Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat him

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:10 pm

I wonder how Netanyahu's blatant electoral grab by the lowest common fear denominator is going to play out. I think he has really boxed himself in in the medium term, with something which is going to have tremendous potential for consequences that are not in Israel's long-term interest. Arab pols in Israel have united for the first time and even the US is talking baout applying more pressure via the UN. I think his grandstanding speeches achieved a very short-term electorally-useful support, but he has alienated himself with the US administration more than he realises.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Elvis » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:52 pm

Elvis » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:24 am wrote:Well, ya know, at least he came right out and said "No Palestinian state," instead of pretending to want a settleme-- er, peace agreement, and scuttling it every time.


oops! never mind -- it was just more lies, more pretending:

http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-thre ... 34237.html
Israeli leader backtracks from Palestinian state opposition

JERUSALEM (AP) — Days after winning re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday backtracked from hard-line statements against the establishment of a Palestinian state in the face of a diplomatic backlash.


Fuck the fucking liars.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby BrandonD » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:23 am

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:01 pm wrote:Depending on how likely you think this is, this kind of forces Jews together, makes them become strange bedfellows. You might not like what the Jews in Israel are doing in Palestine. But if you think someone’s trying to build a superweapon against you, and you don’t think you can differentiate yourself from the Israelis reliably, it’s in your best interest to defend them anyway.


Strange statement, I don't know if I understand what is being said here.

What is in one's best interest and what is moral do not necessarily overlap.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
User avatar
BrandonD
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:10 am

BrandonD » Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:23 am wrote:Strange statement, I don't know if I understand what is being said here.

What is in one's best interest and what is moral do not necessarily overlap.


What's being said there is that your rational considerations bear little resemblance to how we actually think, in aggregates and more importantly, about aggregates. I'd recommend reading the whole essay, it's quite good.

That link again: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/we ... erweapons/
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby AlicetheKurious » Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:53 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:I'd recommend reading the whole essay, it's quite good.


Whether or not it's "good", the part about any Jew feeling obligated to defend Israel, a racist entity based on armed robbery and mass murder, rather than feel "uncomfortable" in case someone unfairly blames him for complicity, doesn't make sense, at all. By defending Israel, he does in effect become complicit. He is choosing to identify with Israel, the oppressor, rather than with the Palestinians, the oppressed. But silly arguments like this one let him off the hook: he is identifying with the oppressor because he has internalized the paradigm of racists -- both anti-Jewish racists and Judeo-supremacists -- while refusing to acknowledge that this is his own choice, for which he is responsible. Using this logic, whites would be justified for not struggling against slavery or institutionalized racism in the US, or Apartheid in South Africa, for example.

When crimes are committed by murderers and racists and oppressors who justify their crimes by proclaiming that they represent you, and are doing it in your name, then by choosing to defend them, or failing to speak out or act against them, you are proving them right, and making yourself a co-conspirator.

But what really annoyed me about the essay (other than the implied prioritization of Jewish feelings of victimization over the very real, very immediate mortal danger in which most Palestinians live under Israeli occupation) is that, ironically, it is based on a straw man argument: that fighting oppression means pitting all the members of one designated group against all the members of another.

In fact, gross injustice is produced by systems engineered in myriad ways to perpetuate it on a large scale by rewarding certain types of oppressors, and by protecting them from accountability and punishment. At the same time, these systems can't function without incorporating all sorts of mechanisms to punish victims of oppression who refuse to accept the dominant narrative and their place within it, and to compete for whatever crumbs fall from their Masters' table, which are the best that they are ever allowed to hope for. There are also punishments for members of the privileged group; a typical one is the accusation that one is a "traitor" to one's "race" or category and by not closing ranks against the oppressed, exposes all of them to danger, including oneself. In this essay, the writer's hypothetical example of a "superweapon" that targets all Jews indiscriminately, is a good example.

The question isn't whether all the individual members of a certain class or ethnicity or religion or gender are oppressors or oppressed, but what are the guiding values of a particular system? What kind of society is it designed to produce? How does the system support itself? What behaviors does it reward with status and material comforts? Does it apply different standards, and grant "rights" to some while denying them to others? Who is served by this system, and who is pushed down? This essay reinforces the status quo by positing that when a member of a privileged category of people recognizes oppression, the choice is either to be falsely blamed, or to align himself actively with those who do the 'wet work' required to maintain the status quo. In fact, the real choice is either to align himself with the oppressor and thereby share in his guilt, or to reject the system and do everything possible to change it.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:06 pm

The author is not making an argument for supporting Israel.

The author does not personally support Israel.

The author is making observations about how categories affect our thinking.

Here's the opener, which I'm quoting becauase these same exchanges happen at RI all the time:

I.

There was an argument on Tumblr which, like so many arguments on Tumblr, was terrible. I will rephrase it just a little to make a point.

Alice said something along the lines of “I hate people who frivolously diagnose themselves with autism without knowing anything about the disorder. They should stop thinking they’re ‘so speshul’ and go see a competent doctor.”

Beth answered something along the lines of “I diagnosed myself with autism, but only after a lot of careful research. I don’t have the opportunity to go see a doctor. I think what you’re saying is overly strict and hurtful to many people with autism.”

Alice then proceeded to tell Beth she disagreed, in that special way only Tumblr users can. I believe the word “cunt” was used.

I notice two things about the exchange.

First, why did Beth take the bait? Alice said she hated people who frivolously self-diagnosed without knowing anything about the disorder. Beth clearly was not such a person. Why didn’t she just say “Yes, please continue hating these hypothetical bad people who are not me”?

Second, why did Alice take the bait? Why didn’t she just say “I think you’ll find I wasn’t talking about you?”
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby 82_28 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:57 pm

Again, I am just going to state the obvious.

It isn't that hard to love all known and unknown souls. I am a normal motherfucker. It just isn't that hard. There is nothing to fear and nothing to hate other than the "them". Out on the street, the path, the trail of all that we must pass through there is nothing to live in fear of. I will knock on wood. But I firmly believe there is nothing to fear.

That these dicks like to get people to fear shit where if they were in such beneficent power they would do the motherfucking opposite. It is profitable conflict that they crave and perhaps a necessity. Nobody will remember and nobody will know the better.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby gnosticheresy_2 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:48 pm

Generalising about things is bad mkay. Is the follow up to that blog post called "Hot Things Are Hot: Do Not Touch"?
User avatar
gnosticheresy_2
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:59 pm

gnosticheresy_2 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:48 pm wrote:Generalising about things is bad mkay. Is the follow up to that blog post called "Hot Things Are Hot: Do Not Touch"?


Disappointing but hardly surprising. I'm not saying you're dumb, just that I am -- introduced this in the wrong thread, this is more of a Two Minutes Hate thing than a discussion about mechanics. Once the Fitts "Red Button" detail was introduced, I figured I'd posit an alternate take. It's absurd for me to say "get the context!" ... every bit as absurd as it is for you to drive-by snark about something you haven't read, but shit, I do that all the time, too.

Also, your sarcasm is not far off the mark -- Alexander also has an excellent piece called "In Favor of Niceness, Community and Civilization."

But don't read it. Mkay?
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Harvey » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:38 pm

Wombat is teaching you how the various 'theys' compartmentalise your ability to think. Listen up.

I say that because I'm trying catch up too.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby 82_28 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:21 pm

Thanks for those links Rex. Twyla, Willow and I gathered around BEER and WINE last night, but before Willow got there Twyla and I were talking about neo-nazi shit and how her sister way back when was probably "schooled" in Colorado where I saw the transformation of friends first hand and for no reason. There is a good possibility I may have come in some form of contact with her sister 20+ years ago.

