SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: SARMAN12/18/2011 8:14:37 AM
1 Recommendation   of 281253
 
The Jews Go To War (With Themselves) – An Analysis by Dr. Lawrence Davidson
intifada-palestine.com


Share
At the Kusra mosque, "Mohammed is a pig" was spray-painted on the wall. (Photo by Michele Monni)


by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Part I

On 12 December 2011 hundreds of Israeli settler fanatics besieged a West Bank IDF army base. They destroyed equipment, set fires, and even stoned the base soldiers. This was the second such attack in a month. The cause? Anger over the army’s dismantlement of a small number of isolated, unauthorized settler outposts. The Chief of the Central Command of the Israel “Defense” Forces, Major General Avi Misrahi, is quoted as saying “I have not seen such hatred of Jews towards soldiers during my 30 years of service.” He must not have been looking.

This was not an exceptional event. The subsequent indignation over the attack expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu (“red lines have been crossed”) was, as Alex Fishman writing in Yedioth Ahronoth put it, staged hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is certainly aware that for some time there has been on-going skirmishing between the settlers and government security forces. Right wing settlers regularly throw rocks and fire bombs at police and army vehicles and “physical altercations” between settlers and Israeli police and soldiers are “almost routine.” This is so despite the fact that the government, both Prime Minister and Knesset, “either tacitly or openly” support the settlers. Then why the hatred and why the attacks?

At this stage the battle is over strategy. The Israeli government wants to gobble up all of Palestine in an orderly step by step fashion. In part, this is to avoid too much international criticism at any particular stage of the process. On the other hand, the settlers don’t give a damn about international opinion – no more than does al-Qaeda, to which they have an unsavory resemblance. Led “by fundamentalist religious leaders who do not recognize the state of Israel and its laws,” they are driven by religious fanaticism and have no respect for governments or their agents. It is their ideological conviction that all of Palestine (including, by the way, Jordan) must be Jewish as soon as possible. The authorities sometime get in the way of this goal and that has led the settlers to, as Fishman puts it, “terrorize not only the Palestinian population but also the police and the army.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu, belatedly noticing an erosion of government authority, has begun to set rules against settler violence when it is directed toward the IDF and police ( but not toward the Palestinians). The New York Times reports that from now on such “radical Israelis” attacking soldiers or policemen will be treated just like “Palestinian militants.” That is they will be “detained for long periods without charge and tried in military courts.”

Alas, this new toughness won’t work. For years Israeli governments have looked the other way as thousands of armed religious fanatics organized themselves and got stronger and more self-assured. Now, as Adam Keller of Gush Shalom tells us, “the Golem has turned on its creator.” These are the people who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. What makes Netanyahu believe that Israel’s present army, police and courts which, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic, regularly show sympathy and leniency toward these criminals, are going to change their attitude on his orders? When a military reporter asked a brigade commander if he was prepared to act toward settler hostility in the same manner as he would Palestinian hostility, he answered “you would not expect me to open fire on a Jew…I am certain you didn’t mean that.”

The reporter would have gotten a very different answer if she had asked the fanatic settlers about how far they were willing to go. Anshel Pfeffer writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz notes that “the only red line that has yet to be crossed is a scenario in which an Israeli citizen [belonging to] the extreme settler right would open fire on IDF soldiers. There are those in Israel’s security forces who fear that day is not so distant.”

Netanyahu’s apparent change of heart comes too late. What we have here is incipient civil war. Any really serious effort to stop these fanatics will result in their turning their weapons on those who represent the government. What you sow is what you reap.

Part II

This climate of internecine hostility contaminates the Jewish diaspora as well. There is no rock throwing or armed men threatening violence, but the hatred is there. Jewish critics of Israeli behavior are categorized as “Israel-haters” or, alternatively, “ self-hating Jews.” This is often expressed with the same vehemence displayed by Israel’s settler fanatics. And, indeed, those pointing fingers in the U.S. are often supporters of the extremists on the West Bank.

Last week Howard Gutman, the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, addressed “a group of European Jewish lawyers gathered…to discuss anti-Semitism” Gutman told them that there was now two different kinds of anti-Semitism: a “classic” type that is “directed against Jews for being Jews” and “a newer form” that is a product of “the Israeli-Arab conflict and can therefore be mitigated by reducing Israeli-Palestinian tensions.” This is actually a conclusion that was reached by Israel’s Defense Ministry as early as 1994. No matter, when Gutman’s statement became public “the long knives” came out “for another Jewish liberal who committed the sin of stating the uncomfortably obvious truth about a causal relation between Israeli policy and Muslim anti-Semitism.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition’s Executive Director Matthew Brooks called Gutman’s revelation “outrageous” and one that “makes excuses for anti-Semitic hatred and bigotry.” Senator Joe Lieberman called Gutman’s remarks “inexcusable” and Representative Gary Ackerman of New York suggested that Gutman himself might be anti-Semitic.

Again, the charge of anti-Semitism can be and frequently is leveled against fellow Jews who are critical of Israel. The logic goes something like this: Judaism and Israel are one and the same. Ergo if you are critical of Israeli behavior you are critical of Jewish behavior and that makes you an anti-Semite. Very neat. Of course, the whole train of thought rests on the false assumption that Israel and Judaism are two sides of the same coin.

Despite the viral reaction, Jewish criticism of Israel is growing quickly and this creates a frustrating dilemma for the Zionists. The pro-Israeli blogger Steven Plaut describes this situation in catastrophic terms. “Jewish anti-Semitism is all around us, part of the political air we breathe, a modern disease. In the twenty-first century the world is experiencing an explosion of it, a virtual plague.”

Part III

None of this Zionist extremism can be dismissed as a passing phenomenon. It has been with us too long. In fact it has been with us since 1917 and the Balfour Declaration. That is when a certain segment of European Jewry began its obsessive drive to create and maintain a state for one group only. It was then, and continues to be an inherently racist project. Ideologies, like Zionism, that support such projects usually reject all opposition. And opposition from erstwhile members of the in-group is the very worst because it exposes the false nature of claims of ethnic, religious or racial solidarity.

When and if Israeli society comes to its senses and decides to rid itself of the Occupied Territories the settler fanatics will resist “fanatically,” and the civil war that is now incipient will release its full potential violence. When and if that happens there will be repercussions for U.S. and European Jews and they too may well entail violence. It would seem that the people chosen to be a “light unto the nations” have only managed to create another badly flawed nation state–one with a preference for apartheid policies. Zionism said “let modern Israel be” and, pop, the light went out.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Sun Tzu12/20/2011 3:50:26 PM
4 Recommendations   of 281253
 
Ten Grim Lessons Learned From the Iraq War
For those who need to hear the obvious ;)

ST

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (278782)12/21/2011 8:52:43 AM
From: Bungalow Bill
2 Recommendations   of 281253
 
Saw Darth Vader was still defending this sham of a war on the political talkshow circuit a couple weeks ago. He looks like old man Potter now! Warmongers never learn.......

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Bungalow Bill who wrote (278783)12/21/2011 9:57:25 AM
From: Sun Tzu
4 Recommendations   of 281253
 
As a wise man once said, "To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats -- we know it not."

So no, he will never admit to have been wrong. Nor will Turd Blossom ever dismiss his delusions when he said, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality, And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors …and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

I think we'd all be a lot safer if we put empire builders in an asylum instead of in the board rooms or high ranking government positions.

ST

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


From: Sun Tzu1/19/2012 4:13:58 PM
1 Recommendation   of 281253
 
Is America Helping Israel Kill Iranian Scientists? The View From Iran By Robert Wright

Jan 15 2012, 10:20 AM ET When, in the wake of last week's killing of an Iranian scientist, Iranian officials blamed Israel and America, I assumed they were just making up the part about America. Denials issued by Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Panetta were emphatic and convincing.

But now Iran has gone beyond the usual vague references to a Zionist-American plot. Its foreign ministry has sent a letter to the U.S. claiming to have evidence of CIA involvement. Is it possible that the Iranians actually have such evidence?

It's possible they have what they thinkis such evidence. That's the weird prospect raised by a much-discussed story published on Foreign Policy magazine's website Friday by Mark Perry.

Perry's story is about Jundallah, a shadowy group that is based in Pakistan but operates within Iran. Designated a terrorist group by the United States, Jundallah is thought to have killed hundreds of Iranians as part of what it says is a fight for the rights of Sunnis in Iran.

Perry reports two things: (1) Agents for the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, have recruited Jundallah members to help with covert operations against Iran; (2) In approaching those Jundallah members, Mossad agents claimed to be CIA agents. In other words, there may be Jundallah operatives conducting covert operations against Iran who mistakenly think they're working for the CIA. And if the Iranian government wound up interrogating one of them, it could thus obtain "evidence" of US involvement.

Though Jundallah has conducted assassinations within Iran, they haven't had the level of sophistication of the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists. Experts I contacted deemed it unlikely that these recent killings would have been outsourced to Jundallah by Israel. But, as one of these experts pointed out, that doesn't mean Mossad recruits from Jundallah, conveniently positioned inside Iran, couldn't have provided logistical support. Moreover, as Jim Lobe observes, there are other anti-regime Iranian groups that Israel could be harnessing, also under the pretense of American sponsorship.

Yesterday the Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted an anonymous Israeli official denying Perry's story. But the story has the feel of a pretty richly sourced piece of reporting.

What it doesn't address is why Mossad agents would have done this--impersonate CIA agents, complete with fake passports. Maybe it's easier to recruit Muslim operatives if you're American than if you're Israeli?

In any event, this "false flag" operation could help explain why for years Iran has accused America of supporting Jundallah even as America has denied the charge. (Perry's evidence comes from 2007-08, but since the Bush administration, having discovered what Israel was up to, apparently didn't file a protest, the practice presumably continued.) And, whether or not creating this Iranian confusion was an Israeli goal, Israel probably doesn't mind the attendant heightening of tensions between America and a country it considers a mortal enemy.

But now Perry's story could heighten tensions between America and Israel. The story quotes retired Gen. Joe Hoar, former commander of Centcom, saying that "false flag" operations can be "extremely dangerous. You're basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not."

And Perry quotes the U.S. intelligence official who first leaked the story to him saying that Israel is "supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true."

Heightening Israeli-American tensions wouldn't be the only ironic result of the false flag operation. Iran's conviction that America supports Jundallah has no doubt deepened the regime's sense of siege, presumably strengthening those in the government who argue for building a nuclear bomb in order to deter an American attack. And the point of this whole Israeli exercise was supposed to be to reduce the chances of Iran winding up with a nuclear bomb.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (278784)1/21/2012 10:10:52 AM
From: Maurice Winn
3 Recommendations   of 281253
 
<I think we'd all be a lot safer if we put empire builders in an asylum instead of in the board rooms or high ranking government positions.> They get what they vote for. There is Ron Paul, waiting for a 90% vote if Americans don't want to run a military empire.



Why throw in the antipathy to people doing useful things like Qualcomm and Microsoft? Qualcomm provides a billion people in China with CDMA powered Cyberphones. People in China are very pleased about that. Companies don't own armies. They can't even vote. Large companies are the most sissy things there are. They have to comply with government edicts or have their assets attacked and seized and when governments see large piles of money to be looted, they invariably find good reason to conduct "anti-trust" operations to deprive the shareholders of the results of their wonderful efforts.


Americans donated money and weapons to the IRA for decades and no doubt still do. Libya helped too. IRA/USA/Libyan bombs used to go off around me when I worked in London decades ago.


Your buddy Obama is giving you the biggest empire in human history. Now you can't even go to a doctor without his approval [Obamacare with no opt out]. You could vote Ron Paul who is an actual doctor and who is against empire building with military conquest and military bases all over the world. Or, you could be a hypocrite.


Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (278785)1/21/2012 10:31:04 AM
From: Maurice Winn
3 Recommendations   of 281253
 
If people want to travel for nefarious purposes, or even just to visit family, it's very useful to do so with a good passport, such as the USA or New Zealand. < What it doesn't address is why Mossad agents would have done this--impersonate CIA agents, complete with fake passports. Maybe it's easier to recruit Muslim operatives if you're American than if you're Israeli? > It would also be easier to hire said assassins if holding a good passport. Moslems are unlikely to work for Israel, but might well work for the USA, as well as themselves. So an Israeli, or Russian Jew, pretending to be a CIA agent, but carrying a New Zealand passport, would have plausible deniability. If exposed as a Russian, that would be okay as Islamic Jihad versus Russia would be a good thing [pace Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter] and that conflict is already well under way with mass murder of children in Beslan and bombs in Moscow.

Israeli agents have in the past obtained NZ passports and no doubt there are many of them. en.wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Israel%E2%80%93[/

NZ passports are good passports. So they pretended to be CIA agents, but were "really" NZers but really really Israelis, but were really really really CIA against pretending to be Mossad agents, but really really really Russian emigre double agents pretending to be CIA agents acting as Mossad agents, out of Russia with NZ passports. It's Putin's cunning deception. He feeds Polonium 210 to evil-doing Moslems and generally eliminates opponents. Remember Trotsky and murder on the English bridge. An ice pick is a handy weapon as is an umbrella with a bullet in it, or injection of poison from the end of an umbrella.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (278784)1/21/2012 10:52:02 AM
From: Maurice Winn
4 Recommendations   of 281253
 
I know it's an unpleasant truth, but this applies to you: Even though I hold it right in front of you, push it under your nose and ram it down your throat you deny it: <
As a wise man once said, "To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats -- we know it not."
>

The way to know whether it applies is whether you use successful reasoning to deny. Successful reasoning is not simply coming up with a glib statement of plausible deniability, it's meeting objections in a rational way.

A wise man, [writing it yet again]
Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (278786)1/23/2012 3:18:14 PM
From: Sun Tzu
5 Recommendations   of 281253
 
Obama is no buddy of mine and all I can say is that at best he is a much more effective George Bush. The conservatives should really line up behind him and call him one of their own. As to Ron Paul, I would vote for him if makes it to an actual presidential race.

Here is a good reading to understand the politicians and political systems. I can't say I disagree:

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith (Hardcover - Sep 27, 2011)

ST

PS your next to posts were too incoherent to be worthy of response...in one of them you almost made sense but missed the point all together and in the other you didn't even go that far.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Sun Tzu1/25/2012 11:16:58 AM
2 Recommendations   of 281253
 
MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Boughtfrom the sickening deptReinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue: Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.