slimmouse » 04 Aug 2013 11:00 wrote:Has anyone tried talking to Atzmon from any of these groups who oppose him? Or have both sides got their heads up their asses?
What's to talk about? Atzmon might as well come out and say "the protocols are real" - whatever "fight" he wants to have with jews should not be associated with. Does ANYONE really think his philosophizing is going to achieve any possible good end?
Keep in mind these sorts of Trojan Horses will say some attractive things from time to time, that is their M.O. - but their occasional spoon full of sugar just helps the poison go down.
His apparent desire to see the entire multifaceted structure of "jewishness" dismantled and everyone (this is clearly recommended to everyone not just jews) assimilated into "brotherhood" is exactly non-sense. A diversity of multiple particularities is our goal, not some global monoculture of illusionary brotherhood.
Drew, you have made a truly well considered reply here, which deserves absolute respect.
I would however probably be more baffled by the fact that the vast majority of the UK Govnt are apparently "friends of Israel" were it not for how his understandings or how belonging to the cult of Judaism is responsible for this to a not inconsiderable degree.
One things for sure, If Israel didnt exist, then some truly smart whilst at the same time sad fuickers would have had to have invented her.
And Im 100% certain that they aint Jewish.
well, I don't know, I think there are many reasons for that, some good, some bad. I wouldn't put blackmail outside the realm of possibility to some extent, but the last 33 years or so has seen broad public support for Israel, the suicide bombings, Olympic Massacre and such kinda ruined any chance of Palestinians getting a fair hearing. The fact that they were not all pushed into Jordan or something a long time ago is POSSIBLY a sign of restraint. Certainly the current situation is unacceptable, and mostly the P violence is greatly reduced, and to some extent Isreal's violence is also reduced.
but come on, all those suicide bombings, can you expect a completely dispassionate response from people subjected to that? Of course the casualty count was ALWAYS lower on the one side, yet don't underestimate the desperate psychological effects of such bombing, particularly in an at least basic democracy. The entire situation has driven both sides to very bad places.
I remain cautiously optimistic that current generations taking over can make some real progress.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
Would it be surprising if this were also the case with aggressive poison-pill pushers who insinuate themselves into radical circles and are upheld by some as savior types, like Gilad Atzmon and David Icke?
The reality: The FBI may be running Stormfront, and I'd expect them to try, but they sure as fuck didn't need to make it up. Those are real Nazi motherfuckers. Denial that they exist only helps them.
I mean ffs, who in their right mind follows these clots?
True, true. We might also ask, who in their right mind keeps pushing David Icke and Gilad Atzmon on this board, especially since neither has ever brought forth an iota of original research or investigation or insight or argument one cannot find more ably rendered and better thought-through elsewhere. You'd almost think it would require an agenda, this constant revival and reference to them.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
I mean ffs, who in their right mind follows these clots?
True, true. We might also ask, who in their right mind keeps pushing David Icke and Gilad Atzmon on this board, especially since neither has ever brought forth an iota of original research or investigation or insight or argument one cannot find more ably rendered and better thought-through elsewhere. You'd almost think it would require an agenda, this constant revival and reference to them.[/quote]
What, like this thread that wasnt even on the frontpage for days and was re-animated by AD copypasta-ing... to himself?
Personally, I thought it was great that there was no Icke or Atzmon on the frontpage. I thought it was even better that there wasnt a Storm Force 12 CopyPasta shitstorm either.
True, true. We might also ask, who in their right mind keeps pushing David Icke and Gilad Atzmon on this board, especially since neither has ever brought forth an iota of original research or investigation or insight or argument one cannot find more ably rendered and better thought-through elsewhere. You'd almost think it would require an agenda, this constant revival and reference to them.
Which, with due respect Jack, we might say about those who spring to life at the mention of his name, not in order to censor such thinking you understand, but to warn us all about them.
Judgement calls Jack. We all make em.
I dont follow the likes of Icke and Atzmon for the reasons that people around here who wish to hang them (( metaphorically) want to hang them for.
I'll gladly stand and fall by that judgement, and I hope you feel the exact same way about your own judgement.
posting only part 1, there 3 other parts you'll find on the channel.
Probably well worth considering... I'm slightly aware of this guy's view from listening to Emory over the years. but this is probably the most in depth presentation...
ALSO here at ~11:00 on LISTEN to what he says about multinational phone taps broad spying etc. Very relevant to today...
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
True, true. We might also ask, who in their right mind keeps pushing David Icke and Gilad Atzmon on this board, especially since neither has ever brought forth an iota of original research or investigation or insight or argument one cannot find more ably rendered and better thought-through elsewhere. You'd almost think it would require an agenda, this constant revival and reference to them.
Which, with due respect Jack, we might say about those who spring to life at the mention of his name, not in order to censor such thinking you understand, but to warn us all about them.
Stop, stop.
I was illustrating the absurdity of the statement I was directly responding to, by extending the logic to other examples.
That statement was this:
slimmouse wrote:BTW I would be very surprised if the whole St3rmfront operation isnt an FBI honeypot.
As I said, bullshit. Nazis are real, the FBI doesn't have to invent them.
And triply hilarious coming from an Icke pusher.
EDIT - A bit more:
Nazis are not some wedge issue made up by the powers that be in order to split good people from each other. I will take liberal hypocrites and pretty much everyone including the present PTB over Nazis. I will not give anyone the excuse that they are being suckered into Nazi ideology. People who don't understand that kind of stupidity and hatred are not for me to redeem or to say, "oh golly wake up our real enemies are the lizard people." Fuck them. Fuck anyone who wants to make excuses for them.
.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
And he's carrying a giant menorah in his other hand, screaming into the sky as dozens of Israeli jets streak overhead, while a bunch of Israeli tanks with IDF infantrymen advance behind him, bombs and machine gun fire erupting all around them in a scene that could only be meant to depict the final war for Israel's existence.
Please stop laughing. It's not funny. Especially in light of the current upturn in violence plaguing the country.
Turns out - as far as I can tell - this comic is not a prank dreamed up by the Daily Show's writing team during their summer hiatus, or even more plausibly, by a couple of bored Hebrew School students.
"Captain Israel" means business! His task: Defend Israel at all costs from her most dangerous enemies!
And what enemy is so dangerous that the once-vaunted IDF is no longer able to handle without superhuman (and perhaps even divine) intervention? A nuclear-armed Iran? Gazan terrorists infiltrating from Egypt? A much larger Gaza Flotilla? A million unarmed Palestinians marching to the Qalqaliya and Erez "border" crossings? Members of the Jenin Freedom Theatre?
Don't be ridiculous. The IDF, Shin Bet, Mossad, Border Police, US Congress, "stinky water" (the name really doesn't do justice to the smell), drones, anti-missile shield or various combinations of the above can handle any of these threats.
No, the threat that only Captain Israel can defeat is none other than ... the BDS movement!
Tripsoff the tongue, doesnt it? The enemies of Israel are 4 Dimensional Lizards from Orion led by Junior Annunaki Tony "Dont leave your credit card with me" Greenstein.
What is your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory, AD?
Yes AD please give us your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory...surely you would want to run some names along side of Captain Israel? You know ....the way you so like to do
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.
AIPAC's Push To Scuttle Iran Diplomacy by Ali Gharib Aug 1, 2013 12:15 PM EDT Observers of America's Iran policy might be forgiven for doubting the sincerity of those Washington hawks who constantly plea that they both support the Iranian people and hope to avoid launching a war against them. That's because the hawks—in the think tank and lobbying worlds, and especially on Capitol Hill—keep pressing forward with measures that would greatly reduce the possibility of avoiding said war. Yesterday, the House passed yet another round of sanctions against Iran. This comes against the backdrop of a presumed new push for diplomacy as Hassan Rowhani, Iran's moderate president-elect, assembles an administration that looks to move forward with campaign promises he made to the Iranian people, including "peace and reconciliation" with the world and "transparency"—though not capitulation—on the nuclear program. He's also, relatedly, promised to ease Iran's economic crises, which arose due in large part to sanctions against the nuclear program. Iranian president-elect Hassan Rowhani speaks during a press conference in Tehran on June 17, 2013. (Behrouz Mehri / AFP / Getty Images)
Iranian president-elect Hassan Rowhani speaks during a press conference in Tehran on June 17, 2013. (Behrouz Mehri / AFP / Getty Images)
The effort to dismiss Iran's elections as unimportant—despite millions of Iranians' willingness to come out and vote for Rowhani—and forge ahead with sanctions stem largely from efforts backed by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The latest sanctions bill, the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act , which passed the House 400 to 20 last night, would impose the as yet toughest measures to date, just days before Rowhani's inauguration. With AIPAC backing, the bill got 376 co-sponsors before Rowhani's election. Some 80 of those were among the 131 members who signed a letter pushing diplomacy and urging restraint—but that letter took no positions on new sanctions. In another letter yesterday, 16 members of Congress urged that the bill be delayed on the grounds that it would be "counterproductive and irresponsible to vote on this measure before Iran's new president is inaugurated." The 16 called for the bill to be revamped to strengthen presidential waivers to sanctions and make clear it doesn't authorize the use of force.