When we get together there is always too much and not enough time. Anyhow I meant to relay the story last night, which I have told here a few times. It's about the nazis rolling in and attempting to terrorize us at a punk show. As much as I hated racism and as much as the anger was warranted when the place blew up into an almost riot, one of the skinheads got cornered and was about to get killed. Me and this guy Joe had to stop this frightened skinhead (who we abhored) from actually getting killed. Him and I did not *believe* in whatever the fuck he (the kid about to be killed) was told to believe, but I felt sorry for him and had to step in and help him regardless of hating "skinheads". And we helped him because he was a frightened human. Once Joe and I stepped in, everything calmed down. Granted I was pre 20s when this happened I was able to tell the kid that I hate nazis, but wouldn't allow you to be terrorized and that I didn't want him to fear, even though you started all of this with your nazi friends and definitely had it coming to you. You also had kindness coming to you in equal amounts. Learn from it and do not hate.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby BrandonD » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:13 am

Wombaticus Rex » Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:06 pm wrote:The author is not making an argument for supporting Israel.

The author does not personally support Israel.

The author is making observations about how categories affect our thinking.

Here's the opener, which I'm quoting becauase these same exchanges happen at RI all the time:

I.

There was an argument on Tumblr which, like so many arguments on Tumblr, was terrible. I will rephrase it just a little to make a point.

Alice said something along the lines of “I hate people who frivolously diagnose themselves with autism without knowing anything about the disorder. They should stop thinking they’re ‘so speshul’ and go see a competent doctor.”

Beth answered something along the lines of “I diagnosed myself with autism, but only after a lot of careful research. I don’t have the opportunity to go see a doctor. I think what you’re saying is overly strict and hurtful to many people with autism.”

Alice then proceeded to tell Beth she disagreed, in that special way only Tumblr users can. I believe the word “cunt” was used.

I notice two things about the exchange.

First, why did Beth take the bait? Alice said she hated people who frivolously self-diagnosed without knowing anything about the disorder. Beth clearly was not such a person. Why didn’t she just say “Yes, please continue hating these hypothetical bad people who are not me”?

Second, why did Alice take the bait? Why didn’t she just say “I think you’ll find I wasn’t talking about you?”


There are some useful observations in that article, but unfortunately the whole thing is couched in a false scientific reductionism - typical of the "intellectual fashion" of this age.

I believe the issue being raised has much less to do with how we think (in categories, etc) and much more to do with how we feel.

Specifically, a feeling of self-worth which we derive from our personal identity.

I believe you will find that thinking in categories is less of a detriment, and more of a simple tool as it was intended to be, for people who are less rabidly attached to their personal identity.

Gurdjieff called this unhealthy attachment "false self-love" - in opposition to true self-love which one gains through efforts in inner purification.

All of this I suppose only means something to people who have not discarded their ideals in the wastebasket of post-2000 cynicism.

(p.s. nothing here is directed specifically towards you Rex, just a response to the spirit of the article itself)
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
User avatar
BrandonD
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:50 am

I think your point is fundamentally correct, but ultimately offers little else but a mystic's lament. Which is a response to your perspective itself, I hope, more than "you."

You're quite right that humans need to evolve, but in the meantime, we both need to deal with the world we have.

Gurdjieff was an incredibly rare outlier, to indulge in the phrasing of false scientific reductionism. Are we to round up the sleepwalkers amongst us and send them to re-education camps? And indeed, what guarantee could there be that people could actually be instructed in the art of transcending their false consciousness? I mean, damn, I've actually wanted that for decades and I'm still a human piece of shit.

So, I think there's probably a lot more to be gained by addressing the problem at the level of the problem, rather than adopting a macro-view that I can't actually communicate to anyone who doesn't already Get It.

All that said, though: you're completely fucking right. Cheers.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:12 am

Mccain MAY be getting a bit senile.

Mccain was all over the weekend punditry saying Obama is throwing temper tantrums, and that we need to rally strongly around Netanyahu and Israel to confront
both ISIS and Iran.

I was like wow...given Iran is the only force actually pushing back ISIS in Iraq, and given Israel weirdly seems to coincidentally do everything to HELP ISIS and hurt their enemies...
Mccain needs to wake up
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Netanyahu claims ‘worldwide’ conspiracy trying to unseat

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:34 am

Below is an interesting article, describing a plan articulated 6 years ago, to allow the US to disassociate itself in advance from an Israeli attack against Iran, then be "forced" to intervene to protect Israel from Iranian retaliation. Netanyahu's election victory notwithstanding, the talk now is for him to form a national unity government, joining together the Zionist Right and Left parties, that would control the great majority of the Knesset and the government. If this happens, and it most likely will, then this would support the predictions of imminent war.

