schiff, the America-based Rothschild banker of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, would finance the Japanese in the Japanese-Russian war eventually leading to the destruction of the Russian fleet that protected America from the Rothschild takeover of our money system. And although President William McKinley can be faulted for his imperialistic flaws in declaring war upon Spain to steal the Philippines and Cuba, at least he didn't knuckle under to the Zionist international Rothschild bankers either doing their bidding. McKinley, too, was assassinated.

The turmoil created by the 1905 Japanese-Russian War, the loss of the fleet, and Zionist-generated labor union unrest brought down the Christian monarchy inRussia. Along with the chaos created during and after World War I, the Zionists, through their plot of enforced communism via the Bolshevik Revolution that was also engineered by them, created the Soviet Union, and led to the massacre of millions of Christians. As Professor MacDonald has pointed out, "communism is a product of 'Jewish' intellectualism."

When JFK became our president, one of the first actions he took was to fire Alan Dulles the then-head of the CIA. The Bush family-created intelligence bureaucracy and partner of the Mossad, is said to have been very instrumental in changing JFK's motorcade route in Dallas on the date of his assassination. Dulles and his brother, John Foster, were the lawyers hired by the international Zionist Rothschild bankers to write the Versailles Treaty, the latter bringing into existence Hitler and his Nazis. JFK actively sought to block the most dangerous Zionist nation in the world from obtaining nuclear weaponry and thereby vigorously opposing the desires of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion. And it didn't help JFK either when he made it clear that he opposed the Zionist banking system in America. JFK was assassinated as well, the same fate of Lincoln and McKinley, and the attempt to kill Andrew Jackson.

The foregoing cited incidents of Zionist banker meddling in our own internal affairs is offered only to provide a very abbreviated back drop of the sordid and long list of Zionist plotting resulting in major upheavals in our American way of life. A review of the astonishing wealth of the Rothschilds and their investments in gold, silver and diamond mining, and their international notoriety in starting wars via their ownership of all news and information media the world over, is testimony to their total control over virtually all governments in the world, including especially our own. Most informed individuals already know about their trademark of funding both sides of the numerous wars they "invested" in, but not too many know that they also usually started the wars they financed. Such was indeed the case with World War I, when their total control of French, British and American newspapers was brought into play to incite "bottoms up" public pressure, and also to mobilize political "tops down" public official and bureaucratic action in response to their continual agitation for wars.

Here is an excerpt from the FIRST PROTOCOL. Think of it as it may relate to our "elected" president and our Congress:

Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.

And here's an excerpt from the TWELFTH PROTOCOL concerning the press/media:

We shall handle the Press in the following manner:

1. We shall saddle it and keep tight reign upon it. We shall do the same also with other printed matter, for of what use is it to rid ourselves of attacks in the Press, if we remain exposed to criticism through pamphlets and books? [Think Internet and "hate crimes.]

2. Not one announcement will reach the people save under our supervision. We have attained this at the present time to the extent that all news is received through several agencies in which it is centralized from all parts of the world.

3. Literature and journalism are two most important educational forces, and consequently our government will become the owner of most of the journals. If we permit ten private journals, we shall organize thirty of our own, and so on. This must not be suspected by the public, for which reason all the journals published by us will be externally of the most contrary opinions and tendencies thus evoking confidence in them and attracting our unsuspecting opponents, who thus will be caught in our trap and rendered harmless.

Think of their control of international banking and the governments of the world via their national banks, their International Monetary Fund, and their World Bank.

From the TENTH:

To wear everyone out by dissensions, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles see no other way of escape except an appeal to our money and power.

And from the SIXTH:

We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, colossal reservoirs of wealth, upon which even the big Gentile properties will be dependent to such an extent that they will all fall together with the government credit on the day following the political catastrophe. The economists here present must carefully weigh the significance of this combination. We must develop by every means the importance of our super-government, representing it as the protector and benefactor of all who voluntarily submit to us.

And their DIVIDE and CONQUER methodology of instigating wars from the FIFTH:

A world coalition of Gentiles could cope with us temporarily, but we are assured against this by roots of dissension among them so deep that they cannot be torn out. We have created antagonism between the personal and national interests of the Gentiles by arousing religious and race hatreds which we have nourished in their hearts for twenty centuries.