Why not pass sanctions now? A deal would require compromise on both sides, and the bill harms the chance of building confidence on the Iranian side that the Americans have interest in anything other than regime change. The Iranians "have a strong case to make that they can’t trust us," the Iran expert Gary Sick told the New York Times. “What the Congress is trying to do is confirm that." The latest effort even strips presidential waivers, hardly the kind of flexibility needed if Barack Obama, faced with the prospect of a real agreement, wanted to roll back sanctions in exchange for Iranian cooperation. It's not that diplomacy will definitely work; it's that if these hawks have their way, it definitely won't.
Signatories of the most recent letter rose yesterday in objection, for now, at least, to new sanctions. "This bill empowers the very hardliners that are the problem," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) plead: "Don't undercut our President if there's some daylight. Don't poke the Iranian people in the eye." And Rep. Jim McDermott laid out an impassioned—and eminently reasonable—case for postponing the vote. "I'm standing here asking, What's the rush? For the first time in years, a moderate is about to be sworn in in Iran," he said. "We could come back after our vacation and deal with this if we need to." He added that he was on the floor when sanctions were piled on Iraq: "We've seen this movie before." He noted that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children perished due to sanctions. "Did it change? No, we went to war with them."
Those in favor of the bill gave various reasons for supporting it. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) basically said no deal could be struck until there was regime change in Iran. Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) said Rowhani's "actions must speak louder than his words"—a curious take before the president-elect has even ascended to his office. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) insisted, contra all evidence, "This new so-called president of Iran is no different than Ahmadinejad"—referring to the outgoing hard-line two-termer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The bill's author, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), closed the floor debate with this accusation: Rowhani "was at the table when Iran masterminded the '94 bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. He was the individual who gave the order, and boasted of it." That charge had its origins in a right-wing blogpost, citing the pro-war pundit Reuel Marc Gerecht, that alleged Rowhani knew of the plot, not that he ordered it. That report remains uncorrected after it was thoroughly debunked by no less of an authority than the aggressive Argentine prosecutor in the case.
Can there be any doubt about wherefrom this hawkish push emanates? Supporters of the new sanctions, almost to a woman, cited Israel's security. Not only is AIPAC directly involved with this and a handful of other efforts that many judge would stymie diplomacy, but other right-wing pro-israel groups like the Israel Project—which held a Congressional briefing yesterday with three Members of Congress who support the new sanctions, including the two authors—and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have relentlessly press for tougher measures while making no hint that they foresee any sort of avenue for diplomacy at all. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, in the words of the New York Times, been publicly "increas(ing) pressure" on America to take a more hard-line Iran stance, and his supporters in Washington have been happily obliging. But no matter the prime mover behind them, these policies will end badly, by making available neither to the U.S. nor Iran a way to back-off the current trajectory, one that, if Barack Obama's pledges of prevention are to be believed, will lead to war.
The Obama administration got it right last year when then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice said diplomacy remained the "best and most permanent way" to stop Iran from getting nukes. The experts agree, noting that an attack would not only chance regional war, but would yield merely a delay in the program and likely spur Iran to harden its position on a weapons program (despite proclamations by Congress—most recently in a letter reportedly drafted by AIPAC lobbyists—American intelligence agencies don't think Iran has taken a final decision to build a bomb). Perhaps the most comprehensive way out for America was laid out this month in a New York Review of Books article by Ambassadors William Luers and Tom Pickering, along with MIT expert Jim Walsh. "If the United States is to reach an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, Washington will have to develop new approaches to thinking about Iran," they wrote. "There is yet time for diplomacy, but the longer real negotiations are delayed, the greater is the risk of conflict in the increasingly violent environment of the Middle East." The Obama administration and Washington policy-makers would do well to hear these elder statesmen's voices over the constant din of Netanyahu and his Stateside allies.
AIPAC flexes muscle on Iran, Egypt Sun Aug 4, 2013 5:50PM By Alex Kane, Mondoweiss The powerhouse Israel lobby group wants more sanctions on Iran and the continuation of U.S. military aid towards Egypt--and Congress has obliged. Over the past week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has seen its legislative priorities on U.S. policy in the Middle East sail through Congress.
As Iran prepared to welcome in a new president more amenable to negotiations with the West over its nuclear energy program, AIPAC and its Congressional allies were working overtime to scuttle any potential diplomatic progress. The House of Representatives passed a new bill yesterday aimed at crippling Iran's oil exports.
There were a handful of Congressional critics of the AIPAC-backed measure, who pointed out that the bill was, as M.J. Rosenberg put it, a "preemptive strike" against Iran's new president. But they didn't come close to dissuading the House, which passed the bill by a 400-20 vote.
The House vote lined up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy: ratchet up sanctions, prepare for war and deride those who think that Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president, presents a diplomatic opportunity. “You should ratchet up the sanction and make it clear to Iran that they won't get away with it.”
“And if sanctions don't work and they have to know that you'll be prepared to take military action, that's the only thing that will get their attention,” Netanyahu said on CBS' Face the Nation last month.
The House legislation was only the latest sanctions bill piled on Iran, as Rosenberg reminds us:
AIPAC has been drafting and the House and Senate passing AIPAC’s Iran sanctions bills for years. They don’t accomplish anything except punish the Iranian people. After all, if they did “work”, AIPAC wouldn’t keep having to write new sanctions bills. Iran would have surrendered to Israel’s demands on the nuclear issue years ago.
On Egypt, the story was much the same: AIPAC got what it wanted. The Egyptian military's coup in June prompted a lot of pundits to talk about whether the Obama administration was going to cut off the $1.3 billion in military aid the U.S. delivers to the country annually.
But there was never any serious chance the Obama administration was going to do so--and Israel is a key reason why. So when Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment this week to redirect the Egypt aid to infrastructure projects at home, it was quickly shot down--and the Senators opposing the amendment cited AIPAC and the Israeli government's insistence that military aid continue to Egypt.
Open Zion's Ali Gharib runs down the revealing debate here:
[P]eans to Israel's security came from the five Senators who spoke in opposition to the amendment: Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Bob Corker (R-TN), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ), who even got into it with Paul about what American groups spoke with authority on Israel's interests.
Inhofe, the first to speak, set the tone. "If you have any feelings at all toward our good friends, our best friends in the Middle East-that is Israel-then you cannot consider this amendment. Israel has all of the interests at stake," he said. "We cannot do this to our friends in Israel and our other allies in the Middle East." He went on at length. Then Menendez made one of those references to American security when he said the Senate must consider "implications for U.S. national security and for our ally Israel." Later, he elaborated on those concerns-the Israeli ones, at least: "When you have hundreds of tunnels in the Sinai being used by extremists to send weapons into Gaza to attack Israel, it is about their security."
And Senator Lindsey Graham underscored the fact that AIPAC was opposed to cutting off aid to Egypt. As Gharib notes, Graham read into the Congressional record the letter AIPAC sent to Senators on the Paul amendment, which states:
We are writing to express our concerns over the Paul amendment to the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that would eliminate military assistance and sales to Egypt. We do not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time, as we believe it could increase the instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.
There are other important reasons why the U.S. won't cut off aid to Egypt. The flow of money ensures profits for weapons companies in America, and ensures that the Suez Canal, important for oil, is also a place where the U.S. navy flexes its muscle--which is important to box Iran in.
All of those concerns--the Suez Canal, weapons contracts and Israel--underline why Secretary of State John Kerry, as Marc Ellis noted, said this week that the Egyptian military stepped in to "restore democracy." While Kerry's remarks were impolitic--the U.S. is not supposed to explicitly say it supported the coup--they undoubtedly reflected the alternate universe U.S. officials live in.
So the Egyptian military and security forces have received the message that there will be no consequences for their crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. They've detained former President Mohamed Morsi, committed two mass killings of Muslim Brotherhood supporters, and are now warning that the prolonged Islamist sit-in protesting the military's actions will be cleared. Expect more bloodshed soon--all backed up by the military aid the U.S., AIPAC and Israel ensured will continue to flow.
There are many reasons why naming Martin Indyk the special envoy to mediate between Israel and Palestine is a bad idea. Marinated in Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban’s largess at Brookings Institute, many observers have noted Indyk’sprevious failures as a diplomat for the U.S. It is assumed that Indyk will again function as “Israel’s lawyer” and Palestinians will get a raw deal. Less explored are the likely costs for the United States.
In 1984 as research director at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Indyk and his “research team” gutted advice and consent process during trade negotiations to deliver unprecedented concessions to Israel. During the negotiations American businesses opposed to the concessions delivered trade secrets and proprietarydata supporting their opposition to the International Trade Commission. The FBI soon discovered AIPAC had illegally obtained a secret copy of the business secrets compiled by ITC, giving AIPAC invaluable ammunition to target those lobbying against the deal.
When publicly called out to explain the data theft on National Public Radio, Indyk was incapable of explaining how his research division obtained American business secrets—and instead answered aphilosophical question about free trade that had not been asked.(Listen here) Thanks to recently declassified FBI files, it is known that Israeli Trade Minister Dan Halpern surreptitiously obtained and passed the stolen secrets to AIPAC, allowing the Israel lobby to end-runstaunch opposition to the near-unilateral concessions. Complaints about Israeli theft of U.S. intellectual property, including pharmaceutical patents to export copy-cats into the U.S. market, have been ongoing.
