× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Page 2 of 8 First 1 2 3 4 ... Last
Results 21 to 40 of 160
  1. #1
    Array Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66

    The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond (OP)


    Salaam

    Understand what the globalists have in store for the Middle East

    The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Surely, what’s happening now in Iraq and Syria must serve as a final wakeup call that we have been led into a horrific situation in the Middle East by a powerful Lobby driven by the interests of one tribe and one tribe alone.

    Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labelled as ‘Yinon Plan’, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.

    Of course, regardless of the Yinon Plan’s prophesies, one might still argue that this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbying, politics or institutions but is just one more Israeli strategic proposal except that it is impossible to ignore that the Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the 2nd Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests - breaking into sectarian units what then seemed to be the last pocket of Arab resistance to Israel.

    Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.

    Unfortunately, Yinon’s disciples are more common than you might expect. In France, it was the infamous Jewish ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henri Levy who boasted on TV that ‘as a Jew’ campaigning for NATO intervention, he liberated Libya.

    As we can see, a dedicated number of Jewish Zionist activists, commentators and intellectuals have worked relentlessly in many countries pushing for exactly the same cause – the breaking up of Arab and Muslim states into smaller, sectarian units.

    But is it just the Zionists who are engaging in such tactics? Not at all.

    In fact, the Jewish so-called Left serves the exact same cause, but instead of fragmenting Arabs and Muslims into Shia, Sunnis, Alawites and Kurds they strive to break them into sexually oriented identity groups (Lesbian, Queer, Gays, Heterosexual etc’)

    Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:

    “A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).

    The message is clear, The Open Society Institutes (OSI) wires Soros’s money to Jordan, Palestine and then back to the USA in order to “inspire queer Arabs in Egypt and Iran (sic).”

    What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same - attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics.


    It is no secret that, as far as recent developments in Iraq are concerned, America, Britain and the West are totally unprepared. So surely, the time is long overdue when we must identify the forces and ideologies within Western society that are pushing us into more and more global conflicts. And all we can hope for is that America, Britain and France may think twice before they spends trillions of their tax payers’ money in following the Yinon Plan to fight ruinous, foreign wars imposed upon them by The Lobby.

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html
    Last edited by Junon; 05-03-2018 at 10:14 PM.
    | Likes Karl liked this post

  2. #21
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Report bad ads?

    Salaam

    They like to plan ahead, where next will they go? (this was written in 2006)

    Questions of Survival

    Pushing aside competition and even hostility, Jewish leaders sat together last weekend for the first time and discussed what they agree is the unclear future of their people.

    Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others....

    The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future.
    https://www.haaretz.com/1.4920795

    Interesting comment


    The Jewish people (or if you prefer, ha-Am Eretz) have dealt with changing political situations for the last three millenia, all adverse to them, from Pharaoh to Haman to Titus to Hitler. It should not be surprising that modern Jews are a bit dubious of "putting their trust in princes", nor that they (with the exception of a few fools among them) are reluctant to put all their eggs in one basket, be that basket Israel, or the U.S., or some new place.


    Vox Day

    1. Agreed. What I don't understand is why they keep utilizing the same strategy of attempting to buy the friendship of the king and amass central power over large majorities. THAT DOESN'T FREAKING WORK! It didn't work then. It's not working now, obviously, or there wouldn't be plans in the making to curry favor in Asia.

    2. How do modern Jews not realize that is exactly what they're doing by attempting to run Hollywood and Wall Street to their benefit? So many got all bent out of shape because a few thousand Yankee Episcopalians wouldn't let them join their golf clubs, and in reaction, they are taking it out on tens of millions of Baptists, blacks, Southerners, and so forth. Forget about right and wrong, how is that smart?

    I never met a single Jew growing up. Never had anything against them anymore than I did Eskimos or Zulus. But I did find it unbelievable, and irritating, that my choices for Senator were the Republican Jew from New York or the DFL Jew from Washington DC, both of whom were contesting the seat of the Republican Jew from New York. That sort of thing really pisses people off and gives the antisemites credibility.

    3. I get the "don't put all your eggs in one basket". That's smart. But then, how about "stop trying to change every refuge to your liking"? I mean, is "lay low and don't cause trouble" really that hard to understand? It was astonishing to me to learn how many Europeans, from Brits to French to Poles loathe Jews now. The Italians are about the only ones who don't. Maybe it's justified, maybe it isn't. I don't know the various reasons. But regardless, why give them justification?

    I am less than impressed by the alleged "Christians" who have been expressing anti-Semitic sentiments here


    There are 300 million guns in the USA. There are what, 2 million Jews? If America was genuinely antisemitic, American Jewry would be gone in an afternoon. Hitler was antisemitic. Dislike for Jewish nepotism and political overrepresentation isn't antisemitic.

    I wish the Jewish people well. I genuinely do. But that doesn't mean I want them running my country's financial system into the ground because they think it is "good for the Jews".

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #22
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Oded Yinon Speaks Again



    Years after Israel Shahak translated Oded Yinon’s (1982) Plan into English, we have a chance to listen to contemporary Yinon. I was notified about this this youtube video by a FB friend. Strangely enough, the video has as of today, a very small number of views. Yinon is an ultra Zionist. He is not shy about it and considering his 'prophetic' vision of the Middle East back in 1982 it is worth listening to his perception of Israel, World Jewry and the Middle East.

    To learn about the Yinon Plan click here

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html

    In the interview Yinon insists that his strategic plan for the Middle East wasn't really a plan and it has never matured into an Israeli policy. However, he admits that some of his 1982 ideas were adopted by the IDF intelligence (AMAN) at the time of the Civil War in Syria (22.40). The breaking of the Middle East into tribal wars has been postponed according to Yinon but the roots of such a battle are far from over, they are basically inherent to the region.

    According to Yinon peace with the Palestinians is unlikely and Israel should invest in its ownbuilding. Yinon predicts that USA Jews have no future in America, “America was the biggest (best) solution to the Jewish problem before Zionism, but today Zionism proves itself as the only solution.” He argues that American Jews will find themselves detached from American politics, culture and society. The holocaust is long away faded from American consciousness and this is, according to him, bad news for the Jews. They will have to wander and their destination is clear. For those who fail to understand, this is hardly a promising news for the Palestinians and the region.

    Last edited by Junon; 07-24-2018 at 06:30 PM.

  5. #23
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update, this will stir controversy

    Israel’s National Bill and the Jewish Solidarity Spin

    Last Thursday the Israeli Knesset adopted Israel’s National Bill. The law specifies that self-determination is "exclusive" to the Jewish people. It endorses the establishment of Jews-only settlements as a part of Israel’s national interests. The National Bill demotes Arabic from an official national language to "special” status. Israel’s national symbols include the Israeli flag, the menorah, Jewish holidays, the Hatikva national anthem, the Hebrew calendar and Israel's Independence Day.

    The new National Bill legislates what has been an active policy of segregation and discrimination by Israeli authorities since Israel’s inception. As many critics of the bill noted, the bill reveals that in the Jewish State Jews and goyim are not equal citizens.

    It is crucial to point out that the bill doesn’t define Israel as ‘the Judaic State.” It repeatedly refers to Israel as the state of the ‘Jewish People.’ In Hebrew, the law is named the ‘Nation Bill.’ The law refers to the ‘Jewish State’ and the ‘Jewish folk.’ It provides an invaluable glimpse into the true meaning of Jewishness particularly as perceived by Israeli Jews.

    In 2011, I published The Wandering Who? The basic premise of the book was definitional. I argued that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, in order to understand that term, we have to ask: who are the Jews? What is Judaism? What is Jewishness? And then we could proceed to try to figure out how these terms relate to each other. How do they affect the world in which we live, Israeli politics, Jewish pressure groups and so on.

    As I expected, not a single Israeli or Zionist opposed the principles of my study. Israelis and Zionists do accept that Israel is the Jewish State. They are intimately familiar with the discourse of Jewishness (יהודיות) and the meaning of the term. However, despite the fact that my study was praised and endorsed by some of the most respected academics and humanists, Jewish Palestinian solidarity activists were desperate to silence me and erase my work. Just a few weeks after the book came out, Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah managed to gather another 20 Palestinians to call for my ‘disavowal.’ Clearly Abunimah didn’t want or approve of my attempt to focus on the core ideology and culture that drives Israeli supremacy, discrimination and brutality inflicted on his own people. A few years later, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Tony Greenstein was foolish enough to reveal that it was he who had actually “engineered” Ali Abunimah’s call for my ‘disavowal.’

    Jewishness, as I argue in The Wandering Who?, is a wide ranging array of ideas that celebrate different variations on choseness - a radical sense of tribal exceptionalism. Zionism, for instance, made its followers feel special – because unlike their Diaspora brethren, the Zionist promised to transform the Jews into ‘people like all other people.’ In so doing, the Zionists vowed to become ordinary people, yet ‘chosen’ in comparison with the Diaspora Jews. Zionism failed completely. It quickly evolved into a Jewish supremacist criminal entity. Jewish anti Zionist institutions were invented to form a satellite opposition to Zionism. The Jewish anti Zionists are there to show that ‘not all Jews are Zionists.’ By their lights, the anti -Zionists are the real chosen people. They are so chosen that ordinary goyim aren’t racially qualified and so can’t really join their league. If this observation upsets you, try to count the non-Jews on the board of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

    Jewish anti Zionism is, as practiced, a political discipline that is there to police the Palestinian solidarity discourse by thwarting any focus on the basic tenets that drive Zionism, Israeli policy and the Jewish lobby around the world. Jewish anti Zionism acts to eliminate any reference to the ‘J-word.’

    In 2012, the Jewish pro-Palestinian site Mondoweiss changed its comment policy to bar any discussion of Jewish culture in the context of Israeli politics. “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy” editors Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz openly declared.

    JVP, probably the largest pro-Palestinian Jewish activist network, has dedicated much of its time and energy to silencing those who dare to look at Israel’s actions in terms of Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish politics. In its performance of the Talmudic Herem practice, JVP has excommunicated 'transgressors,' including some of the greatest spokespersons for Palestine such as Alison Weir and Greta Berlin.

    And now there is a dilemma. In 2018 the Jewishness of the Jewish State is no longer a product of “Gilad Atzmon’s imagination.” It is a cardinal Israeli law approved by the Knesset. Will Ali Abunimah and the Jewish Solidarity network come to their senses? Will they be brave enough to admit leading their followers astray for decades? Will they have the courage to self-reflect and address the fundamentals that fuel the oppression of the Palestinian people?

    I somehow doubt it. I do not believe that the institutional Jewish solidarity is an authentic movement. More likely, it is there to make sure that the boundaries of solidarity with the oppressed (Palestinians) are shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor (Antisemitsm, Holocaust etc.).

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/24/israels-national-bill-and-the-jewish-solidarity-spin

  6. #24
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update


  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #25
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Blurb


    In this video I expose the obvious contradictions intrinsic to Jewish progressive thoughts as explored by Paul Jay and Max Blumenthal. We are dealing here with nothing short of controlled opposition.


  9. #26
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Blurb

    President Trump handed Prime Minister Netanyahu a significant win when he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy there. Now, Israeli lobbying groups in Washington are pushing Republican lawmakers for the recognition of Israel’s claim over the Golan Heights. Such an act would mark the most significant validation of forcefully acquired land since 1945, and it would have a dramatic impact on the interpretation of international law.


  10. #27
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Blurb

    Israel has passed a widely-condemned law that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and gives Jews the sole right to self-determination. It also declares Hebrew the country’s only official language and encourages the building of Jewish-only settlements on occupied territory as a “national value.” The law has drawn international condemnation and accusations that Israel has legalized apartheid. For more we speak with world-renowned political dissident, author, and linguist Noam Chomsky. He is a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years.


  11. #28
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms' anything Russia has done, claims Noam Chomsky

    The 89-year-old said the media was largely ignoring vital issues such as climate change




    Veteran activist Noam Chomsky has accused Israel of “brazenly” interfering in US electoral politics in a way that vastly outweighs any efforts that may have been carried out by Russia.

    In comments in which he accused much of the media of concentrating on stories he considered marginal and ignoring issues such as the “existential threat” of climate change, the 89-year-old linguist said in much of the world, the US media’s focus with Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 was "a joke".

    “First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support,” he said.

    Speaking to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky added: “Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies - what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.”

    In March 2015, at the invitation of then Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and assisted by Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the joint houses of Congress about the yet to be signed Iran nuclear deal. He did so without formally informing the White House, something said to have infuriated Barack Obama, whose administration would the following month join a seven-party agreement to limit Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

    In a speech to Congress that was boycotted by more than 50 Democrats, Mr Netanyahu made clear his opposition to the deal.

    “This deal won’t be a farewell to arms,” said Mr Netanyahu, to loud applause. “It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.”

    Attacking Mr Obama proposal of dealing with Iran, he added: “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

    Mr Chomsky said Mr Putin had never made such a speech to Congress, which political observers said was unique in the way a foreign leader so acidly attacked the policy of the US government.

    “Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to…calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president,” he said.

    “And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in influence of- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.”

    The power of the pro-Israel lobby has long been one of the contentious, and disputed, issues in Washington. In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which described the lobby as “loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”.

    The coalition includes groups such as the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) a US-based pro-Israel lobbying group this year has spent $1.75m to promote pro-Israel policies.

    The group’s annual convention is a frequent stopping off point for politicians seeking election or reelection, and Mr Netanyahu has addressed it several times. In 2016, top speakers included Vice President Joe Biden, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Governor John Kasich, Senator Ted Cruz, and Speaker Paul Ryan.

    The group’s website says: “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the US-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”

    Neither the Israeli Embassy in Washington or AIPAC immediately responded to enquiries about Mr Chomsky’s claim.

    In his comments to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky said the media was “focusing on issues which are pretty marginal. There are much more serious issues that are being put to the side”.

    “Of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming,” he said.

    “That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come.”

    He added: “These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead…here is a focus on what I believe are marginalia.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

  12. #29
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Salaam

    Another update.




    For The Few, Not The Many


    The relationship between Zionism and the Jews has been the source of confusion for many years. Both Zionists and the so called ‘anti’ have preached to us that ‘not all Jews are Zionists’ and ‘Judaism is not Zionism.’

    But we are confused no more. Two weeks ago, the chief rabbi of Britain together with 68 other rabbis mounted pressure on the Labour party to change its ‘antisemitsm code.’ The British rabbis were upset because, although Labour generally adopted the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism, left out of Labour’s definition were four examples from the IHRA that restrict criticism of Israel* The Labour party seems to believe that it is kosher to criticise an ethnic cleansing state that deploys snipers against unarmed protestors. Chief Rabbi Mirvis couldn’t agree less. He told the BBC that it is "astonishing that the Labour Party presumes it is more qualified to define anti-Semitism than the Jewish community.” The clear message is that, at least from a rabbinical perspective, the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is nebulous to nonexistent.

    Last Friday the so-called British Jewish ‘establishment’ went a dangerous step further. Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers were emblazoned with identical front pages. Under the headline “United We Stand”, they all claimed that a Jeremy Corbyn-led government would be an “existential threat to Jewish life” in the UK. The British Jewish leadership insists that Britain’s No.1 anti-racist is a Hitler type. I would like to believe that this is just the latest phase in Jewish humour. But the Jewish papers appeared damn serious. Stephen Pollard, Editor of the JC, said in a Sky interview, that while a teeny tiny minority of British Jews are fine with what is going on with the Labour party, “we are saying to the Jewish community, we’re united, the media is united behind you, the community is united.” It seems that the Jewish media establishment also sees the alleged ‘dichotomy’ between Jews and Zionists as a false dichotomy.

    Since the British Jewish leadership seems to be united more than ever, we are left with no other option but to dig into the belly of the beast in order to grasp what seems an unprecedented outburst of collective Jewish Corbyn phobia.

    I admit that, like the British Jewish leadership, I am upset by Corbyn and Labour’s attitude to the IHRA definition. My reasons though are very different. I would expect the Labour party to adhere to its universal values and reject the IHRA definition altogether. This is an anti universalist definition. It prefers one people over all the rest.

    Racism and bigotry, I hope we all agree, are bad. But racism and bigotry are not that difficult to define. We are dealing with an expression of hatred or discrimination against X for being X (X might be Black, a Woman, a Jew, a Gay person, or a member of any other such group). This definition is universal and sufficient to tackle any form of racism including anti Jewish bigotry. In contrast, the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism suggests that Jews are actually not people like all other people. We have yet to see an international working definition of racism against Blacks or a working definition that addresses anti Muslim bigotry. The IHRA's working definition confirms that Jews, at least in their eyes, are somehow chosen. The fact that British institutions have adopted such an exclusivist definition may suggest that Britain is drifting away from its universal heritage. This is, obviously, an alarming news for everyone including Jews.

    That the IHRA's working definition is treated as an ‘international’ definition and is pushed globally by different pro Israeli pressure groups also suggests that, at least in the eyes of leading Jewish bodies, Jews are once again hated globally. I do not believe that this is the case, but the Jews who buy into this tormenting line of thought should ask themselves how this is happening again just 70 years after the Holocaust. After all, this is exactly what Zionism and Israel vowed to prevent.

    Zionism promised to make Jews people like all other people. Early Zionists thinkers diagnosed some very problematic traits in Jewish diaspora culture. The Labour Zionists were upset by what they saw as the ‘non-proletarian’ nature of Jewish diaspora society. They were disturbed by the proximity between Jews and capital. They were also troubled by a lack of proletarian spirit amongst their brethren. Some early Zionists including Herzl were worried about the concept of the ‘court Jew,’ the Jew who bought political influence through financial support of monarchs and royals. In that regard, early Zionism promised to take the Jews away - to relieve the Goyim of Jewish political lobbying and pressure groups.

    If we examine the IHRA's working definition within a Zionist ideological framework we find that the definition may provide the most anti Zionist statement in Zionist history. The definition highlights the notion that Jews aren’t people like all other people but are in need of special and particular treatment. The definition treats the Zionist’s promise to make the Jews respected and loved as a complete failure, and it contemplates that antisemitsm is back. The IHRA’s definition also confirms that the Jewish State is not a state like all other states; no other state bothers to restrict criticism of its politics by others.

    As things stand, the only genuine principled Zionist left in the world of politics is Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy, like the early Zionists, insists that Jews are indeed people like all other people. Jeremy believes that Israel is a state like all other states and is, accordingly, subject to criticism.

    Jeremy’s blunt anti racism is at the core of the Jewish leadership’s feud with him. Jeremy preaches to the Brits a simple unifying message namely, ‘For The Many Not The Few.’ The Jewish leadership and their embarrassing IHRA definition seem to push the opposite -- For the few, not the many.

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...w-not-the-many

    Last edited by Junon; 08-02-2018 at 10:23 AM.

  13. Report bad ads?
  14. #30
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update, how the anti semitism hysteria is undermining the British Labour party.


    UK Labour cruising towards split over Israel-Palestine


    Britain’s Labour Party prepares to split; the Israel-Palestine issue breaks up the party after 100 years to the relief of Prime Minister Theresa May.


    At least that’s the proximate cause of the rapidly approaching schism in the opposition Labour Party.

    Attempts to effectively outlaw existential criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel have foundered on the rocks of the obduracy of the veteran Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose commitment to the Palestinian cause has been a leitmotif of his 40 years in left-wing politics.

    Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel has grown massively in recent decades in Britain and throughout the Western world. The recent decision after a passionate debate in the Irish Senate to ban the products of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories was a high point for the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) movement. And this decision preceded the new controversial National Law passed in the Israeli Knesset, which UN bodies and others have said makes Israel officially an apartheid state, giving a spur to the BDS cause.

    Widespread ostracism of apartheid South Africa was an important factor in the downfall of the system in South Africa.

    But Israel is far from taking these defeats lying down. The Israeli embassy in London is a vital center for counter-offensives, Ambassador Mark Regev a key operative in Netanyahu’s machine. That Israel chose to send Regev to London was an early sign of the importance of the UK battleground.

    When I joined the Palestinian struggle in 1975, you could’ve fitted all British supporters of the PLO into a small hall, with room for elephants at the back. Now you couldn’t fit us into Hyde Park. We are millions, literally.

    I know when the tide turned because I was there, literally.

    I left West Beirut in 1982, just ahead of the advancing Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Within hours they were at the gates. Their capture of President Arafat’s fiefdom in the West of the city led to the departure of Arafat and his forces under an agreement brokered by the US plenipotentiary Philip Habib. Its terms included the protection of the families the fighters were leaving behind. They were promptly fallen upon by the Israeli backed Lebanese Phalange militia and massacred.

    The UN and the Israeli Kahan Commission later held that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – present at the scene of the massacre in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp – shared responsibility for the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians.

    General Sharon was required to resign from the government of Menachem Begin but would later return as prime minister himself.

    The massacre marked the beginning of a long, slow but inexorable turn away from Israel by the British labor and trade union movement.

    I wrote the resolutions that passed that year in both the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress against fierce Israeli lobbying (I could show you my scars). The resolutions established policy for the first time in favor of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for the recognition of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representatives” of the Palestinian people. In 1982, this was a heady brew, I assure you.

    Year by year, as Israeli governments became evermore right wing and as the plight of the Palestinians grew ever more grim, the giant tanker turned a little more.

    Although his lifelong fidelity to this cause was not the reason for Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader – the Iraq War and austerity was much more so – it certainly marked a high water mark in the growing movement against Netanyahu’s Israel.

    And Mr Regev and the embassy were not slow to recognise the danger to their position in a Britain whose perfidy played such a key role for over a century in the Israel-Palestine question.

    The full might of the Israel lobby has been mobilized to first stop Corbyn winning the leadership, to depose him once he had won it, and above all to stop him becoming prime minister.

    They have had some success, particularly within the ranks of Corbyn’s MPs – most of them products of the long reign of Tony Blair. Revolt after revolt from within against Corbyn has been mounted on everything from Brexit to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. But the most potent is the now-rampant virulent campaign against “anti-Semitism” in Corbyn’s Labour. What this boils down to is, of course, not anti-Semitism at all but opposition to Israel. The idea that the vegetarian left-wing bicycling peacenik and anti-racism fanatic Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews is as absurd as it is offensive.

    Having failed to dislodge him and failed to make him kneel, his enemies are planning to breakaway and form a new centrist bloc against Brexit, in favor of NATO and Trident nuclear weapons, and of course in defense of Israel.

    The last time this happened nearly 40 years ago it failed to prosper. But by dividing the anti-Conservative vote, it kept Mrs Thatcher in power for a whole decade. And thus the only person laughing in British politics today is the beleaguered Mrs May.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/434850-corb...estine-labour/
    Last edited by Junon; 08-02-2018 at 10:21 AM.

  15. #31
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    Salaam

    Maybe that's their long term goal, but I think in the medium term they would rather economically control these countries, opportunistically taking land here and there as chaos engulf the middle east.

    And they have had reverses, like in the Sinai and they were forced out of Lebanon.

    They wont stop trying though
    Just to elaborate

    By chedarman

    Seems as if the middle east has become Israel's sand box. Sadam is gone and Iraq is a failed state, Gafaffi is gone and Libya is a failed state, Assad is on the way out or will rule over a rump state of Syria. Iran is boxed in. Egypt does not have a real military to speak of. The Saudis and Persian Guld states have no significant military power to wield against Israel. Israel has 75-400 nuclear war heads, and the means to launch them against most major population centers in the region.

    Israel can continue annexing land in the West Bank until there is none left for the palestinians, and probably take land from Lebanon and Jordan. Who will stop them? Europe and the U.S. dont have the will, China does not care as long as they get access to natural resources. Russia may care, but they dont have the ability to counter aqny direct action by Israel in the region.

    I dont see why any one would bet against Israel's long term success.

  16. #32
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Analysis on the current state of Israeli leadership.

    Blurb

    Afshin Rattansi goes underground on the recent Israeli attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein, author of ‘Method and Madness - The hidden story of Israel's assaults on Gaza’, says the Goldstone report was 'devastating' in its conclusion that Israel was trying to punish and humiliate the citizens of Gaza, and that Israel has a 'maniac' for a head of state.



  17. #33
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    The Holocaust and its Deniers



    In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’

    This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.

    In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.

    If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust's message.

    Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.

    In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.

    Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.

    On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”

    Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.

    Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’

    The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...nd-its-deniers
    Last edited by Junon; 08-02-2018 at 11:23 PM.

  18. #34
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Israels slow economic takeover of the Middle East is continuing.

    Blurb

    Work has begun on a 65-kilometer pipeline which is supposed to start bringing gas from Israel to Jordan in early 2020. The Jordanian government says the deal will save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But many organizations involved in anti-normalisation campaigns have been criticising the deal. Jordanian society, many of whom are Palestinian refugees, continue to resist official efforts to promote ties with Israel.

    It's been more than two decades since Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel but it is still largely unpopular.




    Related

    Egypt to Begin Importing Israeli Gas in 2019

    Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export

    Egypt to begin importing Israeli gas in 2019

    Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export in the first quarter of 2019, sources in the country’s energy sector said on Sunday, under agreements signed in February to buy $15 billion worth of gas over 10 years. “Imports will start in small quantities first and will gradually increase to reach their climax in September 2019,” one source told Reuters. The source gave no details on prices or quantities. Partners in Israel’s Tamar and Leviathan offshore gas fields, which include Delek Group, Isramco and Ratio, said in February that they would supply Dolphinus with around 64 billion cubic meters of gas over a decade. Although controversial in Egypt, Cairo hopes that the imports will help in its efforts to become a regional energy hub. Delek shares ended up 0.4% at 528.60 shekels ($143.15). (Reuters)

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...2019-1.6343222
    Last edited by Junon; 08-06-2018 at 07:46 PM.

  19. Report bad ads?
  20. #35
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Hmmm Im wary of trusting the Zios and the narrative they are trying to create, but interesting article nevertheless.

    Why Younger Saudis Won't Fund, Facilitate or Fight for a Palestinian State

    An emerging Gulf leadership has shaken off its elders' attachment to the Palestinian cause. They're convinced an independent Palestine means handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists yet another Arab capital


    That there is a wide gap between the position of Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdel Aziz, endorsing full rights for Palestinians, as opposed to his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (known as MBS) should come as no surprise to Western policymakers.

    There have been clear recent indications of this difference. The Crown Prince has recognized Israel's right to exist and was reported as saying the Palestinians should either "shut up" or make peace with Israel.

    Pushing back, King Salman reiterated "the kingdom's steadfast position towards the Palestinian issue and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to an independent state," and lately declared that U.S. President Trump's peace plan had to include East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

    The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are experiencing tremendous socio-political change that has accelerated a generation gap that has been widening for some time. One particular divergence in the thinking between the younger generations and the older ones is what approach to adopt towards the Palestinians.

    Older Saudis grew up in the 1950s and 1960s during the heyday of Arab nationalism, and its embrace of the Palestinian cause as the main driver for all events in the region. While the Saudis never fully embraced Arab nationalism, they adopted the Palestinian cause to preempt attacks based on a lack of solidarity from their arch-opponents, Arab nationalists.

    Thus, the older generation in the Gulf that Saudi King Salman embodies believes deeply in the Palestinian cause, whatever political complexion the Palestinian leadership exhibits.

    However, the younger generations, characterized and led by MBS and his close ally Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and primary driver of the UAE's foreign policy, display far less political equanimity; they prioritize realpolitik over political nostalgia. They long ago stopped overlooking what they consider problematic political biases within the West Bank, Gaza, and even among the Palestinian diaspora around the world.

    They realize that Palestinians in general are not enthusiastic toward or supporters of Saudi and Emirati interests in checking the power of political Shia Islamists, most notably Iran, and Sunni political Islamists, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood.

    There has long been a school of thought in the Gulf that called for a separation between Gulf states' national interests and the Palestinian cause, but this was still an unpopular position among the general public. But over the last few years, this position has been increasingly adopted, first by younger elites and then more broadly, not least as Saudi Arabia itself has come under missile attack from Iranian proxies.

    The younger Gulf generation has seen for itself the attacks launched by Palestinians against their countries on social media, including the burning of MBS’ pictures in Gaza. During the soccer World Cup, many Palestinians rushed to root for Iran against its Western opponents, while supporting Western countries against the Saudi national team. This immediate, visceral experience differentiates the younger Gulf generation from its elders.

    The older generation of Saudi and Emirati policymakers have known these Palestinian political tendencies for years, but they overlooked them in the hope that once a Palestinian state is established, local actors sympathetic to Iran would have an incentive to moderate their positions, providing the Saudis offer generous financial contributions. The general prognosis was that the emergence of other moderate groups would counterbalance the radicals.

    However, the younger Gulf generations are now unconvinced that moderation would follow the establishment of a Palestinian state. They believe it is more likely that a fully independent Palestinian state would itself be hostage to radical forces, and would in fact become an extreme source of instability in the region.

    MBS and MBZ believe that establishing a Palestinian state would mean handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists another Arab capital to control and influence. Iranian influence among Palestinian groups has solidified over the years, and the two crown princes' assessment is that it is irreversible.

    They are fortified in that position by the example of Gaza. Sunni political Islamists have run the Strip disastrously for over a decade, opening the door for Qatar and Turkey to project influence there. That this is also leading to conflict in Egypt further reinforces the belief that an independent Palestine would be a source of instability.

    MBS and MBZ are certainly not foolish enough to lobby for and fund the establishment of a state that would most certainly be an Iranian client state, analogous to a Soviet-era satellite state.

    Despite this, many Western policymakers still fantasize about the idea that the Gulf countries could provide money to birth and develop a Palestinian state – indeed, this is reportedly one of the founding principles of the Trump-Kushner peace plan.

    That is never going to happen. Those who actively dictate policy in the Gulf are convinced that every dollar the Saudis give to the Palestinians means handing it to Iran. The Saudis and Emirates are likely to promise to provide financial assistance in public, but U.S. policymakers should not believe that they would ever deliver when push really comes to shove.

    For those in Washington dreaming of another peace process breakthrough, another Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn, this time midwifed by the Gulf – there is little chance this will become anything more than a mirage.

    The Middle East has moved on from the 1990s, and just like the Saudis and Emirates have woken up to the facts of the Palestinians' political biases, policymakers in D.C. must keep up and evolve their thinking to better serve American interests, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-why-younger-saudis-won-t-fund-facilitate-or-fight-for-a-palestinian-state-1.6342634

  21. #36
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Antisemitism and the suppression of truth.

    Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. The scandal over the alleged antisemitism within the Labour party provides a perfect example. The Labour Party is accused of being “an existential threat to British Jews” (no more no less) because the NEC, its ruling body, defined antisemitism for the Labour party, without clearly including in its definition criticism of Israel.

    In its definition for its own code, the Labour party adopted the problematic IHRA working definition of antisemitism but omitted the following ‘examples of antisemitism’ included with the IHRA:

    § Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country,

    § Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavor,

    § Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations, and

    § Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.

    According to Labour’s ruling body, these examples may not be treated as anti -Jewish bigotry without clear evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This treatment is the proper one according to most reasonable minds.

    Since some Diaspora Jews admit to being more loyal to Israel than to their home country, it would be a bit problematic to accuse a goy of hatefulness for repeating what many Jews openly declare. Since the new racist Israeli National Bill has been duly approved by the Knesset, it would be bizarre to accuse a Labour Party member of anti-Jewish bigotry for saying that Israel is a racist endeavour.

    Although such an accusation may well be accurate, it runs afoul of the omitted examples in the IHRA definition exactly because the definition is designed to suppress criticism of Israel and its politics. Last week, the Guardian published an wide range of Jewish writers and their views of the IHRA definition in the context of the current Labour ‘antisemitism’ crisis. Some of the views expressed are insightful and deserve close attention.

    Antisemitism, according to Stephen Sedley, a law scholar and a former judge, is “hostility towards Jews as Jews. This straightforward definition is at the disposal of any institution or organisation that needs it. It places no prior restrictions on the form antisemitism may take.”

    Sedley comes to a conclusion that the IHRA definition with examples exists “to neutralise serious criticism of Israel by stigmatising it as a form of antisemitism.” Sedley’s view in this context fits nicely with the definition of Jewish power above.

    Sedley points out that The UK government, which has adopted the “working definition” including the examples, was warned by the Commons home affairs select committee in October 2016 that in the interests of free speech it ought to adopt an explicit rider that it is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel …without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.” Sedley emphasises that this recommendation “was ignored.”

    Geoffrey Bindman, a QC, solicitor and a legal scholar agrees with Sedley’s criticism. Bindman also refers to the recommendations of the all-party Commons home affairs select committee that the IHRA definition should only be adopted if qualified by caveats making clear that it is not antisemitic to criticise the Israeli government without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. “Unfortunately the caveats were omitted when the definition was approved by the UK government.”

    These men make clear that the IHRA definition is a faulty definition. The British government should reconsider its use of this definition. The other bodies and institutions that were pushed to adopt this non-universalist text would do well to drop it.

    Sedley’s opinion is that even though the UK has adopted the IHRA definition, Brits are not forbidden by law from telling the truth about Israel’s being a racist state. This is because Britain also has the “Human Rights Act [that] enacts article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right of free expression.” According to Sedley “whatever criticism the IHRA’s ‘examples’ may seek to suppress, both Jews and non-Jews in the UK are entitled, without being stigmatised as antisemites, to contend that a state that by law denies Palestinians any right of self-determination is a racist state, or to ask whether there is some moral equivalence between shooting down defenceless Jews in eastern Europe and unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.”

    Geoffrey Bindman argues that the IHRA definition and examples are “poorly drafted, misleading, and in practice have led to the suppression of legitimate debate and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, clumsily worded as it is, the definition does describe the essence of antisemitism: irrational hostility towards Jews.”

    Here Bindman opens Pandora’s box. If antisemitism is irrational hostility toward Jews simply for being Jews, then the IHRA definition together with its clauses treats even rational and reasonable opposition to Israeli politics as ‘irrational hatred.’ This presents a dangerous precedent and an Orwellian turn for British society. It suggests that Britain is a free country no more. In Britain in 2018, those who oppose a certain type of evil, racist politics are labelled ‘irrational haters’ (antisemites). Clearly Labour’s NEC attempted to fix this problem by requiring a finding of hateful intent at the core of certain so-called anti-Semitic behaviour. This reasonable requirement led to an irrational reaction by Jewish institutions and an aggressive response.

    It is difficult to judge whether the Guardian’s choices to defend the IHRA were made as a genuine attempt to represent the Zionist side. Perhaps the Guardian was making a desperate attempt to provide its readers with some comic relief: like the British Chief Rabbi and 68 additional British rabbis who were upset by Labour ‘s slight deviation from the IHRA definition, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner also expressed her dissatisfaction with the party of the workers.

    “If the Labour party wanted to prioritise antisemitism by choosing a bespoke definition then it could have listened to the full diversity of the Jewish community,” Janner-Klausner wrote. But why does anyone need to follow the Rabbis or self-appointed Jewish ‘representative bodies’ for that matter? If antisemitism is racism, then we all ought to oppose antisemitism as we do any form of racism: universally. And if antisemitism is a piece of our universal concern with racism, then we all should be equally involved in opposing it. This is similar to the line of thought that was, I believe, at the core of the American Civil Rights Movement. It was a universal call that had a universal appeal. It aimed to protect the many not just the few. This is pretty much the opposite of the IHRA definition that is concerned with one people only.

    In that regard, it is of note that Labour’s NEC was not attempting to define what antisemitsm means to Jews. NEC defined what antisemitsm means for the Labour party and in accordance with Labour values.

    Keith Kahn-Harris, a London sociologist not known for his sophistication also contributed to the Guardian’s panel. He reiterated my definition of Jewish power, probably without realising it. “It’s certainly true that the IHRA definition does tightly constrain anti-Israel and anti-Zionist speech, but it doesn’t make it impossible.” I guess that Kahn-Harris is saying that IHRA definition allows support of Palestine as long as the speaker can successfully zigzag around Jewish sensitivities. Maybe you can talk about Palestinian suffering as long as you avoid mentioning Israel. “It might have been possible to see the IHRA definition as a challenge to pro-Palestinian activists to be more creative in their language: after all, whether or not you think Israel is acting just like the Nazis, saying so is predictable, lazy and cliched.” I would advise Khan Harris that living for 70 years as a stateless refugee in Lebanon or being imprisoned in Gaza by an Israeli siege is more than enough. Palestinians and their supporters do not need this ‘extra challenge.’ What they want is to make their plight known and to be able to talk truth to power. Even to describe, for instance, an equivalence between two nationalist, racist and expansionist political ideologies that were fermented around the same time and even collaborated for a while. And this is exactly what the IHRA is there to prevent.

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/5/antisemitsm-and-the-suppression-of-truth

  22. #37
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    In Israel, growing fascism and a racism akin to early Nazism
    T
    hey don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression

    Zeev Sternhell | Jan. 19, 2018 | 2:00 AM |

    I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?

    The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.

    The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.

    Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.

    Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was promised to the Jewish people.

    According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”

    From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried.

    https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-in-israel-growing-fascism-and-a-racism-akin-to-early-nazism-1.5746488

    - - - Updated - - -

    Salaam

    Another update

    Labour’s crisis is over Israel, not anti-semitism

    If there is indeed an anti-semitism problem in the UK’s Labour party, it is not in the places where the British corporate media have been directing our attention. What can be said with even more certainty is that there is rampant hatred expressed towards Jews in the same British media that is currently decrying the supposed anti-semitism of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

    Here is a piece of what I hope is wisdom, earnt the hard way as a reporter in Israel over nearly two decades. I offer it in case it helps to resolve the confusion felt by some still pondering the endless reports of Labour’s supposed anti-semitism “crisis”.

    Racism towards Palestinians

    In the first year after my arrival in Israel in late 2001, during the most violent phase of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians’ second intifada, I desperately tried to make sense of the events raging around me. Like most new reporters, I searched for experts – at that time, mostly leftwing Israeli analysts and academics. But the more I listened, the less I understood. I felt like a ball in a pinball machine, bounced from one hair-trigger to the next.

    My problem was exacerbated by the fact that, unlike my colleagues, I had chosen to locate myself in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, rather than in a Jewish area or in the occupied territories. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seemed much more complex when viewed through the prism of Palestinian “citizens” living inside a self-declared Jewish state.

    The Israeli experts I contacted deplored the brutality of the occupation unequivocally and in ways it was difficult not to admire, given the morass of anti-Palestinian sentiment and self-righteousness into which the rest of Israeli society was rapidly sinking. But each time I latched on to such an Israeli in the hope of deepening my own understanding, something they said would knock me sideways.

    As readily as they condemned the occupation, they would laud the self-evidently bogus liberal democratic credentials of a Jewish state, one that I could see from my location in Nazareth was structurally organised to deny equal rights to its Palestinian citizens. Or the experts would echo the Israeli government’s inciteful claims that this largely quiescent Palestinian minority in Israel – a fifth of the population – was at best a demographic threat to the Jewish majority, and at worst a Trojan horse secretly working to destroy the Jewish state from within.

    The very racism towards Palestinians in the occupied territories these experts eschewed, they readily flaunted when discussing Palestinians inside Israel. Were they really leftists or covert ethnic chauvinists?
    Appearances can be deceptive

    It was many months before I could make sense of this puzzle. An answer was only possible when I factored in the Israeli state’s official ideology: Zionism.

    Israeli leftists who were also avowed Zionists – the vast majority of them – saw the conflict exclusively through the colonial prism of their own ethnic privilege. They didn’t much care for Palestinians or their rights. Their opposition to the occupation was barely related to the tangible harm it did to the Palestinian population.

    Rather, they wanted an end to the occupation because they believed it brutalised and corrupted Israeli Jewish society, seeping into its pores like a toxin. Or they wanted the occupation to end because the combined populations of Palestinians in “Greater Israel” – in the occupied territories and inside Israel – would soon outnumber Jews, leading, they feared, to comparisons with apartheid South Africa. They wanted Israel out of all or most of the occupied territories, cutting off these areas like a gangrenous limb threatening the rest of the body’s health.

    Only later, when I started to meet anti-Zionist Jews, did I find an opposition to the occupation rooted in a respect for the rights and dignity of the Palestinians in the territories. And because their position was an ethical, rights-based one, rather than motivated by opportunism and self-interest, these anti-Zionist Jews also cared about ending discrimination against the one in five Israeli citizens who were Palestinian. Unlike my experts, they were morally consistent.

    I raise this, because the lesson I eventually learnt was this: you should never assume that, because someone has adopted a moral position you share, their view is based on the moral principles that led you to adopt that position. The motives of those you stand alongside can be very different from your own. People can express a morally sound view for morally dubious, or even outright immoral, reasons. If you ally yourself with such people, you will invariably be disappointed or betrayed.

    There was another, more particular lesson. Ostensible support for Palestinians may in fact be cover for other ways of oppressing them.

    And so it has been with most of those warning of an anti-semitism “crisis” in Labour. Anti-semitism, like all racisms, is to be denounced. But not all denunciations of it are what they seem. And not all professions of support for Palestinians should be taken at face value.

    The vilification of Corbyn

    Most reasonable observers, especially if they are not Jewish, instinctively recoil from criticising a Jew who is highlighting anti-semitism. It is that insulation from criticism, that protective shield, that encouraged Labour MP Margaret Hodge recently to publicly launch a verbal assault on Corbyn, vilifying him, against all evidence, as an “anti-semite and racist”.

    It was that same protective shield that led to Labour officials dropping an investigation of Hodge, even though it is surely beyond doubt that her actions brought the party “into disrepute” – in this case, in a flagrant manner hard to imagine being equalled. This is the same party, remember, that recently expelled Marc Wadsworth, a prominent black anti-racism activist, on precisely those grounds after he accused Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth of colluding with rightwing newspapers to undermine Corbyn.

    The Labour party is so hamstrung by fears about anti-semitism, it seems, that it decided that an activist (Wadsworth) denigrating a Labour MP (Smeeth) was more damaging to the party’s reputation than a Labour MP (Hodge) vilifying the party’s leader (Corbyn). In this twisted set of priorities, a suspicion of possible racism towards a Jewish MP served to justify actual racism against a black party activist.

    But the perversion of Labour party values goes much further. Recent events have proven that party officials have decisively prioritised the rights of diehard supporters of Israel among British Jewry to defend Israel at all costs over the right of others, including Jews, to speak out about the continuing brutalisation of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation regime.

    Hodge and the other Labour MPs trumpeting anti-semitism might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt – that they truly fear anti-semitism is on the rise in the Labour party – had they not repeatedly indulged in the kind of anti-semitism they themselves have deplored.

    What do I mean?

    When they speak of an anti-semitism “crisis” in the party, these Labour MPs – and the fervently pro-Israel lobby groups behind them like the Jewish Labour Movement – intentionally gloss over the fact that many of the prominent activists who have been investigated, suspended or expelled for anti-semitism in recent months – fuelling the claim of a “crisis” – are in fact Jewish.

    Why are the “Jewish” sensitivities of Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth or Louise Ellman more important than those of Moshe Machover, Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jackie Walker or Glyn Secker – all Labour activists who have found their sensitivities, as Jews opposing the abuse of Palestinians, count for little or nothing among Labour officials? Why must we tiptoe around Hodge because she is Jewish, ignoring her bullygirl tactics to promote her political agenda in defence of Israel, but crack down on Greenstein and Chilson, even though they are Jewish, to silence their voices in defence of the rights of Palestinians?

    ‘Wrong kind of Jews’

    The problem runs deeper still. Labour MPs like Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman and John Mann have stoked the anti-semitic predilections of the British media, which has been only too ready to indict “bad Jews” while extolling “good Jews”.

    That was only too evident earlier this year when Corbyn tried to put out the fire that such Labour MPs had intentionally fuelled. He joined Jewdas, a satirical leftwing Jewish group that is critical of Israel, for a Passover meal. He was roundly condemned for the move.

    Jewdas were declared by rightwing Jewish establishment organisations like the Board of Deputies and by the British corporate media as the “wrong kind of Jews”, or even as not “real” Jews. In the view of the Board and the media, Corbyn was tainted by his association with them.

    How are Jewdas the “wrong kind of Jews”? Because they do not reflexively kneel before Israel. Ignore Corbyn for a moment. Did Labour MPs Hodge, Ellman or Smeeth speak out in the defence of fellow Jews under attack over their Jewishness? No, they did not.

    If Greenstein and Chilson are being excommunicated as (Jewish) “anti-semites” for their full-throated condemnations of Israel’s institutional racism, why are Hodge and Ellman not equally anti-semites for their collusion in the vilification of supposedly “bad” or “phoney” Jews like Jewdas, Greenstein and Chilson.

    It should be clear that this anti-semitism “crisis” is not chiefly about respecting Jewish sensitivities or even about Jewish identity. It is about protecting the sensitivities of some Jews on Israel, a state oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian people.

    Policing debates on Israel


    When the Guardian’s senior columnist Jonathan Freedland insists that his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally, he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel. He is asserting his right, over the rights of other Jews – and, of course, Palestinians – to determine what the boundaries of political discourse on Israel are, and where the red lines denoting anti-semitism are drawn.

    This is why Labour MPs like Hodge and journalists like Freedland are at the centre of another confected anti-semitism row in the Labour party: over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism and an associated set of examples. They want all the IHRA’s examples adopted by Labour, not just most of them.

    There are very clear, existing definitions of anti-semitism. They are variations of the simple formulation: “Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.” But the IHRA takes this clear definition and muddies it to the point that all sorts of political debates can be viewed as potentially anti-semitic, as leading jurists have warned (see here and here).

    That is only undercored by the fact that a majority of the IHRA’s examples of anti-semitism relate to Israel – a nuclear-armed state now constitutionally designed to privilege Jews over non-Jews inside its recognised borders and engaged in a half-century of brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people outside its borders.

    To be fair to the drafters of the IHRA guidelines, these examples were supposed only to be treated as potentially anti-semitic, depending on the context. That is the express view of the definition’s drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Jewish lawyer, who has warned that the guidelines are being perverted to silence criticism of Israel and stifle free speech.

    And who are leading precisely the moves that Stern has warned against? People like Jonathan Freedland and Margaret Hodge, cheered on by large swaths of Labour MPs, who have strongly implied that Corbyn and his allies in the party are anti-semitic for sharing Stern’s concerns.

    Hodge and Freedland are desperate to strong-arm the Labour party into setting the IHRA guidelines in stone, as the unchallengeable, definitive new definition of anti-semitism. That will relieve them of the arduous task of policing those discourse boundaries on the basis of evidence and of context. They will have a ready-made, one-size-fits-all definition to foreclose almost all serious debate about Israel.

    Want to suggest that Israel’s new Nation-State Law, giving Jewish citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights denied to non-Jewish citizens, is proof of the institutional racism on which political Zionism is premised and that was enshrined in the founding principles of the state of Israel? Well, you just violated one of the IHRA guidelines by arguing that Israel is a “racist endeavour”. If Freedland and Hodge get their way, you would be certain to be declared an anti-semite and expelled from the Labour party.

    Grovelling apology

    Revealing how cynical this manoeuvring by Hodge, Freedland and others is, one only has to inspect the faux-outrage over the latest “anti-semitism crisis” involving Corbyn. He has been forced to make a grovelling apology – one that deeply discredits him – for hosting an anti-racism conference in 2010 at which a speaker made a comparison between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. That violated another of the IHRA examples.

    But again, what none of these anti-semitism warriors has wanted to highlight is that the speaker given a platform at the conference was the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who dedicated his later years to supporting Palestinian rights. Who, if not Meyer, deserved the right to make such a comparison? And to imply that he was an anti-semite because he prioritised Palestinian rights over the preservation of Israel’s privileges for Jews is truly contemptible.

    In fact, it is more than that. It is far closer to anti-semitism than the behaviour of Jewish critics of Israel like Greenstein and Chilson, who have been expelled from the Labour party. To intentionally exploit and vilify a Holocaust survivor for cheap, short-term political advantage – in an attempt to damage Corbyn – is malevolence of the worst kind.

    Having stoked fears of an anti-semitism crisis, Hodge, Freedland and others have actively sought to obscure the wider context in which it must be judged – as, in large part, a painful debate raging inside the Jewish community. It is a debate between fervently pro-Israel Jewish establishment groups and a growing body of marginalised anti-Zionist Jewish activists who wish to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Labour is not suffering from an “anti-semitism crisis”; it is mired in an “Israel crisis”.

    ‘Repulsive’ campaign

    In their silence about the abuses of Meyer, Jewdas, Greenstein, Chilson and many others, Freedland and Hodge have shown that they do not really care about the safety or sensitivities of Jews. What they chiefly care about is protecting their chosen cause of Israel, and crippling the chances of a committed supporter of Palestinian rights from ever reaching power. They are prepared to sacrifice other Jews, even victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Labour party itself, for that kind of political gain.

    Hodge and Freedland are behaving as though they are decent Jews, the only ones who have the right to a voice and to sensitivities. They are wrong.

    They are like the experts I first met in Israel who concealed their racism towards Palestinians by flaunting their self-serving anti-occupation credentials. Under the cover of concerns about anti-semitism, Freedland and Hodge have helped stoke hatred – either explicitly or through their silence – towards the “wrong kind of Jews”, towards Jews whose critical views of Israel they fear.

    It does not have to be this way. Rather than foreclose it, they could allow a debate to flourish within Britain’s Jewish community and within the Labour party. They could admit that not only is there no evidence that Corbyn is racist, but that he has clearly been committed to fighting racism all his life.

    Don’t want to take my word for it? You don’t have to. Listen instead to Stephen Oryszczuk, foreign editor of the Corbyn-hating Jewish News. His newspaper was one of three Jewish weeklies that recently published the same front-page editorial claiming that Corbyn was an “existential threat” to British Jews.

    Oryszczuk, even if no friend to the Labour leader, deplored the behaviour of his own newspaper. In an interview, he observed of this campaign to vilify Corbyn: “It’s repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist we’re trashing. I just don’t buy into it at all.” He added of Corbyn: “I don’t believe he’s antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. He’s anti-Israel and that’s not the same.”

    Oryszczuk conceded that some people were weaponising anti-semitism and that these individuals were “certainly out to get him [Corbyn]”. Unlike Freedland and Hodge, he was also prepared to admit that some voices in the Jewish community were being actively silenced: “It’s partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could – and arguably should – have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. … On Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.”

    And that is exactly how Hodge and Freedland would like to keep it – in the Labour party, in the Jewish community, and in wider British society.

    https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-08-08/labour-crisis-israel-anti-semitism/

  23. #38
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Like to share

    Blurb

    After an #IDF tank struck Palestinian targets, Hamas responded with a rocket barrage toward Israeli occupied territories. The IDF responded by striking 140 targets in Gaza, killing a pregnant mother and her young child. And in Yemen, Saudi Arabia blew up a bus and slaughtered scores of children. The United States supplied the weapons for both operations.


  24. #39
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    On the Israeli lobby.





    Some background reading

    This was written in the 1980s



    Steven Sica


    4.0 out of 5 stars The More Things Don't Change, The More They Stay The Same

    This is one of the most important books published in the 1980s dealing with the question of US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Never heard of it, you say? Small wonder.

    It's sad to comtemplate how this book reads like the parent to the much better known and more recently published "The Israel Lobby And U. S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearshirmer and Stephen Walt. Tivnan, a journalist, has done a masterful job in laying out the problems presented to the US in it's policies toward the Palestinians and the Israelis by the remoreseless, relentless, take-no-prisoners, bare-knuckled political approach of AIPAC and the other various groups which make up what is called "The Israel Lobby." [The only substantial difference between then and now is the growth of the tragically self-deluded "Christian Fundamantalists" who, in pursuit of their bizarre theology, advocate unquestioned support of every very questionable word and deed of Israel.] Indeed, so prescient is Tivnan in his analysis that it's barely an exaggerastion to write that the great work of Mearshirmer and Walt is but an extended footnote to the ground so competently and so cogently surveyed by Tivan two decades earlier.

    By all means, read this book. And then read the work of Mearshirmer and Walt. And than get angry, get very angry, and ask yourself to what extent does US support of Israel help or hinder the security and welfare of the US and it's citizenry.

    Blurb

    Does America’s pro-Israel lobby wield inappropriate control over US foreign policy?

    This book has created a storm of controversy by bringing out into the open America’s relationship with the Israel lobby: a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape foreign policy in a way that is profoundly damaging both to the United States and Israel itself.

    Israel is an important, valued American ally, yet Mearsheimer and Walt show that, by encouraging unconditional US financial and diplomatic support for Israel and promoting the use of its power to remake the Middle East, the lobby has jeopardized America’s and Israel’s long-term security and put other countries – including Britain – at risk.


    Last edited by Junon; 08-15-2018 at 07:41 PM.

  25. Report bad ads?
  26. #40
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,154
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    447
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond

    Salaam

    Another update

    Antisemitism and Antiblackness

    Great Britain’s Labour Party has been wrestling with allegations of antisemitism. One of the charges is that although the Labour party adopted The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) ‘s definition (often incorrectly identified as the ‘international’ definition) of antisemitism, Labour did not include in its definition all of the examples listed in the IHRA definition. Specifically, Labour omitted the provisions that define criticism of Israel as antisemitism.

    Israel may claim that it wants to be a state like all others, but it vigorously campaigns to limit criticism of its expansionist policies by forcing critics to navigate a minefield of potential claims of antisemitism. I can think of no other country that even attempts to limit criticism by outsiders.

    Even without the provisions relating to Israel, the IHRA definition of antisemitism seems overly broad and unnecessary in light of the discrimination that many people have faced. In the United States our record is spotty at best and many immigrant groups have faced discrimination by the legal system, by the actions of our public institutions and by the behavior of other Americans. Notably, and at different times, Asians and Jews have been affected by quota systems in our universities, the Chinese were exploited and then deported under the exclusion acts, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps during World War II and our president has accused Mexican Americans of being rapists.

    And then, no group has suffered the systemic racism that has been directed against African Americans. Not only do we have few laws that begin to atone for their continued exploitation and incarceration, we don’t even have a word in common usage that refers specifically to discrimination against African Americans. There is such a word in the dictionary, however, and it is ‘antiblack.’

    Since the United States has not treated Jews any worse than its other immigrants, it seems odd that the State Department has adopted a specific definition of antisemitism and not of antiblackness. Borrowing from the IHRA definition of antisemitism, I would like to offer the following, modeled on the IHRA definition, to fill this void. Other groups may wish to follow suit. Words from the IHRA definition are italicized.

    Antiblackness is a certain perception of Blacks, which may be expressed as hatred toward Blacks. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antiblackness are directed toward Black or non-Black individuals and/or their property, toward Black community institutions and religious facilities, especially the targeting of Black churches.

    Two examples: the Charleston church shooting, in which the killer argued that he didn’t deserve the death penalty since the nine people he killed were Black; or the killing of four young girls at a church in Birmingham, Alabama after which the killers were protected by the federal government for at least 15 years.

    Manifestations might include the targeting of majority black countries, conceived as merely a collection of Blacks. (e.g., calling them shitholes) However, criticism of such countries similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antiblack. So, if you wanted to criticize apartheid South Africa, you must find another apartheid country to criticize in the same way. (Israel?)

    Antiblackness frequently charges Blacks with conspiring to harm whites, and it is often used to blame Blacks for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. For example, the negative stereotypes of Blacks as portrayed in film, the press, etc. as people who are shiftless, crime seeking, etc.

    Contemporary examples of antiblackness in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming or mass incarceration of Blacks for crimes that are routinely charged only against Blacks, such as vagrancy, in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of race.

    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Blacks as Blacks such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about the advantages of slavery over life in Africa, the myth that more Blacks than others are on death row, or that Blacks do not contribute to society. Included in this is the theft by artists of the intellectual property of Blacks, under the antiblack assumption that Blacks will not respond. For example, The Beach Boys ‘ ripoff of Chuck Berry in Surfing USA (Sweet Little Sixteen) or George Harrison’s theft of My Sweet Lord from Ronnie Mack (He’s So Fine).

    • Accusing Blacks as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by any Black person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Blacks, this would include blaming Blacks for the deterioration of a neighborhood.

    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms or intentionality of the enslavement of Black people at the hands of the United States, and the financial gain from such labor enjoyed by the South and its accomplices in the North, as well as in a number of European countries who continued to finance the South during the Civil War. Included in this is the de facto slavery of Black people that continued in many states after slavery was abolished, including using convicts guilty of dubious crimes, such as loitering, as ‘free’ labor in factories, mines and other businesses or the sharecropping system that left Blacks unable to exercise the right to move or to realize any financial gain from their own labor.

    • Accusing Blacks as a people of inventing or exaggerating slavery or the millions of deaths that occurred in the brutal passage of Blacks from Africa to various parts of the ‘new world.’

    • Accusing Black citizens of not being loyal to the United States when they protest the treatment of Blacks in the United States.

    • Denying Blacks their right to choose leaders, either as in the past through poll taxes or absurd history tests, or as in the present through voter id laws or by gerrymandering of voting districts. The paragraph in the IHRA definition refers to denying Jews the right to self determination by claiming Israel is a racist endeavor. Two points here: if Israel is the collective state of the Jews then we are not talking about self-determination but policies set by some number of Jews and Israel is a racist endeavor in that only those who are racially qualified may become citizens and others may not.

    • Applying double standards by requiring of Blacks behavior not expected or demanded of other people such as submission to stop and frisk policies.

    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antiblackness (e.g., unhinged accusations of rape or use of Aunt Jemima or Little Black Sambo) to characterize Blacks.

    • The next IHRA paragraph prohibits drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, but since Gaza resembles a mega Warsaw ghetto I’m not sure why this is not simply an observation.

    •Profiling Blacks as lawbreakers by targeting them in ‘random’ traffic stops.

    •Failure to provide Black communities with decent infrastructure similar to that enjoyed by nearby white communities (Flint water).

    •Using Blacks purely for financial gain such as for medical experiments deemed too risky for the general public, or incarcerating a vastly disproportionate number of Blacks in for profit private prisons.

    Of course, Blacks are not the only group facing discrimination. Hispanics, Native Americans and others may wish to get into this speech inhibiting game. Then they too can decide how and for what they may be criticized. Or we could prohibit racism against any subgroup by defining racism as Unesco has, as “a theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally, racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.”

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/16/antisemitism-and-antiblackness
    | Likes manofIslam liked this post


  27. Hide
Page 2 of 8 First 1 2 3 4 ... Last
Hey there! The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Where would you visit in the middle east?
    By EgyptPrincess in forum General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-12-2016, 07:41 PM
  2. Chaos in Middle East
    By ILuvAllah in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2012, 12:09 AM
  3. The Middle East war, who is heating it up?
    By User2024 in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-07-2011, 06:09 PM
  4. New Middle East????
    By IbnAbdulHakim in forum World Affairs
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-09-2006, 06:19 AM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2006, 05:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create