[copy]
History is written by the victors - or is it? The ancient history of the Jewish people seems to me to have a very important twist. As I have written, Jewish history tells us that when King David conquered Jebus and made it his capital Jerusalem, he conciliated with a cult from Mount Zion - and the question is, did he rule them or did they rule him? The latter seems more plausible to me if we are to consider the behaviour of the most powerful Jews in history - the Zionists. How many Australians understand what being a Zionist actually means - I had no idea until I researched their history provoked by the Nazi methods of new Israel in their demand for someone else's land - supposedly to regain their ancient glory? Or supremacy as their God commanded them? In my simple terms, I would say that the Zionists' actions are the counterpart of history's worst exponents of the policy of absolute brutality to achieve a certain goal and claim that "the end justifies the means". Fair dinkum. To follow this policy, history seems to record that the aggressor first tests the weakness of the first opposition before they exercise their intentions. That certainly looks like the case in Palestine. After my Naval service I gained employment by an Oil Company who sent me to Bahrein to learn a certain type of fractionation. I found the people very friendly and if there was to be any criticism, it would be that the education of the most ordinary citizens left a lot to be desired. They were peaceful in the extreme and happy with their society and especially with their religious beliefs. The latter seemed to be "live and let live". They were not terrorists - they were just cursed with land and resources that others demanded. We should not underestimate the ultimate disasters that the Zionist invasion of Arab territory must eventually cause. Well might we say that life began in Mesopotamia!
NE OUBLIE.
Posted by Ernest William at 9:44 PM
6 comments:
IDHolm said...
G'day Ern,
.. not too shabby. Looks like someone offers you 2.54cm, you take the whole 1.609km. Well done, and now a 2nd welcome - to blog ownership.
March 7, 2009 4:51 AM
IDHolm said...
G'day again.
.. since you mention "King David," I'm supposing you know about a pivotal event leading up to the arguably illegal 'establishment' of 'modern' Israel, namely the The King David Hotel bombing, which was carried out on 22 July 1946 and *murdered* 91 people and left 46 more injured. Why is this bloody criminal act so remarkable, why mention it now? Well, apart from the fact that the KD-bombing was one of, if not the actual first example of modern-day terrorism, in the background to a TV report on the recent Clinton-Net'nYahoo meeting was the motive "KD." Looked like pretty disgusting hubris to me.
March 7, 2009 5:29 AM
orana gelar said...
Welcome to the blogosphere, Ern G.
March 7, 2009 6:31 PM
Ernest William said...
G'day ID. Apparently I have made a faux pas? I have only the wish to occupy the 2.54 cms that I thought I was offered. I don't understand what is meant by "author" "blogger" or "blog ownership". I still don't understand what a blog is - it gave birth sometime while I was otherwise occupied - I think.Unfortunately I have more problems than I thought. Even my Wife is having trouble explaining the computer to me. I guess that I am just not computer literate because I have difficulty absorbing all of the ways of this forum - and there seems to be many. I have no doubt that "bloggers" understand and enjoy the extraordinary amount of available avenues? And I enjoy the ability to say what I think and would like to continue to do so. I am afraid that my Naval service and my years of shiftwork trained me with only the ability to think and reason. So with respect, I would like to continue just commenting and enjoining in debate if that is okay?
Cheers Ern G.
March 7, 2009 8:13 PM
Ernest William said...
G'day again ID. Yes I did know about the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel which was only part of the continuing "terrorist sabotage" that the Zionists used to intimidate the war-weary British and their mandate. As I understand it, when the Brits completed their mandate the Zionists immediately unilaterally declared that they were the State of Israel. I believe that only the Americans accepted them, and that doesn't surprise me. The reason that I indulged myself with some history of the Jews; Hebrews and Zionists et al was because I wondered where they got the idea that they were entitled to the Palestinian land. In my simple mind I thought they were claiming that, subsequent to the holocaust, the world owed them a living - preposterous. After research, I have satisfied myself that they have no such right and their abhorrent treatment by the Nazis has been an excuse for pity, even by the relatives of the victims. The victims have been immortalised far more than the 20 million Russians who perished. They are not the only people; class; religion or race in history that have been brutally treated and their actions in the Middle East only demonstrates that they are quite capable of the same crimes. I notice ID that many scholars and Churchmen are now putting their credibility on the line to challenge the holocaust, not that it didn't happen, but that there were more than the Jews who suffered in the same way and in the same time and for the same reason. I believe that. The irony is that the Zionist cult and its message from their God, demands that they completely wipe out certain races - even their animals. I find their attitude an insult to the modern world and their treatment of the Arabs a crime against humanity. I would like to have more to say on this subject in the future.
Cheers Ern G.
March 7, 2009 8:42 PM
Ernest William said...
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22108.htm
"As The Arabs See The Jews".
By His Majesty King Abdullah printed in the American Magazine November 1947. This is an amazing prediction of the future actions of the Zionists but was ignored by the powers that be. It is a lengthy article but well worth a read. I quote just the first paras of this brilliant man: "I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support. So many billions of words have been writtn about Palestine - perhaps more than on any other subject in history - that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs. We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side. So America is the "pinnacle of freedom"?
NE OUBLIE.
March 7, 2009 9:09 PM
[headline article as originally published by Ernest William ]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
G'day, Ernest William, I understand that you search for the true answer to the question: Where did they [Zionists] get the idea that they are entitled to the Palestinian land?
ReplyDeleteI've trod that path as well, and, whilst I do not feel that I've arrived at the truth as yet, I can share a few observations I've made along the way.
First, as is usually the case with so many questions, I've come to see that the true answer is likely to reflect a high degree of complexity. I perceive a risk in oversimplification. It is a hazard, a trap to be avoided.
I think we'll find multiple factors have driven [are driving] multiple actors in various directions, all of which end up at that claimed 'entitlement'.
I see it as unlikely that the truth is, for example, simply that all Jews (or even that all Zionists) believe they have an 'entitlement' on the basis of belief in their own 'supremacy as their God commanded them'.
I would reckon on some individual and small groups of Jews (both Zionist and otherwise) doing that, but not all Jews.
No doubt we can clearly observe that some have [do] misunderstand the notion of being a 'Chosen People' and thereby see it in an ethnocentric way. Indeed, some, but not all, have claimed [do claim] that being 'chosen' they must thus be 'supreme' in some imagined (and bigoted) nationalistic pecking order. We can see claims of that kind anyday on a JPost Talkback thread.
In this respect these people are just like ethnic nationalist bigots the world over. Indeed, I've noticed that many of them taking that line on JPost Talkback are Americans, some of them 'Christian-Zionists.'
I think we'll find there are minorities within every population who think themselves 'chosen', and sometimes they're not minorities. Consider the number of Christians who believe in Supersessionism, thinking that they, as followers of Jesus, are now 'God's chosen people' and heirs to 'God's promises' to Abraham.
So, yes, there will be some who see themselves as supreme as a consequence of believing that they have been 'chosen' but let's not make the mistake of overlooking the many Jews who recognise 'correctly' (at least in line with their own dogma) what 'chosenness' entails.
You see, according to their dogma being chosen to be in a 'covenant with God' places responsibilities upon them and does not entail exclusive rewards for Jews. So, I think it would be a mistake to conclude that all Jews base their claim of 'entitlement' to 'Eretz Yisrael' upon their claim to 'chosenness.
There would be some Jews, and many Zionists basing their claim to 'Eretz Yisrael' on political Zionism, rather than religious Zionism. Let's not overlook the secular start that Zionism had. Religious Zionism plays a significant role in Israeli political life today, but it was secular Zionism that sought and succeeded in the creation of the modern State of Israel.
Ern, at present I'm searching for the seeds of political Zionism in the conditions of the shtetls of the Pale of Settlement and the ghettos of many European cities during the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm looking particularly closely at what effects stem from the wave of Slavophile nationalism in the 1870s. Have you examined this history?
ReplyDeleteYeah! "It is not simple" ...
ReplyDelete.. one may nuance until the cows come home ...
.. but what's needed first, foremost and fastest, is effectiveness
-=*=-
G'day orana gelar,
.. all of the above, and responsibility where it's due!
I understand that throwing accusations around willy-nilly, seeking to blame etc. may not be too productive, and trying to over-simplify complex problems can and usually does attract (intimidatory!) jeers.
But - and it's a VERY BIG but: in the case of some group claiming exclusivity, using that ('hiding behind,' in the current parlance), to go on to murder; that murder then enabling theft, pillage, looting, plunder and rapine - as has been the case in and around so-called 'modern' Israel now for 60+ long and bloody years, anything that might work to stop those dreadful injustices has to be tried - and yes, that can include blaming, accusing - and simplification.
Always and of course IMHO, it works like this: they (some group; who cares who) claims some special 'excuse,' here exclusivity, to wit: "God made me do it!" - We heard it from Bush2; we hear it from *some* Jews, and/or *some* Zionists, who may simultaneously be the same bad persons/people.
In the first instance, it may only have been 'lip-music' - until that is, the rhetoric was translated into action - gruesome actions, in the cases of both Bush2 and *some* Jew/Zionists, the latter group far too often getting ultra-over-sensitive whatever one terms them, a sure sign of Minderwertigkeitskomplexe. (Apropos, I have in the recent past tried I/J/Z-plex, but then (Occam's Razor) settled on 'good' old plain "Jews."[1])
Having said all of that, then comes the next 'but' - and this time it's a VERY IMPORTANT but: one of the claims 'they' (who cares who) make, is that so-called 'modern' Israel is not just a democracy, but it's also a) the only democracy in the ME (who could care less), but infinitely worse, it's only a democracy by, of and for Jews. Get it yet? No? (Actually, perhaps, even obviously not...)
A 'democracy' by Jews, of Jews and for Jews means that whatever that 'democracy' does, it does truly reflect on *the working majority* of Jews, since if there was a working majority *against* the killing, they would long have stopped their foul and utterly criminal mass-murdering of (mainly) hapless Palestinians, this murder predicated on stealing (mostly) Palestinian land and water.
Fazit: It really does come down to a problem by, of and for ALL JEWS!
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Jew n. 1 person of Hebrew descent or whose religion is Judaism. 2 slang offens. miserly person. [Greek ioudaios]
Usage The stereotype conveyed in sense 2 is deeply offensive. It arose from historical associations of Jews as moneylenders in medieval England. [POD]
In the search for the seeds of political Zionism, I've read Theodor Herzl's works.
ReplyDeleteThere is evidence of tendancy toward Nationalism in his membership as a young man of a Burschenschaft association.
He then appears, as evidenced in his diary entries, to have been primarily motivated to Zionism by fear of what he saw when working as the Paris-based correspondent for Neue Freie Presse. He went on to write Der Judenstaat, and a few years later he was the leading spokesman for Zionism.
Some of his writing suggests Herzl saw futility in a 'mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews [into Palestine].'
Herzl certainly did concentrate his efforts on securing official legal sanction from the Ottoman authorities. It was others who led efforts to continue infiltrating.
Judging by the succession from first to second Presidents of the Zionist Organisation, from Herzl to David Wolffsohn, it looks likely there was some strengthening of influence by followers of Rabbi Dr. Isaac Rülf (who had died by the time of this transition in power with the ZO).
Wolffsohn had been Rülf's student and protege, and Rülf had been jealous of Herzl's appointment as the ZO's first President.
Understand the psychology of Rülf, and the worldview formed from it and then taken up by his followers, and we may go some way forward, I think, in our search for the true answer to the question: Where did they [Zionists] get the idea that they are entitled to the Palestinian land?
any fool can 'feel' entitled to ...
ReplyDelete.. almost anything; but exactly how and when ...
.. did it become 'acceptable' to thieve-by-mass-murder?
-=*=-
G'day orana gelar,
always with all due respect, and 'only' IMHO of course, but 'accepted' it seems to have become - since until now, no-one has been able to mount an effective countervailing campaign to stop it, where 'it' is the utterly offensive IDF's almost continual mass-murder to enable theft, pillage, looting, plunder and rapine (yeah, yeah; looping as usual.)
Either we have a 'society based on (just!) law' or we don't, and since that appears *not* to be the case, then all who hypocritically claim that we do should shut their lying mouths - then wash them out with soap.
When we discuss the origin and mechanics of any Zionist entitlement *feeling*, I think (following Lakoff), that we should make it clear that however someone *feels* towards something, any and all *actions* should be both morally and legally correct. If this is not the case - and I assert that it is both immoral and illegal of the I/J/Z-plex to be murdering Palestinians in order to steal Palestinian land and water - then also, we should point out that only the worst, hardened and mentally-crippled criminals could perpetrate such foul outrages, that all those who provide any support are accessories and/or apologists to crimes of the Nuremberg scale.
-=*=-
Fazit: - and cutting a long story very short, exactly what would be wrong, in the days of so-called 'free markets,' of "business is business" Jews trying to buy bits of Palestine, instead of murdering to steal them?
And if the Palestinians just don't wish to sell, surely that's their (g*d given!) right?
So, to sum up my view:
ReplyDeletea) Herzl's aim was reasonable (and moral, IMHO), as he envisioned buying the land from Arabs in Palestine. He did not foresee conflict, and I think that's because he was contemplating an approach that involved buying land in Palestine (for a fair price).
b) Rülf's followers seem to have had a different view on 'means and ends' than Herzl probably did, and the took leadership of the ZO. They generally supported an infiltration strategy (i.e. steal the land in Palestine piece by piece).
c) The militant 'Wolf' Jabotinsky (and, btw, calling yourself 'Wolf" would seem to me to indicate a psychopathology) clearly held a different view on 'means and ends' than Herzl did. He started the Revisionist Zionist movement and was an advocate of a Bush-like 'bring-it-on' strategy (i.e. murder anyone who put up a resistance to their land being stolen).
Criminal Zionism.
ReplyDeleteWhereas Tzu espoused "know your enemy," there's only so far I'm prepared to go towards 'understanding' murdering criminality; for me, the absolute highest priority is to stop the bloody, thieving murdering, with 'understanding' a distant and optional luxury.
Wiki has an entry for Revisionist Zionism, and I have a few mentions of Jabotinsky in my recent archive; here's an extract from one:
February 09, 2009
A Short History of the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict: Past Is Prologue
by Stephen Lendman
«In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel writes:
Zionism seeks "the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militaralized and aggressive state. (It) cut Jews off from (their) history and led to a fateful identity of interests with antisemitism (becoming) the only thing that united them. (It) fell into the ways of imperialist expansion and militarism, and showed signs of the fascist malignancy."
If you accept "the idea of a Jewish state," you mix its twin notions of "particularism (and) exceptionalism (that are) the actual bane of Judaism (and give) racism an objective, enduring, institutionalized and obdurate character." It turns Israel "into a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses," and consider three of its former prime ministers. Menachem Begin (1977 - 83), Yitzhak Shamir (1983 - 84 and 1986 - 92), and Ariel Sharon (2001 - 06) were former terrorists who dispelled the illusion of Israeli democracy, morality, and respect for human rights. Kovel's conclusion: "the world would be a far better place without (the corrosive effects of) Zionism."»
[globalresearch/Lendman]
Highly recommended.
Thanks for the link, IDH. I agree with you on the absolute highest priority, but not that understanding is a luxury. That's why I so often seek to understand.
ReplyDeleteI see Kovel identifies a root: Tribalism (in its second sense, as related to ethnocentrism and the ideology of nationalism).
That's a lead I'll follow.
To each his/her own, and better so. If we (you'n I, and our mates) strive to do our best (we do!) - then each should do what they're best at - and as long as we're all 'pulling in the same direction' (we are!) - then we increase the chance of success - against these miserable criminals stuffing things up so 'right-royally' - which translates, of course, to wrongly. Like the US most places (go home!), and Israel as they murder to steal - gotta stop the villains; gotta restore our democracies, we do it by exposing the truth.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was worth following ...
ReplyDeleteIn an interview with Lorna Tychostup, Kovel says:
"In my view, and the view of many people across the world (though not the United States), the Zionist project has markedly accentuated the tribal or chauvinistic side of Jewish identity. How could it be otherwise once this hitherto oppressed people became a nation of conquerers? This does not dispose of the contradiction observed above, but it does rearrange the terms of universality and tribalism. Or rather, it combines them into the basic Zionist notion that Israel would be a democratic state for the Jewish people."
"The terms are combined but in a definite hierarchy, in which the universal part--democracy-coexists with yet is subordinated to the tribal part, that the Jews are to have special status within the state of Israel. The tribal side is powerfully institutionalized, as in the right of return granting automatic citizenship to anyone with a Jewish grandmother, or by reserving the vast bulk of the better land for Jews. And in real practice it almost always trumps the universalist impulse, as the Palestinians, who have precisely been denied these very rights, will freely attest."
"This arrangement, which is at the heart of Zionism, creates a terrible contradiction that eats away at the soul and conscience of the Jewish people. The problem is that you can't have a democratic state for just one people while excluding the others. It is just a logical impossibility. The notion of democracy derives from universal ideals based on universal human rights; it cannot exist where there is a systematic inequality, and all the more so when these 'others' are those who have been dispossessed by Zionism."
I also listened to his interview with Doug Henwood and found that worthwhile.
The criminal-Zionist project has failed - how could it be otherwise?
ReplyDeleteAny enterprise based on murdering-theft could only ever 'prosper' for as long as the reality could be kept hidden - which was only ever as long as the Zionists could control the opinion-makers and the opinion-conduits.
The opinion-makers include the professional propagandists - but also the politicians, pretty-well globally.
There have always been objectors, those who somehow could see through the spin - but those objectors were more or less silenced: largely by intimidation; by "Anti-Semitic!" allegations, or the more extreme "Self-Hater!" horror, say.
The opinion-conduits are the MSM (including publicly financed broadcasters), now exposed as venal and corrupt transmitters and amplifiers of filthy Zionist lies.
The secret is out; the actual perpetrators - a few, some, a significant number of the I/J/Z-plex; Israelis &/ Jewish &/ Zionists, have created an outpost, they'd like to call it a country, but - based on murder and theft as it is - it is actually an illegitimate abomination engaged in ever-more illegal actions, aggressive invasions, massacres, aka crimes of the Nuremberg class.
I mentioned intimidation, what do they threaten, one wonders, to coerce sooo many? Why are these so many coerced, so cowardly-weak?
The Zionist-perpetrators - a few, some, quite obviously a significant number - blacken the reputation of every other Jew on the planet (this is a *fact*, for if a significant number of *good* Jews ever got off their bums long enough to effectively oppose these crooks - well, work it out for yourself.)
The Zionist-perpetrators have corrupted our politicians too - they drag what we might otherwise assess as decent people down into their criminal depths - see how US presidential candidates, then as presidents if/when they make it - all grovel before the ghastly 'Israel lobby.'
And as we see, daily through our TVs, one after another - significant opinion-makers come out as apologists, significant opinion-conduits relay and amplify the pro-Zionist, criminal propaganda.
But we truth seekers who care to look have seen through it all.
The criminal-Zionist Israel is dead and in free-fall.
Yeah; 3 in a row - so wot??!
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult for me to express my anger, I just get sooo frustrated.
As I was growing up, I learned that to lie, cheat, steal - or kill - were bad things, done by bad people, and that to do any of those things would most likely get one into trouble - if not gaol, even for ever (murder.)
What then of the average Israeli?
S/he does all of these things - or has some of them done for him/her - almost on a daily basis, 60+years long now - and no end in sight (except of course, for the free-fall in my previous).
Forget no cops, that the US and Israel have crippled the UN, etc..
Q: what does that criminality do to the Israelis' humanity?
A: Humanity? - What humanity? (Ah, ha ha ha!)
(As if it were somehow funny.)
(Try it on the Gazans, say.)
G'day ID & Orana,
ReplyDeleteIMHO we are not too far apart - the only distance between us is the depth of the investigations that we are entering into.
The more I do this - while fascinated - I feel that I am missing the major point - that is the burgeoning Nazism by the Zionists of new Israel.
I am trying to settle in my own mind the positives and the opinions, beginning with the issue that fortunately began our debate.
The so-called new Israel has no right to call itself that by the patronage of the US and their power in the UN.
Apparently no one has learned from the League of Nations and Woodrow Wilson who the French then stated that he really thought he was Jesus Christ.
a) So, I am satisfied to argue with anyone regarding the false Zionist claim to the Arab territories/lands that the Zionists are illegally commondeering on either modern or ancient history or legal or moral grounds. There is just no "right" in that Zionist propaganda.
b) I believe in the intent and spirit of the UN but must concede that it's power has been sadly downsized I believe, since the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.
c) I notice the identical political moves of the US and the Zionists in their focus as to foreign policies which are a sham to say the least.
d) I believe that the growing power of the US since the beginning of the 20th century has entirely been due to their desire for war, its profits and its dominating influence. While at the same time claiming that God is with them!!!
e) The first step in curtailing the US unlimited power to do as it likes, would be to restore freedom and government control of Palestine to the Palestinians. The Jewish people who want to live in that land would have every right to do so and to pray as they wish, even as the Muslims and Christians would be doing alongside them.
The disgraceful and unforgiveable behaviour of the Zionist military over the last 40+ years has become too much, even for the pacifists.
The Zionists are the modern Warlocks - and they need to be treated as such.
The Military/Corporate of America has always been in favor of war and has slowly become the enemy of world peace since WW 2 - being the only combatant that made a profit and whose mainland suffered no abuse.
NE OUBLIE.
Good of you, Ern, to turn our attention at this point to US patronage of Israel, and involved in that is US right wing support for the 'Jabotinsk' strain of Zionism.
ReplyDeleteClearly, that US patronage figures in the answer to the question: 'Where did they [Zionists] get the idea that they are entitled to the Palestinian land?'
They might not have got the idea at first from US sources, but they clearly went on to heavily rely on US enforcement of their assumed 'entitlement'.
The UK- and US-backing of Zionist colonisation of the Middle East after World War I clearly had a major Anglo-American strategic motivation relating to oil and [at that time] British imperial security.
Recall that oil was discovered in Iran in 1908 and Iraq after WWI. Also that SOCAL discovered oil in Bahrain in 1932, and obtained a concession in Saudi Arabia in 1933.
The US still backs the non-Herzlian Zionism we see today, and it does so because it serves the interests of its 'imperial security' (i.e. greedy grab for all the strategic energy resources - aka power - it can lay its hands on).
So, to re-cap what I'm putting up as parts of a complex answer to your question, Ern, I see:
1. Jewish identity starting with a balance between particularism and universalism, but with Jews persecuted over ages, primarily by Christians (who adhere to a particularistic teaching of salvation), the balance tilting toward particularism over universalism.
2. Jewish particularism, under pressure from the right (i.e. conservatism) in the form of European imperialism, and then the various nationalisms (aka tribalism), giving rise to a Jewish nationalism, named 'Zionism'.
3. Zionism rapidly becoming more agressive, and increasingly a right wing project encouraged by American exceptionalists (who were paranoid about the 'godless' Socialists/Communists), accentuating the tribal/chauvinistic side of Jewish identity (trumping any universalist impulse), and resulting in a highly militaralised and aggressive Zionist state which dispossess the Palestinians (with some Zionists going so far as trying to 'wipe them from the page of history', so to speak).
4. American (primarily but not wholly right wing) reinforcing of a highly militaralised and aggressive Zionist state which dispossess the Palestinians because it has the effect of a) generating markets its MIC, and b)providing an 'incubator' for MIC innovations [and note the output of the Israeli hi-tech arm of the MIC].
Whoops! Lazy typing in point 4. I meant:
ReplyDelete. American (primarily but not wholly right wing) reinforcing of a highly militaralised and aggressive Zionist state which dispossess the Palestinians because it has the effect of a) generating markets for its MIC, and b) providing an 'incubator' for MIC innovations [and note the output of the Israeli hi-tech arm of the MIC].
On the matter of the US and Israel - Glenn Greenwald on the Charles Freeman controversy.
ReplyDeleteFollow the internal links for some interesting material, such as these Freeman views:
Finally, let me allude briefly to the issue of Israel, a country that has yet to be accepted as part of the Middle East and whose inability to find peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs is the driving factor in the region's radicalization and anti-Americanism.
The talented European settlers who formed the state of Israel endowed it with substantial intellectual and technological superiority over any other society in the Middle East. The dynamism of Israel's immigrant culture and the generous help of the Jewish Diaspora rapidly gave Israel a standard of living equivalent to that of European countries. For fifty years Israel has enjoyed military superiority in its region. Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace.
For almost forty years, Israel has had land beyond its previously established borders to trade for peace. It has been unable to make this exchange except when a deal was crafted for it by the United States, imposed on it by American pressure, and sustained at American taxpayer expense. For the past half decade Israel has enjoyed carte blanche from the United States to experiment with any policy it favored to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors, including most recently its efforts to bomb Lebanon into peaceful coexistence with it and to smother Palestinian democracy in its cradle.
The suspension of the independent exercise of American judgment about what best serves our interests as well as those of Israelis and Arabs has caused the Arabs to lose confidence in the United States as a peace partner. To their credit, they have therefore stepped forward with their own plan for a comprehensive peace. By sad contrast, the American decision to let Israel call the shots in the Middle East has revealed how frightened Israelis now are of their Arab neighbors and how reluctant this fear has made them to risk respectful coexistence with the other peoples of their region. The results of the experiment are in: left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them, and enrage those who are not.
Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess. Israel and the Palestinians, in particular, are caught up in an endless cycle of reprisal and retaliation that guarantees the perpetuation of conflict in which levels of mutual atrocities continue to escalate. As a result, each generation of Israelis and Palestinians has accumulated new reasons to loathe the behavior of the other, and each generation of Arabs has detested Israel with more passion than its predecessor. This is not how peace is made. Here, too, a break with the past and a change in course are clearly in order.
And GG:
It's destructive enough to artificially limit debate on a matter as consequential as U.S. policy towards Israel. We've been doing that for many years now. But it's so much worse that the people who have been defining and dictating those limits are themselves extremists in every sense of that word when it comes to Israel and U.S. policy towards that country. Their demands that no distinctions be recognized between Israeli and Americans interests have been uniquely destructive for the U.S. Few things are more urgent than an expansion of the debate over U.S. policy in this area, which is exactly why this radical lynch mob is swarming with such intensity to destroy Freeman's reputation and fortify the limitations on our debates which, for so long, they have thuggishly enforced. If someone like Freeman can occupy a position like Chair of the National Intelligence Council -- handpicked by Obama's DNI, an Admiral -- the taboos they are so desperate to maintain will erode just that much further.
That Freeman was appointed is good, but will he be listened to?
Geeze! Such LOOONG words! You doin' that jus'ter c'nfuse me? ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd here am I, trying to tread the tightrope between needlessly excess complexity and trivialising over-simplification...
Agreed that the US and Israel have entered into an incestuous and symbiotic (sick!) relationship, for your reasons and possibly/probably more; it's why I sometimes write USrael, and if I'm considering their ultra-crimes, then U-SS-rael.
(After me: "It's all about murder for oil (land and water), it's all about murder for oil (land and water), it's ...")
But (there's almost always some but - even if one has to scratch around for one); if we wish to discuss "assumed 'entitlement'," could we add some appropriate qualifier, like 'unjustified,' or 'uncivilised,' or 'primitive,' or even 'Neanderthal,' say? Barbaric? Just keeping Lakoff's framing in mind, mind...
That Freeman was appointed is good indeed.
ReplyDeleteApols for so many loooong words.
To me: "It's all about power, it's all about power, it's ... ."
We are charting a similar track.
How about: "Power corrupts," or "The corrupt have usurped power," or "Corrupted power = rip-offs (it's all about murder for oil (land and water), it's ...),"
ReplyDelete.. and yes, it is basically the same track - even *exactly* the same (power, corrupt, theft, murder) track.
I know from discussions withmy father that there is a certain generation of people who believed the Leon Uris' "Trinity" version of events that have become completely disillusioned with the modern concept of Israel,in that actions that can be perceived to have any nobility have been perpetrated in order to protect this land.
ReplyDeleteOn reflection,it's probably good that you folks have bastardised the Webdiary name. People can refer back the original and see that none of the rascist bile published on this website will appear in a place that respects every human as equal.
As a hoarder I keep,tucked away from view,the "Kike" stuff that was around in my grandfather's time. The stuff I've been reading here belongs in the same basket.
That this site bears the name Webdiary, as if in pretense of being a franchise of the Australian original, while presenting the unashamedly racsist (c'mon guys, read what you've written, and if you can't see it that's your problem) points of view herein suggest that you folk are a demographic subset of a long-dead generation who resented the Jew who was loaning you money on which to stay alive.
Richard Tonkin, around the time I first registered at WD you made an accusation that
ReplyDeletesome people were being disrespectful of the Jewish people. A commenter suggested that such an accusation required evidence to back it. You did not provide such evidence. Perhaps you would like to provide evidence to back
the charges you have made here - names of people responsible and the comments they have made to which you are referring and your reasons for considering them as racist.
As to your "none of the rascist[sic] bile published on this website will appear in a place that respects every human as equal", I direct you to many comments made by Alan Curran that I consider to be racist bile - and have
raised with Fiona, that have been published by WD without comment.
If you are prepared to provide the information above, then perhaps we could discuss further issues pertaining to the editorial policy of WD.
G'day Mr. Tonkin,
ReplyDelete.. as you appear to have overlooked a few things, kindly allow me to explain a couple of them:
1) As the blog name '_libre' has it, in here all are free - as you are too, unless/until it is determined that you have sufficiently offended.
2) If you look at the blog's disclaimer, you will see that it has *no* pretensions to be any franchise of anything, as you so blithely allege.
On a specific point, you may well be 'up to speed' on some Irish 'troubles' - but that is 101% off-topic for this thread, which has to do with an assortment of people calling themselves Israeli, Jews and or Zionists - depending, it seems on which way the wind is currently blowing - across Siberia (this, or last week not known.) As to race, this group partly self-defines itself in racist terms (i.e. having a Jewish grandmother is a free-pass to immigration.) One important thing that we can say about this group of people is that they are trying to forcibly expel any they class as 'other' from land considered by many (yes, including me) - to be illegally occupied; and these 'other' they also define in racist terms (i.e. Arabs). It would seem that one could exercise extreme care as to what one says about race - inside this topic, inside this thread. As if attempting forcible expulsion of the prior - some would say still - legal owners from essentially their own land wasn't quite bad enough, they (these same illegal occupiers, aka Jews) keep attacking - mass-murdering - their neighbours, referring to such neighbours using such charming terms as 'non-people.' (Ref. not available, but analogue.)
GW has asked you quite nicely to 'do the right thing' and justify yourself. I now await your response.
So. You may contribute constructively (chapter and verse), instead of hurling (unkind!) abstract accusations... and try to keep in mind:
"Here, life is beautiful..."
Q. What do you tag as "racist" within any of the points I have made, Richard Tonkin?
ReplyDeletePlease be very specific in your reply, rather than just flinging more slanderous stereotyping of people making comments here.
I most certainly am not a racist and I am deeply offended by your false accusation.
You, on the other hand, have actually lent support to racists if you have published the racist anti-Arab comments of that person calling himself "Alan Curran" on your webdiary. I have seen comments by "Alan Curran" calling for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. I have also seen comments by "Alan Curran" effectively calling for the extermination of all Arabs. He's clearly a racist, and you've supported him.
Richard Tonkin,
ReplyDeletesadly, Webdiary has become a disgrace.
A large part of the reason for this has to do with the WD management of which you are a part.
I have read comments on Webdiary which have made me boil, putrid things from Eliot Ramsey and Alan Curran and Geoff Pahoff who are provocateurs of the vilest order. I have also read Editorial comments which are grossly unfair to some and heavily biased to favour others.
Yet I didn't comment on any of these things because I didn't want to get drawn again into the exercise in futility which neo-Webdiary has become.
P.S. I am indeed sorry that Margo's fine legacy has been so completely vandalized and tarnished.
Observation: Richard Tonkin chose to use a pejorative ethnic slur (i.e. that 'K'-word) in his comment on this blog.
ReplyDeleteObservation 2: Richard Tonkin was the first to ever use that pejorative ethnic slur in any comment on this blog.
Question: Did Richard Tonkin deliberately do that, drop that offensive term here, in order to ensure that pejorative ethnic slurs become associated with this blog in search engine results?
That might be a step too sophisticated for such a rube, but this is pretty tricky: "a demographic subset of a long-dead generation who resented the Jew who was loaning you money on which to stay alive." [My emphasis]
ReplyDeleteQ: Anyone here know a person whose life was saved by being loaned money by Jews?
Q to Mr. Tonkin: Who is the 'you' you wrote about/addressed?
G'day Richard,
ReplyDeleteI believe your contribution above is sad because you have demonstrated your biases even as you accuse others of having them.
I have enjoyed WD for some years and to my best ability I have abided by the Charter. I have had full posts refused, others censored and yet in each case I have endeavoured to stay within the legal limits and reasonable replies to objectionable material.
However, as I see it now, when there is a subject of real emotion (as evidenced by the number of posts on Gaza) the very broad application of the caveats attached to the Charter make genuine debate almost impossible.
Excuse my complaints Richard but I'll give you a few. When I addressed my post to "Cuz" - a reflection not originated by me, it was deleted.
As you are well aware, by changing or removing certain words you can change the entire intention of the sentence if not the whole paragraph itself.
I once wrote that my Mother's first husband was Jewish and my two eldest half-brothers who were produced by that marriage served in the ninth and sixth divisions in the Middle East and New Guinea. This was not allowed to be printed and I wondered why. Was it because my anti-Zionist attitude may have been more respected then?
I took some severe criticism on the chin because I did not want to lose access to what began as a fine and truly free forum.
No one appreciated the work of the volunteers more than I did but, I believe that the false claim of being fair about the Gaza Media Statement created more bias against the critics of Zionism rather than those who had brought the international name of decent Jews into disrepute.
Just one more thing Richard - would you have allowed me to have this printed..."...points of view herein suggest that you folk are a demographic subset of a long-dead generation who resented the Jew who was loaning you money on which to stay alive?"
That is a gross insult to my family and my Scottish and Irish ancestors but then I guess you meant it that way.
In any case it only enforces the long held "subset of a long-dead generation" that where there is money, like the unprincipled money lenders - there is a Jew.
It only serves to show how your bias really works against the innocent people you pretend to defend.
NE OUBLIE.
More on the Freeman story:
ReplyDeleteRay McGovern;
Charles Freeman.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
...
I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
Conquest - War - Famine - Death.
ReplyDeleteLike the Climate Change and the World Financial downturn, the US and the Zionists of so-called new Israel must be faced with urgency. But how?
Again the good old US of A is the problem and no nation or even the UN is prepared to bring them to task.
The history of the Zionists, even back to the days when they were a cult on Mount Zion, is not a pretty one. When David conquered Canaan he opened a new world for these strange heartless and aggressive race of people.
There is little difference in their objective of subjugating the world than there was by Hitler.
The media controlled by the powers that be have gone silent on the genocide in Gaza; the stated new policy of further ethnic cleansing by the new Zionist government and even the sad mosquito bites of the home-made "rockets" from the people who own the targeted land.
Too many have conveniently forgotten that whatever body is representing the Arab owners of Palestine, they are defending their country - not the terrorist Zionists.
So who stated that the Palestinian resistance fighters were terrorists? The US of course. Is it because they need these pseudo-westerners to de-stabilize the Middle East for their own purposes?
I just have a feeling that if people like us are prepared to speak out against crimes against humanity, no matter whether a religion's God or the almighty US says it is OK - some will hear us.
Besides the Zionists not being a true example of Judaism; and that they are motivated by the same principles of a master race as were the Nazis; and that they have committed genocide and mass murder to conquer and occupy lands belonging to a peaceful people - the only Jews who will suffer are those outside of this false Israel, who are automatically considered as part of the criminal Zionists. Guilt by association?
Will this brutality become another holocaust - with different victims?
The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. And that includes the international Jews who may suffer as a result of this tragedy.
NE OUBLIE.
Two days later and still no sign of Richard Tonkin responding to the questions and challenges put to him. I am not surprised and he has not set a precedent for the WD team on making allegations and not backing them up.
ReplyDeleteI will repost an extract from the Charles Freeman piece above:
The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.
This is the kind of behaviour that WD has aided and abetted and, at times, engaged in. And appears determined to continue. I find such behaviour contemptible.
G'day Bob,
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that Richard Tonkin hasn't answered the challenges. I was of the opinion that he was a gutsy individual but, perhaps he doesn't want to take part in this forum.
I like your quotations of Charles Freeman. If I tried to put them into WD they would be refused.
It is all too apparent that the editors are too engrossed in protecting the sentiments and sensibilities of chosen people. In other words, printing only that which is acceptible to their own opinions and beliefs.
One contributor who I respect is Anthony Nolan and I like to quote a little of what he wrote in WD to the vile-mouthed Alan Curren (one of the chosen people).
"Freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. It allows for the contest of ideas. When it is exercised rationally and follows civil rules then freedom of speech is the process by which people arrive at informed views.
Not allowing such speech puts you in the camp of the anti-democratic." How true.
My Wife and I were in a quandry at to what to do about the unfair and restrictive treatment of my posts to WD.
In the final analysis, my attempts to keep "on-topic"; provide sources; abide with the Charter; try to spell properly; not to take up too much of their time - but generally being anti-Zionist has wearied us and left the intent of my words dispirited to say the least.
So - post to Webdiary-crippled.blogspot.com/ plus webdiary.com.au/ plus Your Democracy?
OR - pick just one to post to all the time?
My Navy training taught me to always go through the proper channels but - what are they here?
Both Webdiary-crippled.blogspot.com/ and yourdemocracy.net.au/ have so far printed my posts irrespective of spelling; grammar; emotion; religious or political views.
I can't ask for more than that.
NE OUBLIE.
G'day Ern, Anthony is spot on. Not only is stifling free speech anti-democratic but it can lead to the perpetrating of injustices and suffering. Then it does, in Charles Freeman's words "plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency". On the case of the pressure applied by the Israel lobby, it requires more courage than many are able to muster to combat.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about "proper channels" but I'd suggest you post where you feel you are treated fairly.
After 100s of kms covered today travelling into the fireground, I've come home to catch up on what's transpired and made the (very bad) mistake of reading recent comments on WD.
ReplyDeleteI'm astonished that they continually let those internet trolls using the names "Eliot Ramsey" and "Alan Curran" bait and bully a couple of others, particularly the actual content providers for WD! People like Marilyn Shepherd and Paul Walter are attacked every day by the trolls.
I can't comprehend why anyone would want to "Write for Webdiary" (providing the thousands of words of content at no cost - to WD) when WD's management team encourages a couple of trolls to then routinely attack the character, the integrity of those generous writers?
The writers provide content at no cost; WD makes sure the writers pay, over and over, due to these unethical and unfair attacks on them.
No wonder they hardly have any generous writers willing to gift them 'free content' any more!
Then to rub salt into wounds, that Fiona Reynolds keeps asking the trolls to "Write for Webdiary" and they laugh it off, saying "no way, we're happy baiting and trolling here, we'd never actually contribute anything constructive!"
ReplyDeleteHow many times does she and they repeat that stupid loop before she 'gets it' - they don't care to see WD succeed, the trolls just keep going there to target and abuse people. They act like parasites.
G'day ID,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the idea of links.
This appeals to me because perhaps, we can reach a larer audience.
If those who write to WD are prepared to have their posts emasculated or denied entirely on the most objective reason of all - bias - then I would like to do as you have suggested.
I imagine that if I write in webdiary-crippled.blogspot.com/ then I could provide links to the other two?
Whilst that would not work on WD because of the editors - would it also work by writing into yourdemocracy?
And final question ID - how would I do it in the language of the uneducated?
Cheers Ern G.
"Fiona: Welcome back to Webdiary, CJ Wirth ..."
ReplyDeleteWelcome back? When was there ever before a 'CJ Wirth' on that blog?
If never (and I think that's true), then why does 'Fiona' say "Welcome back ...", if not to reveal that a pseudonym has been adopted by the person now calling him/herself "cjwirth"?
Webdiary - Ethical? Accountable? Transparent?
I think not.
Or the other way around, as it could well be.
ReplyDeleteSeems Clifford Worth has a blog, so "cjwirth" is he.
But when did he ever previously comment on Webdiary and so attract a "Welcome back"?
a comment to goose[1] the system...
ReplyDelete[1] goose: (Slang) a sudden, playful prod in the backside. [spur into action]