Since the year of the theft, the formerly balanced U.S.-Israeli trading relationship has turned into a chronic yearly deficit for America. From 1985 through May of 2013 (the latest data available), the deficit has reached a cumulative $100 billion. The recently departed U.S. Trade Ambassador refused to provide compensation to victimized industries. Indyk is once again in a position to throw America under the bus. Concerned observers must begin wonder how much it will cost.
I wonder what it is that other people see about Secretary of State John Kerry's Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough that I'm missing.
The fundamentals haven't changed. The Palestinian Authority's goal is to achieve a peace agreement with Israel in which it (yet again) recognizes Israel and Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories of the West Bank (including east Jerusalem) and Gaza.
This has been the Palestinian position since the Oslo agreement of 1993, the one that produced the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat. The Palestinians have never changed their position. They insist on taking possession of 100 percent of those occupied territories, with "land swaps" that will permit a few settlement blocs to stay under Israeli jurisdiction in exchange for equal acreage now inside Israel. It, of course, should be noted that 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza represents only 22 percent of historic Palestine (Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza). Israel would still control 78 percent.
That is important to remember when you read a report that Palestinians are being obstinate for not agreeing to accept 90 percent. That is because the 90 percent is of the 22 percent which would reduce their portion to 18 percent.
The Palestinian position has been consistent since the days of Arafat. And even Hamas has endorsed it in its more realistic moments.
But no Israeli government has ever agreed to the 78-22 percent deal, certainly not Netanyahu's (Ehud Olmert came closest but it was at the very end of his term and the Palestinians knew that he couldn't deliver). On the contrary, Netanyahu says that he will never yield any part of Jerusalem, that although he would conceivably grant Palestinians 90 percent of the West Bank, he would insist on the presence of Israeli forces on a demilitarized Palestinian state's border with Jordan and even on retaining Ariel, the Israeli city deep in the West Bank. Additionally, he would keep Ma'aleh Adumim, a huge settlement a few miles from Jerusalem and fill the (E-1) corridor which, separates it from Jerusalem, with 3,000 settler homes to permanently divide the northern West Bank from the southern part.
Nothing that Kerry or any Israeli official has said since the "breakthrough" indicates that Netanyahu has modified these positions.
And the Palestinians, rightly, will never accept them. After all, they have considerably compromised from their pre-Oslo demand for the return of all of Palestine to 22 percent of it. They have recognized Israel's right to security and, even without a peace treaty, they work hand-in-hand with the Israeli Defense Forces to defend Israel. Additionally, under international law, the occupied territories are just that -- occupied -- and must be returned to them.
What are they supposed to compromise on? They have nothing to give to Israel except an enhanced version of the security guarantees they already implement. Netanyahu likes to say that he will not sacrifice Israel's security for any peace agreement. But he knows that he will never be asked to. Every significant proposal for Israeli-Palestinian peace contains extensive security guarantees for Israel. Notably, the Palestinians, who are infinitely weaker than Israel, don't demand security guarantees, just their territory.
There is one last point as to why Kerry's agreement will go nowhere. The Palestinians cannot trust the United States to be an impartial mediator, far from it. Even beyond the fact that the U.S. official expected to be chosen as mediator, Ambassador Martin Indyk, was long affiliated with AIPAC and then with the think-tank it created, the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, is the simple fact that the United States has unambiguously taken Israel's side for decades.
The Palestinians understand the role of the Israel lobby in keeping Congress in line behind Israel, with Congress doing the job of making sure the administration doesn't stray. As recently as 2012, the United States led the opposition to a resolution granting Palestine observer status at the United Nations (only seven countries voted with us). In March of this year, President Obama visited Israel to deliver, both in words and symbolic actions a vivid demonstration of Vice President Biden's oft-repeated pledge that there must be "no daylight, no daylight" between U.S. and Israeli policies.
Exactly why would the Palestinians trust the United States? The answer is that they don't and they shouldn't because, during two presidencies in a row, we have made not the slightest attempt to play "honest broker," remaining even more "Israel's lawyer" than we were when Clinton-era negotiator, Aaron Miller first used the term to describe our modus operandi.
This is significant. The only successful U.S. mediation between Israelis and Palestinians was conducted by President Jimmy Carter at Camp David in 1978. Carter managed to bridge the gaps that had led Israel and Egypt to go to war three times previously by being the ultimate honest broker.
In his book about Camp David, Gen. Moshe Dayan, who was then Israel's foreign minister, described how Carter would keep the pressure on both sides equally, telling President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin, in turn, that if the talks failed, he would publicly name who was responsible. All during the long arduous process that produced a peace treaty that has survived 34 years, Carter refused to act as either side's advocate. His only client was peace and that is how he achieved an agreement.
Can anyone seriously imagine that the Obama administration with its "no daylight" policy would ever do that? Occasionally, very occasionally, over the past five years it has laid blame equally on the two sides but -- other than once in 2009 on the matter of settlement expansion -- it has never blamed Israel for anything and, in that one case, it quickly flinched. That means that all Palestinians can expect in the Kerry negotiations is blame on them whenever anything goes wrong with Israel getting a pass.
The bottom line is that the Kerry initiative is dead even before arrival. And, sad to say, that is how it should be until the United States looks at the Palestinian and Israeli demands, side by side, and decides, honestly, that there is no moral equivalence between the demands of the occupier and the occupied. And then we can, just possibly, help achieve peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. But not before
Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to name Martin Indyk as the U.S. Representative to the Israel-Palestinian peace negotiation. Indyk has been around this peace-talk track before.
He belongs to a small group of Jewish diplomats who have specialized in Middle East negotiations. The same names come up with every new effort to reconcile Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This time the key player is Indyk. Who is he?
Indyk (shown above with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert) began his Washington career as an AIPAC staffer, served as executive director of an AIPAC think tank offshoot -- the Washington Institute of Near East Policy -- and then served two short terms as the first foreign-born U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Indyk was born to a Jewish family in London, England. The family moved to Australia where Indyk grew up in the Sydney suburb of Castlecrag. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972. He received his PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. Indyk emigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.
Indyk's pro-Israel credentials are spelled out by Phillip Weiss, writing in Mondoweiss:
"He wrote (in the book Innocent Abroad 4 years ago) that: 'I was first drawn to the Middle East through my Jewish identity and connection to Israel.' Indyk now works at Brookings for a man he calls his 'godfather,' Haim Saban. Saban has said that his 'greatest concern' is to protect Israel.
"Indyk was described in 1992 by a former AIPAC president as AIPAC's political asset in the Clinton campaign. After the spectacular failure of Camp David negotiations that he helped conduct in 2000, Indyk was characterized by former Palestinian negotiator Mohammed Dahlan as having a pro-Israel bias and 'advanced negative attitudes toward Palestinians.'
"While former Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that Indyk was 'partial, biased, pro-Israel' and defended Israeli settlements more than Israelis."
And this is the man in whom we are to place our trust as Kerry's point man for peace?
When Kerry was engaged in his recent travels to the region, he tried to make the case that this set of negotiations would be the final opportunity to bring the two opposing sides together. Now the news from Palestine is that President Mahmoud Abbas is satisfied that Kerry and Indyk will be fair in reaching an agreement.
How could Abbas possibly reach such a conclusion? There is nothing emanating from the Israeli side that would suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu can bring his right-wing government to accept a peace agreement anywhere near any reasonable position of fairness.
Is the Palestinian Authority president placing his trust in the upcoming negotiations because of specific promises? Word from Israel is that it is prepared to release some longtime Palestinian political prisoners, many of whom Israel classifies as "heavyweights," whatever that could possibly mean.
Kerry has also dropped hints of financial incentives to the PA from outside investors who are eager to invest in the Palestinian economy.
That is the old "investment not divestment" trope which has been a part of Protestant church discussions in recent years. It sounds nice but where is the meat? Where are the roadblocks opening up; where are the tough decisions on Israel's illegal settlements?
Richard Silverstein is sceptical of the usual Israeli ploy to release Palestinian prisoners as a sign of good will. He writes:
"They'll supposedly be getting 100 freed Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails for decades. The Israel Broadcasting Authority says the prisoner release would happen in four stages and the first one would only happen during the second month of negotiations. A lot can happen in that time.
"And I'd say a guarantee of this happening is pretty thin. Further, the Palestinians seem willing to overlook that Israel, after past prisoner exchanges, promptly re-arrested whoever it still wants behind bars.
"Another issue the Palestinians would apparently give up is their efforts to win international recognition in bodies like the United Nations. That's giving up a whole lot in return for very little. The Guardian quotes a former PA official on the illusions that underpin the talks about starting talks:
"Ghassan Khatib, former director of communications for the Palestinian Authority. 'The thing that bothers me is that it seems that the resumption of negotiations is seen as an objective in itself. But the problem was never the lack of negotiations, direct or indirect. It is the huge gap between Israel's stated position and its practices, and the lack of willingness by the US to put pressure on them.'"
In these negotiation promises, there is not a single sign that oppression will be eased. Psalm 146:3 comes to mind: "Do not put your trust in princes" (NIV). It would be wrong to believe that this new round of talks brings with them the slightest hope of success, if our only hope rests with U.S. political leaders who have thus far forfeited their leadership to the Zionist Lobby.
Which is why the real effort on the part of progressives in and out of religious communities, must be to persuade the American public that our only hope for peace in the region is in our ability to put pressure on U.S. political decision makers, from the White House to the Congress and out to the media.
Which is why this could be the right moment to enlist retired military leaders in the cause of peace.
These are the front line leaders who are strongly in favor of negotiations that really succeed. The military generals who must work in the US Central Command are closer to the situation on the ground than diplomats visiting from outside.
This map of the different U.S. Central Commands shows the Central Command stretching from Afghanistan into north Africa.
Max Blumenthal reported on a recent Aspen Institute conference in which:
"Recently retired US Central Commander General James Mattis warned ... that if Secretary of State John Kerry's attempts to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority failed, Israel would be exposed as an apartheid state. Mattis pointed at the settlement enterprise as the source of Israel's diplomatic crisis, declaring that "the protagonists" -- Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- might not be as interested in a deal as Kerry is."
Mattis' warning follows an earlier warning issued by Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, who warned that Israel is in danger of a worldwide boycott if current negotiations fail.
General James Mattis spoke at the Aspen Institute's annual Security Forum, in Colorado. He was far more direct than political leaders dare to be...
"Mattis said that as a result of Israeli intransigence and the US special relationship with Israel, he and his troops have 'paid a military security price.' His comments echoed those of his predecessor, General David Petraeus, who told the Senate Armed Service Committee in 2010 that 'enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors... had damaged US interests in the region.' Petraeus was hammered by pro-Israel forces for his remarks -- Abe Foxman called him 'dangerous' -- and wound up walking them back."
Mattis, a 45-year military veteran, ended his assignment at CENTCOM on June 1. He appears to be speaking without much concern for domestic political pressure. The Abe Foxmans of U.S. domestic politics do not seem to trouble him.
We no longer have a significant and progressive ally on the media front at a time when a second-term Obama administration shows signs of fatigue and what is worse, an unwillingness to defy Israeli demands.
Progressives worldwide are mourning the death of longtime journalist Helen Thomas, who died July 20 at age 92, in Washington. She threw hard questions at every president from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama.
The Washington Post reporting on her death, wrote:
Thomas routinely questioned White House officials over U.S. policies toward Israel and the Middle East, which led some to complain she was too sympathetic to Palestinian and Arab viewpoints. Bush spokesman Tony Snow once famously answered one of her questions with, "Thank you for the Hezbollah view".
She was a pioneer in breaking barriers for women. The Guardian reported:
"At a time when US news media confined most female journalists to writing about cookery, fashion and 'women's interests,' Helen Thomas was one of the doughtiest warriors to storm the absurd barricade. Thomas, who has died aged 92, became a national icon as the senior correspondent at the White House for United Press International (UPI), with the privilege of saying to US leaders from John F Kennedy onwards, 'Thank you, Mr President,' signaling that the press (and the television audience) had heard quite enough."
She was so hard on George W. Bush that he shut her out of his press conferences, refusing for three years to call on her for a question. When Barack Obama became president, he called on her during his first White House press conference, acknowledging that it was a risk. He was not disappointed.
After three years of enforced silence, Thomas asked the new president about Israel's nuclear arsenal, a topic which by tacit agreement is off limits to media and politicians. The policy of "deliberate ambiguity" is followed, allowing Israel to keep its nukes a company secret. Meanwhile, Israel continues to make demands on other Middle East countries to reveal all regarding their efforts to build their own nuclear arsenal.
Obama dodged the nuke question.
The Post headline was descriptive: "Helen Thomas, feisty scourge of presidents, dies at 92."
She died just as the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are launched with little chance of success. We need more "feisty scourges" like Helen Thomas in the White House press room.
Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
by Revd Dr Stephen Sizer
At least one in four American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today magazine said that they believe it is their biblical responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This view is known as Christian Zionism. The Pew Research Center put the figure at 63 per cent among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline American evangelical, charismatic and independent denominations including the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega-churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show a greater respect for the work of the United Nations, support for human rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.
The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.
Christian Zionism as a modern theological and political movement embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism. It has become deeply detrimental to a just peace between Palestine and Israel. It propagates a worldview in which the Christian message is reduced to an ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.
Followers of Christian Zionism are convinced that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 and the capture of Jerusalem in 1967 were the miraculous fulfillment of God’s promises made to Abraham that he would establish Israel as a Jewish nation forever in Palestine.
Tim LaHaye’s infamous Left Behind novels, together with other End Times speculations written by authors such as Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, have sold well over 100 million copies. These are supplemented by children’s books, videos and event violent computer games.
Burgeoning Christian Zionist organizations such as the International Christian Embassy (ICEJ), Christian Friends of Israel (CFI) and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) wield considerable influence on Capitol Hill, claiming a support base in excess of 50 million true believers. This means there are now at least ten times as many Christian Zionists as Jewish Zionists. And their European cousins are no less active in the Zionist Hasbarafia, lobbying for Israel, attacking its critics and thwarting the peace process. The United States and Israel are often portrayed as Siamese twins, joined at the heart, sharing common historic, religious and political values.
Pastor John Hagee is one of the leaders of the Christian Zionist movement. He is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a 19,000-member evangelical church in San Antonio, Texas. His weekly programmes are broadcast on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks into an estimated 99 million homes in 200 countries. In 2006 he founded Christians United for Israel admitting,
“For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.”
In March 2007, Hagee spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference. He began by saying:
“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel…”
As the Jerusalem Post pointed out, his speech did not lack clarity. He went on to warn:
“It is 1938. Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. We must stop Iran’s nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East… Think of our potential future together: 50 million evangelicals joining in common cause with 5 million Jewish people in America on behalf of Israel is a match made in heaven.”
Christian Zionists have shown varying degrees of enthusiasm for implementing six basic political convictions that arise from their ultra-literal and fundamentalist theology:
The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people leads Christian Zionists to seek to bless Israel in material ways. However, this also invariably results in the uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies, in the media, among politicians and through solidarity tours to Israel. As God’s chosen people, the final restoration of the Jews to Israel is therefore actively encouraged, funded and facilitated through partnerships with the Jewish Agency. Eretz Israel, as delineated in scripture, from the Nile to the Euphrates, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, therefore the land must be annexed, Palestinians driven from their homes and the illegal Jewish settlements expanded and consolidated. Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, and cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Christian Zionists have lobbied the US Administration to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby ensure that Jerusalem is recognised as the capital of Israel. Christian Zionists offer varying degrees of support for organisations such as the Jewish Temple Mount Faithful who are committed to destroying the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding the Jewish Temple on the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble sanctuary of Al-Aqsa). Christian Zionists invariably have a pessimistic view of the future, convinced that there will be an apocalyptic war of Armageddon in the imminent future. They are deeply sceptical of the possibility of a lasting peace between Jews and Arabs and therefore oppose the peace process. Indeed, to advocate an Israeli compromise of “land for peace” with the Palestinians is seen as a rejection of God’s promises to Israel and therefore to support her enemies.
Within the Christian Zionist worldview, Palestinians are regarded as alien residents in Israel. Many Christian Zionists are reluctant even to acknowledge Palestinians exist as a distinct people, claiming that they emigrated to Israel from surrounding Arab nations for economic reasons after Israel had become prosperous. A fear and deep-seated hatred of Islam also pervades their dualistic Manichean theology. Christian Zionists have little or no interest in the existence of indigenous Arab Christians despite their continuity with the early church.
In 2006, I drafted what became known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem: His Beatitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah, Latin Patriarch, Jerusalem; Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem; Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East; and Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land. In it they insisted:
“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.
We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!
We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state and peace and security in the entire region.”
The patriarchs concluded:
“God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.” The prophet Micah asks, “What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).
It is my contention after more than 10 years of postgraduate research that Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
The closing chapter of the New Testament takes us back to the imagery of the Garden of Eden and the removal of the curse arising from the Fall: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22:1-2) Surely this is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed his followers to act as Ambassadors of peace and reconciliation, to work and pray that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven.
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.
Tripsoff the tongue, doesnt it? The enemies of Israel are 4 Dimensional Lizards from Orion led by Junior Annunaki Tony "Dont leave your credit card with me" Greenstein.
What is your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory, AD?
SLAD wrote:Yes AD please give us your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory...surely you would want to run some names along side of Captain Israel? You know ....the way you so like to do
What the fuck is both of yours' problem?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
Having been followed around R.I. for years being asked by AD where I stand on, what my position is in relation to, what I really think of and whether I am a supporter of Icke's Annunaki Reptilian Theory (tm) . I remember writing really long sincere detailed replies about said subjects, but they were either never enough or ignored or greeted with a CopyPasta storm. And that is because slad, slim and myself are obviously virulent anti-Semites. So to hear your comment at slad and myself doing parody of what we have been at the receiving end literally for years is churlish.
Tripsoff the tongue, doesnt it? The enemies of Israel are 4 Dimensional Lizards from Orion led by Junior Annunaki Tony "Dont leave your credit card with me" Greenstein.
What is your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory, AD?
SLAD wrote:Yes AD please give us your defense of Captain Israel Reptilian Theory...surely you would want to run some names along side of Captain Israel? You know ....the way you so like to do
What the fuck is both of yours' problem?
stop pretending to be so naive Jack.....I am certain you know very well what's going on here....and it's not our fucking problem it's AD's fucking problem.....I have had enough and I am not going to let his crap slide any longer......and if you really don't know what's going on then stay the fuck out of it....hey here's an idea maybe you don't know everything
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.
This thread had died and was off the front page. There were about four days of divine peace, then this thread was re-animated by AD CopyPasta-ing - who? Himself. I would say THAT is the 'expletive deleted' problem. I would suggest if one wants to act as a solipsistic pastafarian, do it in your own thread. Dozens of multipage CopyPastas from Tony Greenstein (seriously, WTF?) a debate doth not make. It turns every discussion where it is done into aggression-filled mush.
The Feminists of Zion An unlikely alliance between Orthodox and progressive women will save Israel from fundamentalism BY ALLISON KAPLAN SOMMER AND DAHLIA LITHWICK
On a warm June day in 2011, Nili Philipp was powering her bike down Herzog Boulevard, a major thoroughfare in Beit Shemesh, a sleepy bedroom community in the Judean hills. A pretty, vivacious mother of five and fitness buff, Philipp is what American Jews would call “modern Orthodox” and Israelis call “national religious.” She keeps a kosher home and wears a knee-length skirt and head scarf, as traditional Jewish law demands, but she is also a confident college-trained engineer, with a smartphone and high-tech sneakers. As she rode, she tried to push the anxiety she felt to the back of her mind.
The Canadian-born Philipp and her husband had moved to Beit Shemesh in 2000 for its affordability and its beautiful bike trails and hills, but also for its diversity. Back then, secular Jews, modern-Orthodox Jews, and the Haredim, or ultra-Orthodox, lived peacefully side by side. Philipp had loved to shop in the Haredi neighborhoods, where clothing and diapers were always cheaper. But over the past five years, as Beit Shemesh had changed, Philipp found these neighborhoods increasingly foreign and felt uneasy visiting them.
After an influx of Haredi families had poured into the city in search of affordable housing, official-looking posters cautioning women to “dress modestly” had appeared around town. Signs were now posted near Haredi synagogues ordering women not to “linger” or make noise. When she went on runs, the five-foot-tall Philipp wore her long skirt and head scarf. But despite her modest dress, on several occasions, Haredi men had cursed her and spat on her, perceiving the mere sight of a woman running as offensive to their beliefs. When she went biking, Philipp had tried wearing a skirt, but when doing so proved neither practical nor safe she switched to knee-length shorts—the longest she could find—and a short-sleeved jersey.
Photograph by Tanya Habjouqa NILI PHILIPP A new face of feminism. As she cycled in this outfit past a traffic circle bordering a Haredi neighborhood, she saw a modesty sign and the husk of a shopping center vandalized by Haredi men who feared the project would attract “indecent” non-Haredi customers like Philipp. Suddenly, something struck her on the head, hard. A Haredi man had thrown a rock the size of her fist at her. It bounced off her helmet and clattered to the ground. Shaken, she called for help. But other Haredi men, picking their way along the sidewalk in their black suits and brimmed hats, ignored her. The escalation—from spitting to real violence—left her terrified.
Three months later, Philipp had another upsetting brush with the Haredim. As her seven-year-old daughter, Meital, and her friends headed into their new girls’ school, they were confronted by an angry crowd of Haredi men screaming, “Shiksa” (gentile woman) and “Prutze” (slut). The Orot Banot school sat on a street between Philipp’s modern-Orthodox neighborhood and an area that had recently become home to some extremist Haredi sects. (Haredi sects differ in their degrees of religiosity; violence generally only emanates from extreme groups.) Many in the Haredi community believed the building “belonged” to them and claimed that the schoolgirls were provocative, because they wore t-shirts instead of blouses and bare legs beneath their long skirts.
Philipp was outraged that, even before the school had opened, the Beit Shemesh government—led by its Haredi mayor, Moshe Abutbul—had backed the ultra-Orthodox, warning parents that the city could not protect their children against any violence that might occur. This proved to be the case: Every day, the harassers showed up outside the school and traumatized the girls, hurling eggs, tomatoes, and bags of feces at them, but the police came only when summoned. Screaming Haredi men were merely redirected to adjacent streets. No arrests were made.
Finally, in December of 2011, one of Philipp’s friends, Hadassa Margolese, allowed her eight-year-old, Naama, to be featured on a nationally broadcast news program. Naama was filmed sobbing and clinging to her mother’s leg, too terrified to go to school. On the same program, a Haredi man proudly defended his right to protect himself from these young schoolgirls and their brazen sexual provocation, declaring, “I am a healthy man!” The segment electrified the nation, and although no prominent Haredi rabbis publicly condemned the protesters, they disappeared overnight.
But Haredi men continued to harass women in Beit Shemesh. Less than a year later, in June 2012, Vered Daniel, an acquaintance of Philipp’s, went shopping in a Haredi neighborhood. In a special effort to respect ultra-Orthodox sensitivities, she wore a long skirt and blouse. Although modest by modern-Orthodox standards, Daniel’s outfit marked her as someone who was clearly not Haredi. When she left her car with her infant daughter in her arms, Haredi men screamed at her for dressing immodestly and spat on her. Alarmed, Daniel ran back to her car, locking herself and her baby inside as the mob battered the vehicle with sticks and stones, shattering a window.
For Philipp, the attack on Daniel was “beyond the beyond.” “Attacking a mother with a young child in her arms—” recalls Philipp, her eyes filling with tears. “She was completely helpless.” The incident drove her to do something she would previously never have contemplated. Like most Orthodox women, there was little about the word “feminism” that spoke to Philipp. She did not consider herself political. But as tensions grew in Beit Shemesh, she had started to follow the debates in online women’s groups, “deep debates,” she says, “about pluralistic society, tolerance.” It was, she says, “my first real exchange with secular and non-Orthodox Israelis.”
The day after Daniel’s attack, Philipp filed a police complaint over the city’s failure to remove the modesty signs. But then, rightly sensing that this would result in little change, she reached out to a woman from a world completely different than her own. In doing so, she became a pivotal figure in a clash between the ultra-Orthodox and a widening coalition of women to determine the core values of Israeli society.
Even before Israel’s founding in 1948, modern Zionists envisioned a state that was a beacon of gender equality. Zionism, which fused national aspirations with socialist ideology, encouraged the full integration of women into society, while Israel’s small population also made women in the workforce a necessity. In pioneer training camps, in “labor battalions,” and in the kibbutzim, women were expected to work and fight alongside men, and working mothers were provided with services to help them do so, such as free child care. An economic boom after the 1967 war drove yet more women into the labor market. It seemed a fitting symbol of Israel’s progressive attitudes toward gender when Golda Meir was appointed prime minister in 1969.
Some of this gender equality was illusory, as women discovered during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. When men were called up for military service, the entire country came to a standstill—revealing that women had been systematically excluded from certain jobs, such as bus driving. But for the most part, Israeli women have had relatively free access to birth control, abortion, and child care, and have been largely unencumbered by the ideal of the full-time homemaker and the attendant Mommy Wars.
AP/Oded Balilti POSTER CHILD Naama Margolese sits with her mother Hadassa in December, 2011. But as modern Israel was developing along this mostly progressive track, its secular leaders, including its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, were unwilling to impose their values on the remnants of “traditional” ultra-Orthodox European Jewry. At the time of the nation’s founding, the ultra-Orthodox had been decimated by the Holocaust; it has been estimated that they comprised as little as 1 percent of Israel’s population. Even the most hardened secular Zionists had a sentimental attachment to a community they saw as the last representatives of “authentic” Judaism. And so laws were quickly enacted to give special status to Haredim, such as military exemptions for Yeshiva students. (There were only 400 at the time.) Ultra-Orthodox Jews were also given tremendous autonomy over their own neighborhoods. Most significantly, an Israeli chief rabbinate and religious court system, comprised largely of ultra-Orthodox men, were allowed to regulate the entire country’s religious and life-cycle events, from marriage to conversion to burial.
This led to a strange democratic experiment in which radical secularism co-existed side by side with extreme Orthodoxy. Posters of women in bikinis dot the beaches of Tel Aviv, while bus shelters with images of even modestly dressed women are either torn off or spray-painted in Jerusalem. In the town of Petah Tikvah, shoppers can buy cereal boxes with frolicking children of both genders; in B’nai B’rak, the next town over, Haredi publications forbid pictures of any women or girls. Women are seated readily at Israel’s Supreme Court, but at the backs of certain bus lines. For decades, Israelis tolerated their nation’s dual identity as both a secular and a religious state, in part because Haredi influence was largely confined to their own private spaces.
In recent years, however, demographic changes have made this paradox less tenable. Ultra-Orthodox birth rates have always been exceptionally high, and the once-tiny minority now comprises more than 10 percent of the population. As their numbers have increased, so has their sway over political and civil life. Ultra-Orthodox parties have been the fulcrum of every single government coalition from 2006 until early 2013. Major parties competed with each other to make deals with the Haredim, often ceding authority over a number of domestic and economic issues to Haredi leaders in exchange for support on various foreign policy and security goals.
These agreements, forged between ultra-Orthodox and secular political leaders—almost all of them male—have led to an increase in modesty signs on public boulevards and gender-segregated sidewalks in Haredi neighborhoods. Bowing to pressure from politically influential Haredi rabbis, secular male authorities have also acceded to bans on women’s faces on billboards in some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, gender-separated office hours in government- funded medical clinics, and de facto gender segregation on publicly subsidized buses. Women have been discouraged, and at times even prohibited, from participating in some official ceremonies. In short, restrictions that once affected only Haredi women are spilling into public spaces, affecting all women, and calling into question the justness of a model that allows gender equality to be a negotiable issue.
The conflict has only become more intense as the growing Haredi population has expanded in “mixed” Israeli cities, like Beit Shemesh. In less than a decade, the Haredim, once a nominal presence in the city, came to dominate the political landscape, electing their mayor, Abutbul, in 2008. Haredi housing projects and schools were built alongside existing neighborhoods, and residents had no choice but to pass through them as they went about their daily business. Haredi families, meanwhile, felt they were being forced to confront influences they found profane, such as provocative clothing, music, and media.
Haredim have sought to drive “corrupt” elements out of their neighborhoods by making them inhospitable places for those who are not ultra-Orthodox. The victims of this strategy are usually women, whose bodies have become the battleground in what is essentially a religious turf war. And as Philipp and Vered Daniel learned, the harassment can easily become violent. Miriam Friedman Zussman, a modern-Orthodox friend of Philipp’s, says: “I never considered myself a feminist. I didn’t think I had to be. Then suddenly, you start to say, ‘You want me to wear what? You want me to say what? You want my daughter to wear what?’... It’s the boiled frog theory."
And so, for the first time, women like Nili Philipp have started to cross the secular-religious divide.
On a recent afternoon, Orly Erez-Likhovski sat in the kitchen of her well-appointed townhouse in Mevasseret Zion. Tall, with tousled, short brown hair, Erez-Likhovski was dressed in a sleeveless v-neck blouse and slacks, an outfit that would hardly turn heads in Mevasseret, an upscale enclave tucked into the hills surrounding Jerusalem. Although it’s only a 30-minute drive from Beit Shemesh, Mevasseret is a world away. The neat rows of homes are populated by secular families who choose to distance themselves from the ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious friction of places like Jerusalem or Beit Shemesh.
AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner Israeli women concerned with equality fear the writing is on the wall, in the form of modesty signs like the one in Beit Shemesh. Erez-Likhovski works from home on designated days to balance the demands of being one of Israel’s busiest women’s rights lawyers with the demands of her own family. (She has three children.) Erez-Likhovski was raised in a secular intellectual family; her father was a professor of agriculture and her mother a banker. She served in army intelligence, studied law at Tel Aviv and Columbia universities, and then clerked at Israel’s Supreme Court. While looking for a preschool for her son, a friend recommended one at a Reform synagogue, a denomination that melds Jewish tradition with a Western liberal emphasis on egalitarianism, innovation, and diversity. While it is the largest Jewish movement in the United States, in Israel only a tiny fraction of the population identify as Reform Jews. But Erez-Likhovski soon found herself attracted to the Reform movement—particularly its emphasis on social justice. Her rabbi suggested she join the movement professionally, as well as personally, and in 2004, she became an attorney at the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), the legal and advocacy arm of the Reform movement in Israel.
Erez-Likhovski began working on the issue of gender segregation in 2006 when IRAC received a growing number of complaints over the new, segregated mehadrin, or kosher bus lines—the result of a cooperation between ultra-Orthodox leaders and publicly subsidized bus companies. After ultra-Orthodox passengers bullied women sitting in the front seats of these buses, sometimes violently, Erez-Likhovski began to file complaints with the Ministry of Transportation. Eventually, on behalf of IRAC, she petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court in 2007 to clarify the situation.
During this period, the relationship between IRAC and Orthodox women’s organizations began to develop. In 2008, IRAC contacted Rachel Azaria, a modern-Orthodox woman who was running for Jerusalem City Council. Azaria had been barred from posting campaign ads with her picture on city buses, because images of women were forbidden on any public buses routed through ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods. After winning Azaria’s case, IRAC began to cooperate with Orthodox women on a host of issues. Working with Kolech—Israel’s first Orthodox feminist group—they challenged a policy that required female mourners to stand separately in government cemeteries and that sometimes barred women from eulogizing. They fought ultra-Orthodox radio stations with government licenses that sought to exclude women broadcasters on “modesty” grounds. Kolech signed on as a friend of the court to the IRAC petition in the bus segregation case.
RESTRICTIONS THAT ONCE AFFECTED ONLY HAREDI WOMEN ARE SPILLING INTO PUBLIC SPACES.
In early 2011, the Supreme Court went further than IRAC's request—declaring all forced segregation on buses illegal. At the same time, they permitted “voluntary” separation of the sexes. For Erez-Likhovski, it was a mixed victory. So, starting in 2011, IRAC changed its strategy and began filing civil suits in small-claims court on behalf of six individual women who had been harassed by ultra-Orthodox men on segregated buses. They sued the bus companies and drivers for failing to uphold Israel’s anti-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on race or gender. The plaintiffs were awarded amounts between 2,500 shekels (about $700) and 13,000 shekels (about $3,600). Three of the women were Orthodox.
Nili Philipp had briefly met, and liked, Erez-Likhovski when she had testified before a Knesset committee on religious women’s issues. And when she decided to fight back against the Haredim, it was Erez-Likhovski she called. She knew she was doing something new. Most Israelis would “never think that religious women would align themselves with those radical feminist women from the Reform movement,” says Philipp. “They would just assume we’d be good girls and listen to our rabbis.”
Philipp was wary some anti-religious secular groups and figures might try to capitalize on her activism. But the burgeoning coalition between IRAC and Kolech gave her confidence. She also consulted with Chana Kehat, the founder of Kolech, who offered the likely cooperation of one of Kolech’s Orthodox lawyers on the case.
Erez-Likhovski, who had been following the events in Beit Shemesh with great interest, saw Philipp’s case as a potential game-changer. Nobody had ever aggressively gone after the unofficially sanctioned modesty signs, and a lawsuit would force the municipality to take notice by hitting it in the pocketbook. And so, in February 2013, she helped Philipp and three other victims of ultra-Orthodox violence file an unprecedented civil lawsuit against the Beit Shemesh municipality and Mayor Abutbul, claiming the city was negligent in failing to remove the modesty signs. This failure, they alleged, had legitimized the continuing violence. They demanded more than $20,000 in compensatory damages.
The timing of Philipp’s case may well determine its outcome. The events in Beit Shemesh in 2011, personified by a terrified Naama Margolese, had been a wake-up call for Israel. It had forced the secular Israeli majority—particularly women—to ask whether they could live in a country where young schoolgirls were spat upon by adult males while the authorities stood by.
In the intervening years, women activists—and their male allies—have received a boost in visibility and public support. In Jerusalem, Rachel Azaria—the modern-Orthodox city councilwoman represented by IRAC in 2008—succeeded in preventing a Haredi neighborhood from imposing illegal sex-segregated sidewalks during a religious festival. There was a public outcry after two prominent female scientists were not allowed onstage to accept their own academic prizes in a Ministry of Health event. When religious soldiers walked out on official Israeli Defense Forces ceremonies because women were singing, a Facebook campaign inspired hundreds of women to hold sing-along protests in public squares, influencing army brass to clarify that such walkouts would not be tolerated. Another social-media-driven grassroots campaign had Jerusalemites hanging posters of women on their balconies to protest the absence of female images on public billboards.
“During the bus segregation case, we tried to [interest] the public and the media,” says Erez-Likhovski. “The feeling was: This was for the Haredim. Just let them do whatever they want. And while we had foreign press all over [the story], nobody cared in Israel, and it drove me crazy.”
All that has changed. This past spring, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein’s office released a groundbreaking report on discrimination and exclusion of women in the public sphere. In a statement sent to a list of government ministers, Weinstein ordered an immediate halt to the exclusion of women and banned discrimination at any government-sponsored or -funded activity. (He made a concession on the separation of the sexes for certain religious events.) The statement addressed a long list of controversial venues, including cemeteries, buses, health clinics, and radio stations. Weinstein then urged the Knesset to enshrine these statutes into law. As of yet, the Knesset has taken no action—other issues have taken priority—but proponents of the report remain hopeful it eventually will.
Simultaneous victories have taken place on other fronts and with other odd-couple coalitions. Seeking to immerse themselves in ritual baths, or mikvehs, a group of feminists from diverse backgrounds and beliefs filed a legal challenge against a rabbinate policy that gave only married women access to the baths. Ultimately, the rabbinate refused to officially change its policy but said that henceforth women could immerse themselves without being questioned about marital status or religious affiliation.
But perhaps the highest-profile example of the renewed fighting feminist spirit in Israel has been the stunning success this year of Women of the Wall (WOW), currently led by Anat Hoffman, who also serves as the head of IRAC. The group has been conducting women’s prayer services on the first day of the Jewish month at the Western Wall for 25 years, arousing the fury of the ultra-Orthodox authorities tasked with overseeing the holy site. WOW draws worshippers from all strands of religious practice; some members dress in traditionally male ritual garments—such as a yarmulke, tallis, and phylacteries—and also sing aloud. These practices run counter to ultra-Orthodox tradition, and more than one woman has been arrested because the law supported the Haredi view that the Western Wall is in effect an ultra-Orthodox synagogue, and the failure of worshippers to respect “local custom” at the site was a criminal act.
Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images Dressed in traditional male prayer garb, an activist at the Western Wall fights for her rights with ultra-Orthodox men. For years, Israelis dismissed WOW as shameless American attention-seekers. (Many of the founders and leaders of the group were immigrants from the United States, and the group receives financial support from overseas sympathizers.) But this spring, WOW scored substantial political and legal victories. The Jerusalem district court ruled in the women’s favor. And Israel’s attorney general decided in May not to appeal that ruling. As a result, for the first time, at WOW’s monthly prayer meeting in May, police actively protected the women worshipping at the wall and instead arrested Haredi protesters who threatened them. One of the real surprises of WOW’s new legitimacy is the support it has amassed from not just the previously indifferent secular public—three female Knesset members joined the group in prayer over the spring—but from an increasing number of modern-Orthodox women.
The new public consciousness of women’s treatment had a profound impact on last January’s parliamentary elections. Two newcomers, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, deftly forged a modern-Orthodox/secular alliance, pledging to end the special status of Haredi men, including sweeping them into the national draft. Lapid was careful to promote women and women’s issues as an election issue and top priority for his new party, Yesh Atid.
In the 2013 election, for the first time, three women led major parties, and, thanks in no small part to Yesh Atid, the number of women in the legislature rose to a record high of 27—comprising 23 percent of the legislature. Yesh Atid women include new Knesset members Aliza Lavie, a modern-Orthodox feminist activist and university professor, and Ruth Calderon, a secular Jewish academic who founded a non-Orthodox yeshiva. A video of Calderon leading a groundbreaking Talmud study session in the Knesset went viral, showing a female secular scholar discussing Talmud as ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset nodded respectfully.
And while the ultra-Orthodox parties stayed female-free, for the first time, a woman in that community dared to object. Esti Shoshan, a Haredi journalist, created a Facebook page called, “If we can’t run, we won’t vote,” openly challenging the fact that the ultra-Orthodox parties excluded women from their party lists and declaring that Haredi women should not vote for their sectoral parties as a result.
This raises the question of whether the rising tide of feminist activism, which has spread from secular to modern-Orthodox women, will ultimately engage Haredi women as well. In at least one important way, women in the ultra-Orthodox community have more exposure to the modern world than men. While only 45 percent of Haredi men work (males in the community traditionally devote themselves to yeshiva study), 60 percent of women participate in Israel’s workforce, according to the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. That number is likely to rise as Yesh Atid slashes the social safety net, including cutting government-subsidized yeshiva stipends and per-child financial subsidies to large families. Such benefits have enabled Haredi families to survive, often at subsistence level (60 percent of Israeli Haredim live below the poverty line) but without the need to enter the modern workforce.
MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images 'THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN IS MY RED LINE' A woman in Beit Shemesh holds up a sign reading "We need to End the Exclusion of Women," in a December, 2011 protest. Although ultra-Orthodox rabbis prohibit the use of technologies such as fully enabled cell phones, working Haredi women are being exposed to the Internet, and women familiar with the community believe that this will forever change the way Haredi women see themselves. Secular and modern-Orthodox women involved in the Israeli women’s movement also claim that some ultra-Orthodox women have privately expressed support for their cause. Still, openly criticizing their leaders and demanding change remains a big taboo. All but one of the Haredi women contacted for this piece refused to speak on the record. The only one who would was skeptical that drastic change was afoot. Surie Ackerman, editor and translator for several newspapers in Israel, including an eight-year stint at a Haredi newspaper, calls her family “Haredi, but not classic Haredi.” “I don’t foresee Haredi women ever organizing themselves in a way that would protest what a rabbi handed down,” Ackerman says.
Asked whether the prospect of ultra-Orthodox women joining Israel’s workforce in droves won’t change that dynamic, Ackerman is doubtful: “Small groups of like-minded women might make things different for themselves,” she says, citing a group of Haredi women entrepreneurs who created an annual business forum four years ago. “But it doesn’t break any framework. They aren’t staying in the kitchen anymore, but it’s not a revolution.”
If Surie Ackerman is right and Haredi women turn theirbacks on the emerging women’s movement, the fate of Israel’s women may ultimately come down to demographics. Already, many fear that efforts like Nili Philipp’s to stop ultra-Orthodox encroachment are doomed, simply because Haredim, nearly all of whom have more than five children and some of whom procreate in the double digits, are reproducing rapidly. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics projects that, at current growth rates, Israel could well be 40 percent Haredi by 2059. The activists worry, justifiably, that as the Haredi population continues to expand, so will its political influence. As Miriam Zussman, one of the plaintiffs in the case, puts it: “Thirty percent of the first-graders in this country are Haredi. They will have to go somewhere, live somewhere. ... I say, do the math. They’re coming to you.”
This is why the Beit Shemesh plaintiffs see themselves as standing up for all Israeli women during a shrinking window to protect their rights. They are currently in court-recommended mediation with the municipality, which is pushing them to negotiate a mutually acceptable wording of the modesty signs with ultra-Orthodox leaders—"something general like, ‘Be thoughtful of the locals,’" says Philipp. “We’re not going to fall for that doublespeak. We want those signs gone.”
IRAC is encouraging this hard line for fear that there won’t be another chance to stem the tide of extremism. Erez-Likhovski explains that the organization’s position on segregated buses shifted from tolerating some segregated lines, as they did in 2007, to opposing them outright. We “now understand that it’s very dangerous. It’s a slippery slope. First you say [segregation] in Haredi neighborhoods is fine, then in mixed neighborhoods it’s fine, and then in Tel Aviv it’s OK,” she says. It’s up to “the state to draw that line and say it’s illegal.”
But Philipp’s fight for Beit Shemesh isn’t only playing out in courts and conference rooms. It takes place every time she pulls on her sneakers and heads outside. After she was pelted with a rock, Philipp would only bike through the city if her husband escorted her. She also changed her regular running route or would only run in groups. But after Vered Daniel was attacked, Philipp regained her courage. One day, she decided to run to the neighborhood where she had been attacked. She went alone, jogging slowly, until she reached the exact spot where the rock hit her. “And then I ran like a maniac, as fast as I could, like a bat out of hell,” she says. “I was really scared and sometimes I still am. But part of my battle is living my life my way in my city. I’m going to ride my bike and run on my own public streets, and they are not going to stop me.”
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.
I used to- many years ago- get involved in long, involved conversations with true believers of various sorts on the street corners of America. Older- and I hope a bit wiser- I gave up on this practice a long time ago.
Those whose role it is here to consistently defend those lions of Liberation of the likes of O'Keefe, Atzmon, Shamir and Icke seem to have forgotten that there is a lot of water under that bridge and that I might very reasonably conclude that "dialogue" with them will be fruitless. That said, here is more related to the "with friends like these, the Palestinians don't need no enemies" theme. If you don't like it, no one here is making you respond at all- not that any of y'all tend to take on the broader themes of the content anyway:
Israel Shamir - The ‘Unique & Advanced Thinker’ Behind Gilad Atzmon
People often ask me, how did the campaign against Gilad Atzmon and his supporters actually start. Actually it began in the early part of 2005 when a group of us around Jews Against Zionism became aware of the resignations of Lea Tsemel & Michael Warschawski, and Jeff Halper, from the Board of Deir Yassin Remembered. [DYR]
In their joint letter of May 5 2005 Tsemel and Warschawski wrote, regarding a recent decision to appoint one Israel Shamir to the Advisory Board of DYR:
"There is no room for a racist in an institution aimed to fight for the memory of the Deir Yassin victims of Ethnic cleansing and massacre. We therefore ask you to clarify whether or not Israel Shamir is indeed part of DYR."
Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, in his resignation letter wrote that:
"The entire point of DYR is to honor the memory of the Palestinians massacred by pre-Israel Jewish militias and to draw critical conclusions from that shameful event.’
He pointed out that the conclusions from the Deir Yassin massacre included trying to
‘universalize the Deir Yassin massacre, to identify those elements that exist globally (racism, militarism, fanaticism, perhaps nationalism and more) in order to denounce, resist and ultimately expunge them wherever they appear in the world.’
Halper spoke of how Shamir:
‘deflects the discussion from the essentials of Deir Yassin onto the supposed characteristics of the perpetrators. To cast all "Jews" as perpetrators of such heinous crimes… is racist, absolutely unacceptable and deflects entirely from the issue of Deir Yassin itself.’
Of Paul Eisen, British Director of DYR’s pamphlet he wrote that:
"THE Jews" is a construct just as false, simplistic, racist (biologically so, it seems) and unacceptable as any other ethnic label used to tar all members of that group with -- inevitably negative characteristics." and that ‘The innane discussion that has come to characterize the DYR discourse is not even sophisticated racism; its just plain old-fashioned stupid racism. That's enough to get me to leave.’
‘To turn the Deir Yassin tragedy into a discussion of Jewish racial characteristics, to dirty it with racist discourse, ... raises serious, fundamental questions. When I hear diatribes of non-Palestinians against the Palestinian Ali Abunima because he raises concerns over Shamir's racism and the entire tone of the DYR discussion, a red light goes off. Has Deir Yassin been hijacked by a cult more intent on pursuing hate campaigns against the fictive "Jews"...'?’
We soon became aware of an article, Serious Concerns About Israel Shamir by Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish written in 2001:
'We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric.’
It was on this basis, and having looked at a number of articles on his site, in particular his advocacy of working with white supremacists that we issued a call to ostracise DYR from the Palestine solidarity movement. Shamir argued that:
‘For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists. If we accept their exclusion from discourse, Jewish bigotry will be tolerated while anti-Jewish bigotry is removed. Then, the middle ground for Joe Public will be 'a little bit of Jewish bigotry', or 'Zionism lite', in the words of my dear friend Bob Green.’
Subsequently Shamir criticised David Duke of the KKK for being too pro-Jewish and berated the BNP for not being anti-Semitic enough!
'I do not feel at ease accusing you and your comrades of betraying the Britons and joining with the Jews, but if I'd keep mum, stones won't.’
It was then that we came into contact with Gilad Atzmon, who penned a delightful little article entitled The Protocols of the Elders Of London. Modelled on the anti-Semitic forgery of the Czarist secret police, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it began:
'In a very small segregated cyber shtetl somewhere in the north west side of yahoo (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/justpeaceuk/), a tiny cell of so-called ‘liberal’ Jews meets in the wee small hours. Night after night they are trying to save the Palestinian people from those who devote their lives to the Palestinian cause. There is one man who they really detest, his name is Israel Shamir (http://www.israelshamir.net/). An ex Jew, Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology.
Among Israel Shamir’s many sins, he is a member in the Board of Advisors of DYR,… DYR is engaged in promoting reconciliation between Arabs and Jews. The liberal Zionist cell, as we are going to read, cannot really take it. They demand the cleansing of Shamir. They insist upon ruining his intellectual career or at the very least, his reputation. They would use any possible manipulative strategy to have him thrown out of DYR, which is the first step towards sending him beyond the pale.’
We were accused of seeking to place Shamir ‘beyond the pale’. When I sought to clarify Atzmon’s views, he confirmed, in an e-mail (12 Jun 2005) that
‘Indeed I correspond with Shamir occasionally. I find him an extremely charming man and rather entertaining. But more to the point, my ties with Shamir are merely intellectual. I regard Shamir as a unique and advanced thinker.’
In a subsequent article, Shamir argued that Auschwitz was just
‘Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo). If it were bombed, the internees would die – or as a result of the bombing, or due to starvation for the supplies would not arrive... This idea of "bombing Auschwitz" makes sense only if one accepts the vision of "industrial extermination factory", and it was formed only well after the war.’
In June 2005 Jews Against Zionism picketed an SWP/Bookmarks meeting, which featuring Atzmon talking about his favourite philosopher, Otto Weininger of whom Hitler once said, "Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realized that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples" - Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier. 1941-1944, ed. Werner Lochmann (Hamburg. 1980), 148.
If there is any doubt as to whether or not Atzmon's positions have changed in the past 3 years one only need note his comments of 13.11.07 in response to the criticism of Indymedia UK for hosting his ‘Hunters of Goliath’ article:
'As we all know, the extreme form of this very binary opposition leads towards crucifixion. As sad as it may sound, the group of people who assault you at the moment are doing nothing but nailing intellectuals and Palestinian solidarity institutions to the wood. They did it to Jeff Blankfort, one of the prominent American Palestinian Solidarity activists, they do the same to Mary Rizzo, probably one of the most adorable activists in Italy, they did it to Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, these people have managed to crush DYR, probably the most successful Palestinian gathering in this country. These people had tried to divert the Palestinian solidarity movement and to turn it into a Judeo centric witch-hunt crusade. They believe that fighting anti-Semitism is a Palestinian priority.
As the exiled former member of the Knesset, Azmi Bishara rhetorically asked:
‘What possible Arab or Islamic interest can it serve to even offer to exonerate Europe of one of the blackest pages in its history?’ in Al Ahram of 21-27.12.06.'
But what of Shamir himself? The spider at the centre of the Atzmon/Rizzo/DYR web has not been idling away his time. A recent article Darkness from the West by this ‘unique and advanced’ thinker breaks new ground:
"Who is the enemy?' He asks. And the answer of course is obvious:
‘In the famed tract, they were called the Elders of Zion. Others call them Illuminati. I called them the Masters of Discourse, the operators of the integrated machine of public disinformation and indoctrination, from the Wall Street Journal to the Wikipedia. Thousands of networks, newspapers, journals, books, films and ideas are being united and guided by their invisible hand, while free thought still survives in the far reaches of the web. The fearsome AIPAC is just the visible tip of the iceberg, below which are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their pundits– in short, the Masters of Discourse.’
And in a completely new way of understanding the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church we learn that this is also the fault of the Jews!
"It actually started while Sharon was besieging Bethlehem and destroying Palestine in 2002.'
Note the alleged coincidence in timing. This is highly relevant!
'Then, all of a sudden, hundreds of men and women in their forties had remembered that they were abused some twenty years ago . . . Our enemies and the enemies of the Church concocted, through their control of the media, a phantom of "abusive priests" and succeeded in convincing the LA Bishops to take the bait of "final settlement". Very soon the bishops will discover that nothing is final when you submit to their wishes. Surrender gets you nowhere. They could learn from the Germans, who agreed to settle all Jewish claims for $1 billion (as described by the chief Jewish negotiator Nahum Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978), eventually paid $60 billion to find out that they still own $180 billion…’
Clearly the evidence is overwhelming. And it's not just the Jews, it’s the feminists too:
"Girls are being pushed into military service, they become hard as nails; and as a result, more and more men turn to other men, and naturally to younger men, or boys. Priests are probably no exception. The ultimate guilt is not that of the church, but of the feminist and lesbian movement which supports women’s military service; and of the media that promotes this attitude."
Shamir, who has obviously never heard of vicarious liability (where an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee) informs us that:
‘If a man abused a boy, while being a priest, this is still his crime, and he should bear responsibility… Likewise, if a man abused a boy while serving in the army, or working in the fire brigade, the responsibility is his, not of the army, nor of the fire prevention services. The bishops had no right to agree to such a suit;… The bishops are not the church, nor are the clergy: the Church is the mystic body of all worshippers, the Bride of Christ, and she is not a subject to any suit for misdeeds of individual believers. The Church is always right, though her bishops, priests or laymen may be wrong individually.’
And anyway, it’s the question of sex with children is not so simple:
‘The Americans over-simplify the question of sex with minors, when they present it as something monstrous. This is not so. Are you revolted by Romeo and Juliet? As a good American citizen, you should be; Juliet was 14, and thus Romeo today would be tried and locked up as a "paedophile"…. Prophet Muhammad married a nine year old Aisha, but Jacob, a Biblical patriarch, bettered him and married Rachel who was 7. In modern world, Jacob and Muhammad would be hunted down, extradited and jailed. It is possible that even better placed persons would not fare well facing our most enlightened justice: the Mother of our Saviour was just 14 at Annunciation…'
The real source of the guilt for something which apparently is not monstrous anyway are the gays. It’s them who should be sued, not the Church!
'Indeed, almost all cases of alleged abuse are homosexual; the alleged victims should sue the gay rights organizations rather than the Church. But the Church is not allowed even to utter these words. They can’t say "pederasty", they should pretend this is "paedophilia". They may not defrock a homosexual priest, for they would be attacked for their "homophobia". … The taboo on "being less than fond of homosexuals" (homophobia) may stand next to the taboo on "being less than fond of Jews" (antisemitism). … two secondary offences have been created, "racism", an antisemitism spill-off, and "paedophilia", a homophobia spill-off.’
You will remember this 'less than fond of Jews.' It is reminiscent of Atzmon's quip about his friend Knuckles: 'is it a crime not to love Jews.'
And just in case you wondered, homosexuality too is the fault of the Jews!
‘In Israel we feel there is no better way to show allegiance to American democracy and liberalism than to emasculate the man and de-womanise the woman. In our smaller Jewish state, in Israel, things have changed since the macho days of Six Day War, when homosexuality was banned, the one-eyed Defence Minister Dayan screwed every female conscript and the Israeli army kicked three Arab armies in a week. Now the gay tendency is no snag, ministers are sued for kissing a girl, and the army is beaten up by a few bearded Lebanese.’
Gone are the good old days of Moshe Dayan. Now we have the disaster of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. And homosexuality is to blame, as it was of course for the fall of the Roman Empire!
‘Once Israeli girls served in the army as non-combatants. Their main job was to look smart and cheerful, and thus encourage the boys to fight well. Now they follow the example of Judith and Jael, don helmets, do combat duty and look like East German swimmers on anabolic steroids.
After ending her tour of duty, with scalps of Palestinians at her belt (instead of their foreskins, as was Samson’s wont) this new breed of a female sabra is unsuitable for normal mating; and she ends up in the growing lesbian colony of Tel Aviv.’
We are told that Tsippi Livni, the Foreign Minister ‘passed millions' of dollars to gay organisation’. The result?
‘Traditionally over-independent, Jewish women became even more so as they now serve in the combat units, earn as much as men do, are protected from a flirtatious look by ever-alert police. They grew balls and became like men but even more so…’
One thing is to be sure. In a crowded field for nutty ideas Shamir has cornered the market. Certainly he is unique. Whether, as Atzmon argues, he is ‘advanced’ we’ll leave to the judgement of our readers.
Tony Greenstein
Last edited by American Dream on Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