And from the SEVENTH:

To each act of opposition we must be in a position to respond by bringing on war through the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose us, and if these neighbors should plan to stand collectively against us, we must let loose a world war.

It was not the intent here to list all 24 protocols. Nor was it the intent here to be "anti-Semitic" or anti-Jewish. The intent here should be clear: to make the distinction between Zionism as a political threat and divorce it from the religious faith that is Judaism. Are there Jews that support Zionism? Of course! But I would like to offer that there are far more "Christian Fundamentalists" believing in "end times" salvation who wrongfully and unjustly equate Zionism and Judaism as one and the same.

Compare even this abbreviated list of their tactics incorporated in their strategy of world dominance. Now consider the wealthiest entity on Earth: the Zionist bankers of the House of Rothschild-Rockefeller. Can the make the New World Order happen? How does their agenda stack up to realities concerning the Bush-doting media controlled by them? Why do they support Bush? Why doesn't Congress stop Bush, stop the war in Iraq, and block him and Israel from attackingIran? Do the excerpts from the Protocols answer any of these questions?

The Internet bypasses the Zionist owned and operated media, which is why Hillary needs a gatekeeper for US. And the Internet can and does substitute for "pamphlets and books." Think of that "Founding Document" that was most responsible in generating "bottoms-up" pressure from the Colonists. Wasn't it Tom Paine's "Common Sense"? And therein lies the threat to Zionism. "Net neutrality" will be attacked, "hate crimes" legislation introduced, and we will then be the enemies of our own government created to serve US. It's the Zionist way!

9/11....good day for Zionists....

[brian]

blackbear, you any idea what this "Dangerous Book" is?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/message/26739

[blackbear]

My Israel Question
Australian Jewish author tackles the hard questions
by Tristan Ewins
January 15, 2007
Antony Loewenstein: My Israel Question

In this determined and controversial critique of the role of Zionist lobbyists in influencing the public sphere, and exhaustive consideration of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, Antony Loewenstein can be credited with having produced a truly ground-breaking work. Determined to ‘humanize’ the Palestinian people in the face of attempts to deny them both sympathy and justice, Loewenstein rejects Zionism as “an exclusionary and racist national ideology that has always overlooked the rights of the Palestinians.” While fully appreciating the anger such words of condemnation are certain to evoke amongst his own Jewish community, the author is uncompromising in his depiction of what he sees as a ruthless and coordinated campaign to set limits upon, and determine the language of debate surrounding the future of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Rejecting claims he is a ‘self-hater’ or apologist for terrorism, Loewenstein is insistent: “Zionism is not Judaism. Deliberately associating the two is a dishonest method of silencing anyone who may disagree with either.” He continues: “Conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism...is a strategy intended to stifle criticism and dissent.” This is an argument that the author maintains throughout much of the book: an argument that is illuminated by the stories of Israelis, Diaspora Jews and others who have dared criticize the Jewish State – some of whom have faced a torrent of vilification in response.

Recalling attempts by elements of the Zionist lobby to discredit Palestinian peace activist and political figure Hanan Ashrawi after she was awarded Sydney Peace Prize, Loewenstein details what he sees as a stifling and intimidating atmosphere created by the lobby in its attempt to limit debate over the future of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. After receiving tirades of abuse in response to his defense of Ashrawi against claims she was equivocal in the face of terrorism, Loewenstein’s resolve was hardened, and he determined to provide a thorough critique of the forces he saw as being arrayed against the causes of conciliation and peace. According to Loewenstein, Ahsrawi was targeted in a campaign of slander solely because she represented a creditable spokesperson for the Palestinian cause, and because she ardently maintained the right of an oppressed people “to resist occupation and injustice”. The author argues that, in the minds of her detractors, this stand was conflated with support for terrorism, even despite Ashrawi’s resolute condemnation of suicide bombing. Loewenstein’s critique of the ‘Ashrawi affair’ marks the starting point of a fruitful and expansive consideration of the influence of the Zionist lobby worldwide, and of the many varied views of policy makers and members of the world Jewish community both inside and outside of Israel and the Territories.

Perhaps one of the most telling chapters of this title comes late in the second chapter where Sara Roy argues in quote provided by Loewenstein,

“In the post-Holocaust world, Jewish memory has faltered – even failed – in one critical respect: it has excluded the reality of Palestinian suffering and Jewish culpability therein. As a people, we have been unable to link the creation of Israel with the displacement of the Palestinians. We have been unable to see, let alone remember, that finding our place meant the loss of theirs.”

In response to the plight of the Palestinians, Loewenstein refers to the notion held by some Israelis that there never was a historical Palestine and that, as a consequence, Palestinians are really “Hashemite Jordanians” – and thus that Palestinians should make their home in Jordan. What emerges is a picture where some on the Israeli right seek to provide a rationale for, or an excuse for policies which really cannot be seen as anything short of ‘ethnic cleansing’.

There were some for whom the choice confronting the Zionist movement was clear even well before the formation of the modern Israeli state. Loewenstein accredits the following quote to Y.Weitz, “head of the Jewish Agency’s colonization department” from 1940;

“Between ourselves it must be made clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country…there is no other way other than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, to transfer all of them: not one village, not one tribe, should be left.”

For Loewenstein, the logic of this statement remains in force even today. As he argues, “Israel opposes a resolution to the conflict because it opposes the presence of another people on land it has claimed exclusively for Jews.” For both the Israeli mainstream, and radical supporters of the settler movement, support for expansionism and further disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people is only marked by differences in degrees: by disagreement over the extent of the expansion beyond the pre-1967 borders necessary to build a ‘greater Israel’.

In response to this, there would by many who, as Loewenstein recognizes, would claim that in the 2000 peace talks, former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak offered Arafat ‘everything’ – and that his refusal demonstrated that there was ‘no partner for peace’. Refuting these claims, Loewenstein goes on to argue that the 2000 peace talks provided no resolution to the question of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with Israel seeking instead to annex great swathes of territory while failing to provide “full legal rights to the annexed Palestinian residents.” Furthermore, Loewenstein maintains that, in the talks, Israel did not provide for East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, instead offering “the adjacent town of Abu-Dis”, and provided no resolution of the question of Palestinian refugees. Also, importantly, there was no recognition of Israeli responsibility for the displacement and suffering of said refugees in the first place: “a central demand of Arafat”. This stands in stark contrast to the treatment of the issue in much of the Western media: which portrayed Arafat as ‘an obstacle to peace’. Loewenstein asks the obvious question: “Why was Arafat’s rejection of the 2000 peace deal rarely presented as anything other than a refusal to accept peace?”.

Alongside his broader critique of the Israeli occupation, Loewenstein subjects the world Zionist lobby to searching criticism, pointing to instances where the lobby has targeted critical voices in the United States, in Britain and also in Australia, reprimanding media for ‘bias’ or, at worst, accusing critics of anti-Semitism. In particular, Loewenstein notes the power of the Zionist lobby in the United States in the form of the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). The situation in the United States, according to Loewenstein, is complex:

“Despite the power of the Zionist lobby, other factors also shape US support for Israel. They include: the politics of oil; the arms industry and its influence in Congress; the sentimental attachment of US liberals to Israel’s internal democratic institutions; the Christian Right’s messianic beliefs; racist attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims; and the failure of progressive movements to challenge US policy on Israel successfully.”

Despite this complicated picture, however, the author clearly argues that the influence of the Zionist lobby is key, and weighs upon the minds of US policy-makers. In particular, Loewenstein notes how when Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney “questioned the occupation of Palestinian land, Jewish organizations, including the AIPAC, offered financial support to her rival, Denise Majette.”

By contrast with Britain, where critical voices remain prominent through publications such as the Guardian and the Independent, Loewenstein sees the Australian public sphere as being closer to that of the US where, according to the Guardian, “[The] parameters for debate are relatively narrow compared with the rest of the western world.”

In particular, Loewenstein focuses on the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), which he describes as “the only well-funded Jewish group in the country, and the best organized.” As he argues, AIJAC “takes a high profile stand on many issues, yet is not accountable to the community through elections.” Loewenstein notes how AIJAC lobbied vociferously against the bestowing of the Sydney Peace Prize upon Hanan Ahshrawi. In the face of such lobbying, Loewenstein observes, every corporate sponsor ultimately abandoned the foundation. The author indicates: “the organizations were told their ‘client base’ would be affected if they continued their support”. The author also observes how AIJAC has pressured the Australian Labor Party to silence, or otherwise disassociate itself from dissenting Labor figures such as Julia Irwin, with other backbenchers, who “spoke out in favor of a Palestinian state and against the harshness of the occupation”. Irwin responded to this pressure arguing, “…The Israeli Labor Party tolerates more diverse views than some in the Australian Jewish community suggest the ALP should tolerate…”.

Loewenstein also associates AIJAC with attempts to influence programming of Australian public broadcasters such as the ABC and SBS. Specifically, the author observes a 2003 AIJAC report which objected to “SBS calling the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem ‘occupied Palestinian land.” In this, Loewenstein argues, AIJAC went directly against United Nations Resolution 242 “issued in November 1967, which stresses ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’.” AIJAC has also lobbied SBS to withdraw planned programming, including an attempt to bar the screening of John Pilger’s documentary, ‘Palestine is still the issue’. Furthermore, Loewenstein notes AIJAC’s objections to the screening of a program on the ABCs ‘Four Corners’ criticizing Ariel Sharon’s role “in the massacre in 1982 of more than 2000 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut.” As the author sees it, “In AIJAC’s opinion, any news story that portrays Israel in a critical light is biased, irresponsible and sign of anti-Semitism.”

The author also notes similar episodes in the United States. Apparently, “Robert Fisk revealed in 2001 that CNN, after constant lobbying by pro-settler groups, stopped referring to Gilo as a ‘Jewish settlement’, instead calling it a ‘Jewish neighborhood’. The fact that Gilo is a Jewish suburb illegally occupying land outside Jerusalem mattered little.” Furthermore, Loewenstein notes a tendency amongst US news programs to refer to “Israeli violence as ‘retaliation’ almost nine times more often than Palestinian violence.” According to Loewenstein, “This disparity is meaningful. The term ‘retaliation’ suggests a defensive stance undertaken in response to someone else’s aggression. It also lays responsibility for the cycle of violence at the doorstep of the party being ‘retaliated’ against, since they presumably initiated the conflict… This inherent bias against the Palestinians, and the journalistic belief that the Israelis are fighting a war inflicted upon them, rather than one of their choosing, is critical to how the public views the conflict.”

By contrast, Loewenstein is supportive of efforts by some in the media to represent Palestinian voices and perspectives. Against charges of bias: of anything other than ‘50/50’ coverage of perspectives, Loewenstein refers to a statement made by journalist, Robert Fisk. Fisk had argued,

“in the realm of warfare…you are morally bound as a journalist to show eloquent compassion to the victims, to be unafraid to name the murderers and you’re allowed to be angry…. [In] 1982, in Sabra and Shatila, I wrote about the victims, the dead who I physically climbed over and the survivors. I did not give 50 per cent to the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia who massacred them nor to the Israeli army who watched the murders and did nothing.”

Fisk’s musings are especially relevant in circumstances where “Mass confiscation of land, acts of collective punishment, arrest without trial and house demolitions [have become] the norm”.

Loewenstein criticizes the practice amongst some journalists of fending off criticism of bias by seeking some illusory ‘balance’ in the reporting of events. In particular he argues, “Too often…accepting ‘official sources’ as accurate, while dismissing dissenting perspectives as unreliable, results in disproportionate emphasis on an establishment perspective and in support for state power…”. Loewenstein’s criticisms and observations are especially poignant given efforts by the Howard Conservative government in Australia to ‘stack’ the ABC board with ultra-conservative political appointees, and its withdrawal of the right of ABC staff to appoint a representative of their own to the ABC board.

Perspectives including those favoring a Two State Solution, and those favoring a One State or ‘bi-national’ solution, are presented through the viewpoints of those concerned. One individual featured in Loewenstein’s narrative: Tony Judt of the Remarque Institute of New York University argues,

“The true alternative facing the Middle East in the coming years…will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single integrated bi-national state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians.”

Unfortunately, though, such perspectives are not developed, nor does Loewenstein provide a broad assessment of competing claims for a Two-State and One-State, or ‘bi-national’ solution.

The ‘bi-national’ solution, here, envisages the creation of a federation, with Israeli and Palestinian republics as member states. Perhaps what many Zionists fear most of all, here, is not simply terrorism, but rather the rise of a peaceful liberal human rights movement in Israel and the Territories: one that demands equal rights of citizenship, and with the changing demographic make-up of the region, threatens the dominance of Jews in the very land they call their own. In particular, Loewenstein notes how, according to Rabin, “if Israel were to hold on to the West Bank permanently”:… if Palestinians were denied the vote “Israel would no longer be a democracy, but an apartheid state.” This is an angle the author appeals to regularly, citing the creation of ‘Jewish only roads’, checkpoints and the ‘security wall’ which he sees as a prelude to future Israeli expansionism. By contrast, should the bi-national movement succeed, it would end all hopes of Israel comprising a purely ‘Jewish state’.

Certainly, all the moral arguments remain on the side of those in favor of the bi-national approach. Envisaging peace and conciliation amongst Israelis and Palestinians, the proposal offers the hope of co-existence and mutual identification with the entire of the land formerly known as Palestine. Also, bi-nationalism offers the prospect of justice for Palestinian refugees.

Nevertheless, there are significant obstacles to such proposals. Most tellingly, Loewenstein notes that “since 1994 more than 700 Israelis have died in more than 120 suicide attacks.” Currently, Israeli hostility to the Palestinians is sharpened by the constant threat of terror attacks, and certainly Hamas still aims to eliminate the state of Israel: as opposed to entertaining notions of a bi-national federation. In order for the bi-national solution to gain greater credibility, therefore, there would need to be a veritable ‘sea change’ of public opinion in the Palestinian Territories: to a perspective that seriously entertained and, in fact, accepted the proposition of sharing the land of historical Palestine with Israel, on the basis of equal rights of citizenship for all. Such a ‘sea change’ of public consciousness would require years of hard work: including a number of good will gestures from the Israelis to show they were serious about a just peace. Dismantlement of the ‘security wall’ and a permanent halt to the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, as well as compensation for and recognition of the grievances of Palestinian refugees, and finally equal citizenship rights afforded to non-Jewish Israeli residents: this could mark the beginning of a protracted peace process which sought to radically change ‘hearts and minds’ on both sides of the Israel/Palestine divide.

It might also be noted that such views as Judt’s seem unnecessarily dismissive of the prospects of a Two-State solution which provides full citizenship rights to Palestinians living within Israel, and recognizes the suffering of refugees, offering compensation and recognition for those displaced after the 1948. While a ‘bi-national’ solution may seem an ideal: an ideal worth working for over the long term, the more immediately realizable option of a ‘Two State Solution’ should not be ruled out – especially if it addresses the core grievances of the Palestinian people.

Importantly, though, should Palestinian recognition of Israel rest upon the acceptance of pre-1967 borders, recognition of the grievances of refugees and the affording of full citizenship rights to all residents of the state of Israel: then it is up to Israel to establish its legal and moral legitimacy in the face of the plight of those people whom it has displaced and dispossessed.

Unfortunately, Loewenstein’s outright rejection of Zionism is likely to alienate those who endure in their commitment to the cause of a Jewish National Home, while at the same time recognizing and addressing the grievances detailed in his book In an interview with refusnik (ie: a conscientious objector against compulsory Israeli military service), Martin Kaminer, Kaminer reflects on the changing definition of Zionism: “Noam Chomsky said the 50 years ago I was called a Zionist and now I’m called an anti-Zionist even though my views haven’t changed.” It is up to those on the Israel Left, and in the Left of the Jewish Diaspora – and all Jews of good conscience – to reject a definition of Zionism that goes beyond the original aim of providing a ‘Jewish National Home’ (which could be interpreted in terms of a bi-national state or otherwise a two state solution) instead embracing the notion of a ‘purely Jewish State’: a state which by its very definition discriminates against non-Jews. There are many in Israel, and around the world, who – already – have taken this step, and the Jewish Left remains a rich source of inspiration for those campaigning for justice. If anything, Israel: a society where “[A] quarter of Israelis now live below the poverty line, and more than half of the Arab households in Israel live in poverty and are discriminated against in their access to education, employment and infrastructure” – ought be seeing a resurgence of Leftist and progressive forces.

All in all, Antony Loewenstein has produced a work that penetrates to the very heart of the question of the Israeli occupation, drawing on a range of sources including interviews with a wide range of journalists, academics, refusniks, activists and other public figures to provide an impressive and critical consideration of the history and future of Israel, of Palestine and of the Zionist movement. For those wishing to come to grips with the issues surrounding the Israeli occupation, and the work of what Loewenstein calls the ‘Zionist lobby’ in framing, limiting and influencing debate on the Middle East, and the role of the United States and Israel in the region, this title makes essential and absorbing reading.

One state..

We should reflect on how 9/11 has acted as a catalyst for the holocaust against muslims/black moustaches....

[wepmob2000]

Hi Lowlight

The problem is (although I can't remember if Blackbear or someone similar wrote this), Wiki itself is merely a portal of Zionist disinformation, as I believe are any other sources that happen not to align with his/their world view.

The argument is completely unwinnable, as you say attitudes such as that will only discourage greater public involvement in the 'campaign'.

[blackbear]

AlicetheKurious....Egypt

Zionism: I dream, you pay. What a $cam...

Why Was the Palestinian Mother of Eleven Murdered?
By Paul Findley

December 2006

ALISON WEIR, a California journalist and activist who chronicles the bias in U.S. media coverage of Middle East events, bestirred many Americans—perhaps many thousands—in early October with a powerful, chilling Internet account of the largely unreported murder of a Palestinian mother of 11 children by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

Itemad Ismail Abu Mo’ammar was fatally shot while trying to rescue her deaf husband from a severe beating by Israeli soldiers, who were furious because he did not answer their questions.

Weir wrote:

“Foolishly or valiantly, how is one to say, the 35-year-old woman interfered. She tried to explain that her husband was deaf and couldn’t hear their questions. Then she attempted to stop them from hitting him. So they shot her. Several times. She didn’t die, though. That took longer, because the soldiers refused to allow an ambulance to transport her to a physician. Finally, after approximately five hours, one was permitted to take her to a hospital where physicians were able to render one service: pronounce her dead. Why did this all happen? The family lived behind the residence of a resistance fighter wanted by Israel. The death of Itemad was simply ‘collateral damage’ in a failed Israeli assassination-kidnapping operation.”

Weir searched major U.S. media—broadcast and print—from coast to coast, and found Itemad’s death reported in only three newspapers, a single-sentence notice in each. One of the three, The Washington Post, reported inaccurately that the woman was killed by an Israeli tank round. After exchanging messages with Weir, the Post cleared for publication her letter that explained that multiple bullets, fired close up—not a tank round—were the cause of death. But the Post reneged. The letter was not published. Why? Weir’s explanation: “After all, these were only Palestinians, and it was just another mother dead.”

Ponder the “why” of the shooting. Although the distraught woman struggled to get the armed soldiers to stop beating her deaf husband, she surely posed no physical threat to them. Even if they did not understand what she said, she was, at worst, an inconvenience, hardly deserving to be shot.

Now consider the “why” of the aftermath. Were the hearts of the Israeli squad so hardened that they could not act with compassion as the husband and children watched helplessly through unavailing tears as the woman bled to death? Why did they want her dead?

This Gaza atrocity is not an isolated aberration. Israeli brutality is commonplace, and so is American silence in response. What transformed the soldiers, their military superiors, as well as the civilian leaders of the Israeli government into callous brutes? Is the whole Israeli governmental system so corrupted with anti-Arab passion that mercy for a dying mother is nowhere to be found?

Other questions beg answers. Will the killers be punished or even rebuked? Will messages of regret, consolation, and—yes—compensation be sent to the survivors? Sadly, I know from the wells of memory the answer to these two questions is no.

Such messages should come from Washington, not just from Israel, as the guns and bullets used in the killing were almost certainly gifts of the U.S. government. Will the U.S. ambassador deliver messages to the aggrieved, as well as a threatening protest to Israeli officials, demanding an end to the brutal treatment of innocent people? Here again, the answer is no.

Why the cover-up in major U.S. media? The awful circumstances of Itemad’s death were not reported, because major media are afraid—yes, afraid—to feature Israeli criminal behavior. Israel’s influence is suffocating. Imagine the intense, sustained coverage that would have dominated major media if the roles in Gaza had been reversed, with a dying Israeli woman denied medical service for hours by Palestinians who had shot her at close range for no good reason.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/December_2006/0612017.html

I recommend AlicetheKurious from Rigorous Intuition.

[lowlight]

Hi webmob,

Yeah i agree, its unwinnable. There is no argument, just entrenched opinion blind to reason, blind to anything that contradicts their view. The 9/11 movement has been tarnished beyond repair by these attitudes. The games up. And anyone involved in 9/11 research are now essentially historians rather than activists. Damn shame.