That's the plan. Meanwhile, the Iranians are pursuing their own strategy, aggressively expanding their footprint in the region and carrying out very intimidating military maneuvers, in a bid to make such a strike unacceptably costly to both the US and Israel. In doing so, they are seriously violating Arab national sovereignty, and threatening the security of Arab Gulf countries, led by Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the upcoming Arab League summit in Egypt (later this week) is expected to produce an announcement of a joint Arab defense force, ready to deploy throughout the region to defend members' security from any aggression.

Everybody's armed to the teeth, and on high alert. It's a tinder-box.

Obama-Netanyahu "Fallout" is Theater - Planned in 2009
US and Israel attempting to establish feigned "diplomatic row" to justify "unilateral" Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) -
In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost - up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution's policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retrospect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength - which according to Brookings - is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest - considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel - is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a "unilateral" Israeli first strike on Iran - an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves

The Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible "peaceful" options before resorting to violent regime change. The report states specifically that:
...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.


Of course, Iran - as admitted to by Brookings themselves - is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely "superb offer." The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy - one for public consumption (making "superb offers") and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

At one point in the policy paper, Brookings would state:
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)


Here, Brookings policymakers openly conspire to undermine global peace by "goading" another nation into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from. Provoking a nation that poses no threat to the national security of the United States is a clear violation of international law - with the Brookings paper serving as a literal signed confession.

Yet despite this open admission, conspiring against world peace, what is of more interest is the United States' plans to disavow any responsibility for an attack it would use its regional proxy, Israel, to carry out in its place. It states specifically under a chapter titled, "Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike," that:
...the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).


To no one's surprise the British Daily Mail now reports in an article titled, "President Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iranian nuclear facilities last year, claim sources," that:
President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.


(Interestingly, this explosive "news" comes from only one source, an obscure Kuwaiti newspaper named "Al-Jarida", which simply means "The Newspaper". This is clearly an example of Mossad "news-laundering", the standard method used to propagate news by first publishing it in one of the Mossad's many proprietary media outlets in the region, then quoting it as though it came from Arab sources -- Alice).

Netanyahu will be in Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama's cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran.

Here, the Daily Mail repeats a growing narrative that dovetails neatly into long-standing US foreign policy described by the Brookings Institution's report in 2009 - down to the letter. In fact, the prospect of "shooting down" Israeli planes was discussed as one of many props used in this geopolitical theater.

The US, as prescribed by Brookings, is portrayed as desperately trying to hammer out an almost unreasonably accommodation with Iran, while "mad dog" Israel seeks to unilaterally attack Iran - thus giving the US the plausible deniability it openly claimed it would disingenuously attempt to create ahead of any Israeli attack on Iran. It should be noted that the summation of Israel's military might is a result [of] long, extensive, and continuous US military support meaning that Israeli military operation is even possible without it.

Also of interest is Israel's habitual, belligerent, serial acts of inhumanity against both its own people and the Palestinians whose land Tel Aviv has seized and continues to occupy. The nature of these acts is not one of self-preservation, but of intentional provocation - creating predictable political divides across the West easily manipulated particularly at times like these where a "regrettable" attack made upon Iran, a nation the West has thus far failed to topple with terrorism, US-backed sedition, sanctions, and covert provocations, is now in the cards.

It is also clear that the 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" policy paper still represents a vivid window into a much deeper and well-entrenched doctrine still to this day being used to reorder the Middle East into alignment with Western special interests. It is a signed confession of a now evident conspiracy against global peace and stability. It should be read, in full, before the United Nations Security Council before those who wrote it and the corporate-financier interests who sponsored it are brought to international justice.

Anything less proves that the United States and its regional proxies, not Iran, are the rogue states, working against global peace and stability, with many standing examples already of their atrocities on display, and more - apparently - still to come. Link
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests