Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:15 pm

Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill
February 20, 2014

When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress for his second time in 2011, both parties competed in jumping up and down to applaud. Now, Netanyahu’s fans want him back a third time, an honor only bestowed on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar

Since the wise setting aside of a negotiation-undermining bill that would have imposed still more sanctions on Iran, some members of Congress have been feeling itchy as a result of not getting their regular fix of votes that they can portray as support for Israel. Their unease is perhaps a testimony to the continued strength of the lobby that pushes for such votes, despite its recent setbacks on the sanctions bill and a couple of other issues.

So some members of the House of Representatives have sent a letter to their chamber’s leadership asking that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be invited to address a joint session of Congress when he is in Washington next month to speak to AIPAC’s annual mass meeting. “Doing so,” they say in the letter, “would send a clear message of U.S. support to Israel.”

Actually, the support involved would not be to Israel but instead to a particular Israeli government. In any event, one noteworthy attribute of the letter is the partisan make-up of the signatories: 79 Republicans and 17 Democrats.

It is another indication of the increasing association of the lobby with only one side of the aisle, which cannot be very reassuring to the lobby. Possibly once the composition of the signatory list started to become clear some Republicans refrained from signing on to avoid making the partisan split appear even more lopsided.

If Netanyahu were invited to address Congress next month it would be an extraordinary instance of honoring someone who has repeatedly been poking a stick in the eye of the country bestowing the honor. Among other things, he has been doing everything he can to sabotage the current negotiations with Iran, which is one of the most important foreign policy initiatives the United States and its five foreign partners currently have going.

He also has been pursuing policies — including continued colonization of occupied territory and the adding of new demands — likely to ensure failure of another set of negotiations important to the United States, the one involving the Palestinians.

Even if members of Congress were to ignore these factors, one might expect them to be mindful of not cheapening the currency when it comes to one of the few symbolically important ways that Congress can make a foreign policy statement. Ever since the Marquis de Lafayette became in 1824 the first foreigner to address Congress, the privilege has not been profligately bestowed. President Park Geun-hye of South Korea was the only foreign dignitary invited to do so last year. None were invited in 2012.

Now get this: Netanyahu already has addressed Congress twice: in 2011 and during his earlier stint as prime minister in 1996. Only one person has been given the honor of doing so three times: Winston Churchill — twice during World War II and again in 1952. People want to put the stick-poker on the same level as Churchill?

The preferences of the foreign government Netanyahu heads will get more than enough attention in Washington when he rallies his loyal troops at AIPAC.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby conniption » Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:12 am

seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:15 am wrote:
Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill
February 20, 2014

When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress for his second time in 2011, both parties competed in jumping up and down to applaud. Now, Netanyahu’s fans want him back a third time, an honor only bestowed on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar...

>snip<

...Now get this: Netanyahu already has addressed Congress twice: in 2011 and during his earlier stint as prime minister in 1996. Only one person has been given the honor of doing so three times: Winston Churchill — twice during World War II and again in 1952. People want to put the stick-poker on the same level as Churchill?


Sure. I guess. Why not?

Washington's Blog
(embedded links)

Vintage Churchill

Posted on February 2, 2015
by Robert Barsocchini


“The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.” – Winston Churchill

(Sarasota Herald Tribune)



“One might as well legalise sodomy as recognise the Bolsheviks.” – Winston Churchill

(Churchill: A Life)



“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism … by … Jews, [it] it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.

…the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek [etc.] — all Jews.

In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing.

…the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism … has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews … in Hungary.

The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany … this madness has been allowed to prey upon the … German people.

Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.” – Winston Churchill

(Illustrated Sunday Herald)



[Historical persecution of Jews has brought about] …the schemes of the International Jews … [a] sinister confederacy … divorced from … all spiritual hopes of the next world.

This movement among the Jews is not new.

… this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation … has been steadily growing.

It played … a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century…

…now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld … have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters…” – Winston Churchill

(Illustrated Daily Herald)



Churchill hoped “the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years”, calling to mind the like ambition of a neighboring Empire (Reich in German).



“‘I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilized and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.” – Winston Churchill

(As Home Secretary in a 1910 Departmental Paper)



“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a national and race danger which is impossible to exaggerate. I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed before another year has passed.” – Winston Churchill

(As Home Secretary)



“On his attitude to other races, Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, said: ‘Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin.'”



On why the US, instead of indigenous Cubans, should rule Cuba after Spain:

“A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents [Cubans fighting Spanish rule] in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic.” – Winston Churchill

“The reference to “another” black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World.” (Ch. 12) (Churchill’s mother was US American, his father British.)



“On the subject of India,” said the British Secretary of State to India: “Winston is not quite sane… I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”

“When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance against British rule in India, Churchill raged that Gandhi”:

“ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed.” – Winston Churchill

As some 3 million people starved to death due to policy of the British Empire, when asked why he would not allow food to be sent, Churchill asked:

“…why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?” – Winston Churchill



“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people…”(*) – Winston Churchill

(Leo Amery: Diaries)



” I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can’t help it — I enjoy every second of it.” – Winston Churchill

(Letter to a friend, 1916)




Churchill was born into British wealth and prestige. With innumerable avenues open to him, he chose to treat the world as children sometimes treat insects, so he put ruthless effort into the maintenance of Britain’s international dictatorship, on which “the sun never set”.

A typical example of the Churchill method was the use of terror, mutilation (ripping off mens’ testicles), and rape as a weapon to suppress a Kenyan uprising against British tyranny in the 1950s.

Decades later, in 2012, The Independent reports, the UK finally “admitt[ed] Kenyans were tortured and sexually abused by colonial forces”.

Kenyans were “beaten, castrated and sexually assaulted”.

Churchill’s Empire, making Darth Vader’s look like a hippie drum circle, ran “concentration camps” where suspects were tortured and sterilized, such as by being “publicly castrated with a pair of pliers normally used on cattle” – a fitting tactic given Churchill considered his human prey to be “beastly” “savages”.

The Independent**:

Churchill believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be the preserve of the white settlers, and approved the clearing out of the local “blackamoors”. He saw the local Kikuyu as “brutish children”.

Hundreds of thousands were driven into the camps, which were studied by Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins in her book, Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, which examines the :

…tactics adopted under Churchill to crush the local drive for independence. “Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire,” she writes. “The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated … suspects.” Hussein Onyango Obama [Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather] never truly recovered from the torture [and indefinite detention, later to be implemented by his grandson] he endured.

Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed…

The Independent also notes:

[Churchill] fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network…

[The British Empire] washed distant nations [in] blood…

[Churchill believed] the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives…

…Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn.

…as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that “the Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Churchill demanded they [defiant natives] be crushed with extreme force. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland’s Catholic civilians, and when the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes…[It] would spread a lively terror.”

Didn’t everybody think that way then? One of the most striking findings of [historian] Toye’s research is that they really didn’t: even at the time, Churchill was seen as … brutal and brutish…

[In India,] Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill … had only jeers for them.

Decades after Churchill’s “dictatorship … on the darker-skinned peoples of the world” (Independent) had been handed off to the US (which vastly expanded the empire and often uses an even heavier whipping hand to suppress uprisings against Western colonialism, as in Vietnam), Daily Mail reports (2013) that even though the British European-Aryan-Empire with thousand year ambitions admits it perpetrated “castration, rape and beatings”, Keynans will receive some monetary compensation but “no apology”, making the scene from The Godfather when the gangster, Sonny, smashes a photographer’s camera then tosses some money at his feet look positively civilized.
_______

Robert Barsocchini is an internationally published researcher and writer who focuses on global force dynamics and writes professionally for the film industry. He is a regular contributor to Washington’s Blog. Follow Robert and his UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.

Notes:

(*) Wikipedia documents that William F. Buckley, late founder of the National Review and host of Firing Line, felt the need to defend this quote by stating that, while he was not present for the comment, he was sure that Churchill said it with “mischievous glee” and a “gleam in his eyes”. If Buckley’s guess was correct, one wonders if Churchill also had the mischievous gleam while presiding over his castration and rape camps, or if Buckley himself meant to exhibit the gleam when he seethed to historian Gore Vidal in a televised debate “Now, listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I’ll sock you in your God-damned face”. (Buckley was a man of very deep faith; “In his 1997 book Nearer, My God, [Buckley] condemned what he viewed as “the Supreme Court’s war against religion in the public school,” and argued that Christian faith was being replaced by ‘another God … multiculturalism.’ … In his spiritual memoir Buckley reproduced Valtorta’s detailed accounts of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion…”)

**Ultimately, the author of this Independent article decides Churchill was a “thug”, but, dissenting from the historian he reviews, he searches for a way to maintain some reverence for his thug, and resorts to a favorable comparison between Churchill and perhaps the most evil extremist in history, another monstrous product of Europe, Hitler himself. It’s never a good sign when a person or country can only scrounge a remnant of redemption by being compared to Hitler. And while outsiders looking in might also be glad Britain won that particular round (one of many) of inter-European gang warfare and mass extermination, it doesn’t make Britain’s mass killing or castration operations, or the prospect of being brutally dictated to and looted by Britain, any more appealing.

The author also argues that India eventually becoming an “independent superpower eclipsing Britain” is an “ironic victory for Churchill at his best”. This is itself a colonialist perspective that implies India’s struggles for independence against British dictatorship, in which millions were killed, were actually a sly, prescient lesson for a lesser people from the wise, patriarchal, and foresight-gifted Churchill at his “best”. The author, of course, does not mention that before British colonization, India was more developed and prosperous than Britain (271), and that British colonialism merely de-developed India for a period of decades for the temporary enrichment of the British dictatorship, which ultimately contributed to the deaths of over a hundred million Indians (as documented by Amartya Sen, Professor of Economics, and development economist Jean Dreze***) and battered India into the horrid basket case of poverty it became. India would have been far better off had Britain’s hoards never invaded. Applied to another case, the author’s argument would say that Germany’s mass killings of Jews were really a wise lesson ultimately intended, deep down, from Hitler “at his best”, to push Jews to form their own independent, super-powerful state, Israel. But perhaps sometimes ‘scheming’, ‘sinister’, ‘subversive’ ‘terrorists’ springing from the ‘underworld’ to carry out the ‘overthrow of civilization’ (to use some of Churchill’s terms for Jews) need the benefits imbued by contact with a tough but wiser and ultimately beneficent soul, or so the author’s unintended batterer’s logic would suggest.

***Overview: Struggling to rebuild from 1947 to 1979, India experienced “over 100 million deaths”, plus “tens of millions more since”.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:36 am

talk about a holocaust denier...it's amazing we can even mention his name here :roll:

Winston Churchill completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise The Second World War any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.

Image




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGBjcVaJtA
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:13 pm

FEBRUARY 24, 2015

The Lethal Blunder
Wet Dreams About Churchill
by BINOY KAMPMARK
“I think [Winston] Churchill is one of the most dangerous men I have ever known.”
-Mackenzie King, Canadian PM to King George VI, June 1939

Yes, it is a little dirty – the sort of fantasy involving that childishly destructive idea of being an imperial figure, an incorrigible traveller, and, at the end of the day, a warmonger who did a few nasty things to save a bad world from turning even worse. This is the central tenet of Winston Churchill, that he has been excused, used and apologised for with robotic repetitiveness, drawn upon as a historical oracle, that we are left wondering what, exactly, the man actually did.

That he presided over Britain during the dark years of the Second World War is fact. That he did so successfully cannot be contested, even if the victory came at the price of a diminished Britannia, with her lustre and lucre well and truly diminished. After 1945, Washington had its island aircraft carrier in the fight against the Soviet Union; Britain had the drug of nostalgia, one in which Spitfire-spiked Churchilliana would figure prominently.

That Churchill, however, finds refuge in a range of commemorative actions and performances, some of which seem ludicrously offbeat. It is almost a travesty that his image as prop has become irresistible. When struggling, when floundering, and when looking like an abject fool, resort to Churchill to boost the macho and stroke the mojo. This has clearly been the response of Australia’s dense buffoon-in-chief, a prime minister who has shown himself to be ideologically impervious and pragmatically incapable. Struggling for suitable precedent and salvation, Tony Abbott feels that Churchill might offer tips.

On failings, yes. On disaster in war, yes. Those, however, are not the titbits of wisdom to be taken from the packed Churchillian resume – instead, it is the warmonger perseverance, orb and sceptre triumphalism, cigar chomping determination, which time and time again, quote scavengers resort to.

The Australian, a paper which has cooled to Abbott the stumbler, took note of his views on the British figure, and the fact that one of his paintings, Cap D’Antibes, is displayed in Abbott’s office, a gift by Churchill to that insufferably Britannic appendage, Robert Menzies. The occasion was the 50 year anniversary of his death. “Mr. Abbott has been an avid reader of Churchill books” (The Weekend Australian, Jan 24).

If Abbott needs marks for fantasy, then he should get a few for reading Churchill’s A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Abbott also plugs The Gathering Storm, a worry given that any leader who speaks about reading the warring exploits of another is bound to be looking for tips. “He had a life of extraordinary interest and diversity; he was an orator without peer, a man of action as well as a deep thinker – and to this day; and for many generations to come, a leader worthy of the deepest study.”

Perhaps it was the fact that much was done with little. Outclassed in virtually every department, Britain could still win a war that – and this is shaded with the collective conception of the “Allies” – the catastrophic toll of Soviet losses in the east, and the material provisions by the United States. Perhaps this is the lesson for the little figures of history – notably ones who would otherwise be vanquished by its uncompromising wheels.

The problem is, in many ways, that Churchillian wet dreamers plough historical recesses for inspiration, constantly living in a self-inflicted shadow. There was US President George W. Bush, who in 2001, was in search of stuffing for his ideological mission against fundamentalist Islam. This was also complicated by his struggle with the English language, which is to say, his only language. He had a loaned bronze bust of Churchill in the Oval office, courtesy of the British. And choice quotations. “The trick,” remarked The Economist (Nov 8, 2001), “seems to be working. In the past, Mr Bush frequently seemed to be engaged in battle with the English language. Since September 11, with Churchill’s help, he has recruited it into his grand coalition against terrorism.”

Indeed, many in the Bush administration started communing over a grand collective wet dream over the Briton as warrior and defender. Karl Rove, the president’s substitute brain, put up a poster in the Old Executive Office Building. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, with an almost molesting enthusiasm, quoted Churchill so much he earned the title of “Churchill in a Yankees cap”, while defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was more selective: “Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies” (The Telegraph, Sep 27, 2001). Truly fitting.

A bevy of British historians keep insisting on visiting and re-visiting Churchill, knowing what good value he is as a commodified, televisual product, or a sales pitch at publishers who should known better. “As an 18-year-old student,” remembers Max Hastings, “I remember standing amid the vast throng outside the Cathedral as Guardsmen bore the coffin up the steps from the gun carriage.” The economy may not be thriving, Britain might have lost its spark, but Churchill is always there, a self-constructed (he did, also self-construct) myth that is, as Roland Barthes explained, supposedly unchangeable in its assumptions. Myths are contingencies and fabrications masquerading as infinite truths.

Historians like Hastings lament the almost aggressive American appropriation, a sneaking away of the British hero-leader who has followings in the US even as young Britain disbelieves. “In Britain, in contrast, polls show that many young people believe Churchill to have been a fictional character rather than a real one.” Even Churchill’s offspring are revered, the cult of vicarious worship. “Mary Soames, Churchill’s last surviving daughter who died last year, was constantly invited to visit America, to launch ships, and open museums. Across the Atlantic, she was everywhere feted as a near-goddess, which indeed she was.”

Australians should show greater ambivalence to Churchill, whose role behind the Dardanelles disaster as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915 figures as a form of imperial betrayal, a butcher’s directive. The doyen of early Australian history, Charles Bean, prefers the tragic tone behind the futile slaughter of some 11,000 Australians and New Zealanders, collectively called Anzacs. “Through Churchill’s excess of imagination, a layman’s ignorance of artillery and the fatal power of a young enthusiasm to overpower older and slower brains, the tragedy of Gallipoli was born.”

Not so for such figures as Prime Minister Menzies, who fed off British praise and conversations with Churchill like a desperate drunk in search for the next tipple. “Menzies’ obsession with Churchill,” notes Graham Freudenberg in the defining Churchill and Australia, “diminished his ability to assert his authority over his supporters.” And, it might be argued, many other matters.

There are those eternally grateful for Churchill’s lethal blunder. Turning young Australasians into corpses at Gallipoli has been a damn fine thing for the Australian identity industry, one in search of a marketable legend and wars to march to. As Abbott’s disposition to the leader attests, the quotable Churchill never goes to seed.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:49 pm

"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm

sook on it Mr. President :lol:
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Treating Netanyahu Like Winston Churchill

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:15 am

Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests