Out in the Open: Jewish Power Rears Ugly Head in Censoring of UN Report

 photo netanyahuangry_zps27af2802.jpg

By Richard Edmondson

Recent developments at the United Nations–(with regard to the censoring of a report on Israeli apartheid and the resignation of a high-ranking UN official who had been ordered to repudiate it)–should be viewed in the context of remarks made earlier this month by Alan Dershowitz.

Speaking at an anti-BDS conference in Los Angeles, the former Harvard Law School professor and now CNN contributor offered the following advice to his fellow Jews:

People say Jews are too powerful, we’re too strong, we’re too rich. We control the media. We have too much this. We have too much that. And we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that. Don’t do that. We have earned the right to influence public debate.

As you can tell from the above video, the event where Dershowitz made those remarks was sponsored by Stand With Us, a Zionist lobby organization based in Los Angeles. Entitled, “Combating the Boycott Movement Against Israel,” the conference took place March 4-6 and was billed as “the crucial counter BDS conference.” Admission was $500 per person for “regular attendees” and $1,000 for “VIPs.”

“All registration levels include five gourmet kosher meals, all sessions, and materials,” reads the online promotional brochure. “VIP rates also include a private reception with Alan Dershowitz and other BDS experts, preferred seating throughout the conference, and valet parking.”

The conference is said to have been attended by more than 250 people. Less than two weeks later, on March 15, a UN organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, published a report concluding that Israel imposes a policy of apartheid against the Palestinians–hardly a controversial allegation in this day and age. Yet the New York Times described it as “a politically explosive assertion” and said that the release of the report had “led to furious denunciations by Israel and the United States.”

Two days later, on Friday, March 17, Rima Khalaf resigned as head of the ESCWA after being ordered by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to withdraw the report. That same day, the report was removed from the UN’s website. The Israeli lobby had once again given the world a not-so-subtle demonstration of its power.

You can go here to read an analysis of the report by Stephen Lendman and here to access an archived copy of the full report (how long it will remain archived at the location is unclear). The report seems well grounded in international law, drawing upon the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and other international agreements for the basis of its conclusions. Its authors, Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley, both come from a legal and scholarly background, and both were commissioned by the ESCWA to produce the report.

“Although the term ‘apartheid’ was originally associated with the specific instance of South Africa, it now represents a species of crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” they write in the report’s executive summary. They then proceed to quote the pertinent section of the Rome statute:

“The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts…in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

As you can tell, the report was produced in a scholarly manner, but I’d like to return now to the comments of Dershowitz as shown in the video above. What he seems to be saying in effect is that Jews should no longer deny the power they hold. Better to be open about it, maybe even brag on it a little bit. The upside to this, presumably, is that it might help eliminate confusion about who really runs much of the world now. He also seems to feel that being open about Jewish power would enable Jews to more effectively use their power “in the interest of peace,” as he puts it.

Are Jews really using their power to promote peace in the world? In the paragraphs above I initiated what in essence amounts to a timeline beginning with the Stand With Us conference in L.A. That conference took place March 4-6. On March 15 came the UN report, followed by the resignation of Khalaf, on March 17, and the removal of the report from the UN’s website. That’s where I ended, but let’s expand the timeline a bit further and see what happens.

Also on March 17, Israeli war planes crossed into Syrian airspace and carried out a bombing raid at a site near the recently-liberated city of Palmyra. In response, Syria fired upon the Israeli planes using a Russian-supplied air defense system. Claims and counter-claims were made about the incident: Syria says it shot down one of the planes; Israel denies this.

But two days later, on March 19, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned that Israel will destroy Syria’s air defenses if it fires on any more Israeli planes. The implication seems to be that Israel assumes to itself the God-given right (and you’ll recall Dershowitz speaking about the “strength” putatively given by the Old Testament god Yahweh) to cross into another country’s airspace and carry out a missile attack whenever it feels like it. This in fact is a point that was made by a writer at Russia Insider:

“The serious exchange of missile fire between Israel and Syria early Friday morning reflects the Assad regime’s attempts to change the unofficial rules of the game.”

So begins a column published in Israel’s Haaretz.

The newspaper is of course referring to the Israeli jets that “breached Syrian air space early in the morning and attacked a military target near Palmyra”, apparently in an attempt to “aid” Islamic State forces.

According to reports, it’s suspected that the Syrian Army responded to this “breach” by firing off a few S-200 missiles.

The writer, Rudy Panko, then goes on to supply a direct quote from the Haaretz opinion piece:

Presumably the Syrian anti-aircraft salvo was a signal to Israel that the regime’s policy of restraint in the face of the airstrikes will not remain as it was. President Bashar Assad’s recent successes – first and foremost the conquest of Aleppo – have seemingly increased the dictator’s confidence. Israel will have to decide whether the operational need – to thwart advanced weapons shipments to Hezbollah – also justifies the possible risk of the downing of an Israeli fighter jet and a broader conflict developing with Syria.

There is an interesting question as to whether the aircraft detection radar system was deployed by Israel’s new great friend, Russia, precisely one week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned from Moscow after yet another successful visit to see President Vladimir Putin.

One can imagine that the intelligence community will also be interested to learn whether the Syrian decision to fire back was coordinated with Assad’s collaborators and partners: Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

He then makes the point that “Syria’s decision to defend itself from hostile, foreign jets dropping bombs on Syria shows a lack of ‘restraint’ on Assad’s part, according to Haaretz.” A similar point was made by another writer at Russia Insider, who put it perhaps in an even more sarcastic vein:

The moral of this story is: Israeli military jets enjoy diplomatic immunity. Harming them under any circumstances is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, the U.N. Charter, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Carrying the timeline a bit further–as far as we can carry it now–on March 19, the same day Lieberman threatened to destroy Syrian air defenses, an Israeli drone carried out an attack in Syria’s southern province of Quneitra, killing one person; on Monday, March 20, reports came out confirming that Russia had summoned the Israeli ambassador over the March 17 attack in Syria; and also today, news has emerged of yet another Israeli air attack inside Syria–the third in three days–said to have been carried out sometime during the night of March 19-20.

Does it appear, from all of this, that Jews are using their power in the interest of peace? Keep in mind, that the events cited here are from one 20-day period in but one month only. Let’s return to the words of Dershowitz:

“Never ever apologize for using our strength and our influence in the interest of peace,” he says, and then he cites “the psalmist” whom he quotes as saying, “God will give the Jewish people strength…only then will God give the Jewish people peace. Peace will come for the Jewish people and the Jewish nation only through strength. Never apologize for using your strength for peace.”

It’s hard to say which biblical passage Dershowitz is referring to (the word “Jewish” is not found anywhere in the Psalms), but I would venture a guess and say that perhaps it’s a reference to Psalm 118, which reads in part:

All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the Lord I cut them down. They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the Lord I cut them down. They swarmed around me like bees, but they were consumed as quickly as burning thorns; in the name of the Lord I cut them down. I was pushed back and about to fall, but the Lord helped me. The Lord is my strength and my defense; he has become my salvation.

The whole passage, and particularly the words “all the nations,” would suggest a tribe of people who are at war with the entire world. The notion that such people would use their power to bring about “peace” would seem preposterous and nonsensical.

When  the UN report was first released, Israel rushed to invoke the holocaust. According to a Reuters report, “Israel fiercely rejects the allegation and likened the [UN] report to Der Sturmer – a Nazi propaganda publication that was strongly anti-Semitic.” There are two ironies here that need to be pointed out. The first is that Falk, one of the authors of the report, is Jewish. The second has to do with Khalef, a Semitic woman of Arab descent–and that such a woman would be accused of “anti-semitism” by those claiming to be Jews but who are not even Semites. How do people who are descended from the Khazars of southern Russia, who are not semitic, get away with accusing actual, genuine Semites of being “anti-Semitic”? Does any of this make sense? It doesn’t have to.

The likening of the report to the Nazi publication  mentioned is a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that is devoid of logic–but this too is a manifestation of Jewish power: that accusations made by Jews don’t have to be logical. It is enough simply that it is a Jew making them. This alone renders them beyond question.

Below is a discussion on the issue of Israeli apartheid featured a couple of days ago on Press TV. You will note that one of the guests, Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill, not only denies that Israel is an apartheid state, he even denies the existence of Jewish power.

Apparently Budowsky didn’t get the memo about Dershowitz’s speech at the Stand With Us Conference–or perhaps he did get it but had already previously internalized the unspoken principle that while it’s okay for Jews to discuss Jewish power, the same freedom of speech does not apply to Gentiles.

At any rate, Jewish power is real. It immerses us; we are swimming in it. A future awaits us in which we, Americans, could very well find ourselves facing jail time for criticizing Jews or Israel, much as Europeans now are jailed for questioning the holocaust.

But it could be even worse than that. Much worse. Israel is intent on expanding its boundaries from the Nile to the Euphrates, while Zionist Jews in America seem to have a fixation on an even larger goal: complete, total, unchecked and uninhibited global hegemony, and possibly, in the course of trying to achieve this ambition, nuclear war with Russia if it should come to that. Israeli apartheid, the “species of crime” now being committed against the Palestinians, could end up going global…unless we find a way to defeat it.

isrsldiers

Elor Azaria and the Myth of Jewish Universal Values

March 04, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani for La Pravda and E&R

Alimuddin Usmani: IDF soldier Elor Azaria was convicted of manslaughter for shooting dead a  wounded Palestinian. The case deeply divided Israel. Many Israelis said he was just doing his duty and was scapegoated by the army. On the other hand, a military spokesperson said“This is not the IDF, these are not the values of the IDF and these are not the values of the Jewish people”. Gideon Lévy called the 18 month sentence “a sentence fit for a bicycle thief”.

What are your comments on this case?

Gilad Atzmon: A lot of issues are at stake here. Azaria was obviously a cold-blooded murderer who shot a wounded Palestinian in the head. Basically, he committed an execution in broad daylight.  From an Israeli perspective, Azaria’s main crime was being caught on camera. Yet, the circumstances in which he operated were pretty impossible. These Israeli soldiers are deployed in policing tasks. They, the occupiers, are engaged in conflict with the indigenous people of the land. It is a recipe for disaster. More often than not, Israeli soldiers and police forces end up operating as execution squads. Yet, these vile practices do not necessarily reflect any official military order. Instead, they bring to light the atmosphere within the Israeli street: the PRE-traumatic stress, the impunity to kill, the lack of any ethical sense and so on.

Putting aside Azaria’s brutal act, the court case exposed a deep conflict within Israeli society. Zionism, as we know, promised to make the Jews ‘people like other people.’ Yet, the reality on the ground suggests that Israelis have to spend a lot of time and energy concealing the fact that they actually share very little with other people, if anything at all.

Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter, which is surprising considering the clear evidence of 1st degree murder. Yet he was sentenced to just 18 months in prison.  The explanation of this discrepancy between the court’s verdict and the light sentence can be understood on more than one level.

Military courts, as opposed to civilian courts, are not committed to any notion of ethics but rather to the needs of the military system. For instance, a military court sentencing a soldier to death at daybreak is not guided by the seeking of justice but by the needs of the system. It attempts to deter other soldiers from insubordination, cowardice or defection.    

Similarly, because Israel needs the IDF to sustain the occupation, Israel must make sure that its soldiers are confident that the system will always eventually stand by them even if they are  caught in an unfortunate situation such as shooting a wounded Palestinian in the head.

On the day of the verdict, veteran chief of staff Moshe Yaalon, admitted that his initial and harsh reaction to the Azaria incident was because there was an immediate need to calm the situation on the ground. He basically had to throw something at the Palestinians, hoping to prevent mass protest and possible escalation. But at the end of the day, Israel wants the Palestinians to know that any form of resistance will be met with by radical and unpredictable measures.

This leads us to the notion of Jewish values in general and the IDF’s moral values in particular. As I have said many times before, there are no Jewish universal values. Judaism and Jewish culture are tribally-oriented. Moreover, Judaism is guided by Torah and Mitzvoth (commandments). Accordingly, the Jew is expected to follow rules rather than forming ethical judgments. Haskalah, the Jewish enlightenment, was an attempt to universalize Judaism by mimicking European secular thinking. Thus, those universal values that were introduced by Haskalah are not Jewish, but simply borrowed by the Jews from their host nations.

Zionism was a promise to civilise the Jews by means of ‘homecoming.’ It implicitly accepted that Jews weren’t people like all other people, but it believed they could be. Zionism promised to make the Jews productive, to gravitate towards labour and farming. The IDF was supposed to be a humane and ethical military force.  I grew up with photos of Israeli soldiers giving their own water to Egyptian POWs in the desert (1967). It took a few years before I learned that in fact, the Sinai desert was a slaughter zone for thousands of Egyptian soldiers who were sent to their deaths in the burning sand. It took a few more years before I became aware of the Nakba horror – the brutal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in 1948. Just 3 years after the liberation of Auschwitz the young Israeli army, together with Jewish paramilitary forces, massacred dozens of  Palestinian villages. I assume I don’t have to go into details of current Israeli war crimes.  To sum it up,  the IDF as never been a moral army. IDF moral values are a myth. What we have instead is a growing record of crimes against humanity.  The facade of the military trial was, in practice, an attempt to convey the image of ethical thinking. After all, ‘by way of deception’ must be a kosher procedure.

Alimuddin Usmani: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote that Socialist primary winner in France, Benoit Hamon, had the backing of prominent anti-semites. Before the vote, Dieudonné and Alain Soral called for Manuel Valls to be knocked out of the race and Valls, known for his zealous support of Israel, did indeed receive a slap in the face.

What do these things reveal about the mood of French people?

Gilad Atzmon: It isn’t just France. We detect a global fatigue with Jewish politics and lobbying. We see it in Britain and in the USA – and Jews are the first to notice it. Jewish organisations have long been complaining about the rapid growth in ‘antisemitic’ incidents (whatever that means). Yet, instead of engaging in some elementary self-reflection, asking themselves what is it about them and their behaviour that brings such anger and opposition, these organisations manage to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Instead of opening the discussion on Israel and Jewish power, they use every means at their disposal to suppress freedom of speech and to silence legitimate criticism of Jewish ID politics, global Zionism and the brutality of the Jewish state.

One would think that, after the Shoah, Jews would learn the necessary lessons and would go out of their way to conceal Jewish arrogance. But In practice, the complete opposite has happened. The Jewish lobbies, both Zionists and ‘antis,’ are more obnoxious and arrogant than ever.

 

Alimuddin Usmani: CRIF defines itself as the political representation and official mouthpiece of the organized Jewish community. In the FAQ on it’s website we find this question : Does CRIF have an influence on French politics? 

And the answer is:

Yes, CRIF influences French politics by defending its vision of what should be the public policy against racism and anti-Semitism, offering its thoughts on the transmission of the memory of the Holocaust, or defending its idea of the peace in the Middle East.

In summary, CRIF acts exactly like any other association concerned by the public interest.   

What do you think of this answer?

Gilad Atzmon: I believe that it is a valid answer as long as French people are willing to accept that one minority group that just happens to be privileged can dominate the discourse on public matters such as racism, French past and foreign affairs. But Jewish history actually teaches us that these celebrations of Jewish power always come to a tragic end.

 

Alimuddin Usmani: On CNN, Bernard-Henri Lévy wrote that the Trump administration has a problem with Jews.

How do you explain that BHL is so worried about Trump?

Gilad Atzmon: It is simple. BHL realises that, considering his intensive bellicosity and war-mongering, he himself is a serious Jewish problem. Zionism was all about a promised land yet global Zionism, for which BHL is a prime conduit, signals the transformation from a ‘promised land’ into a ‘promised planet.’ It is, in fact, immoral interventionists such as BHL who bring disasters on the Jews.

When BHL accuses Trump, the first American Jewish President, of antisemitsm, he may be providing us with a glimpse into his own sense of guilt. It is a last and desperate attempt to prevent the floodlight from exposing the criminal continuum between Israel and the Ziocon wars spreading around our planet.

Alimuddin Usmani: Recently you gave concerts and talks in Czech Republic. You announced that you will be back there in June. What do you like about this country?

Gilad Atzmon: pretty much everything. It is a country that has managed to sustain its culture, its work ethic, its cuisine, its productivity. It is a country that is living in peace with its past and sees a prospect of a future ahead.

Trump’s Futile Efforts to Appease the Jews

Posted on February 8, 2017

 photo jewsagainsttrump_zps5p6q3gom.jpg

‘Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump…’

[ Ed. note – Israel Shamir is a noted author and commentator on Middle East issues. His books include Galilee Flowers, and Cabbala of Power. He is also a former Israeli and a Jewish convert to Christianity. In the article below he argues that the attacks on Trump we are seeing today, and particularly the strident protests over the president’s immigration ban from seven Muslim countries, are in reality a continuation of the war against Christianity, though under a different guise.

“The war on Christ and the Church is the most important element of Judaism,” he says. “Wherever Jews succeed, the Church suffers, and vice versa.”

In other words, the deep divisions we are witnessing now in American society are symptomatic of far more than simply political differences over how the country should be run. It is something much more primal and deep–and I’m not sure Trump fully understands this, if at all.

For these reasons, Shamir says, Trump’s efforts to win favor with Jews (by moving the US embassy, appointing hardcore Zionists to top positions in his administration, etc.) are likely to prove futile. He also notes something I noted in a post I put up a week ago–namely that the Jewish fundamentalists who hold power in Israel have different priorities from American Jews, and that appeasing one group does not necessarily gain Trump any ground with the other–and this also is not something the new occupant of the White House appears to comprehend fully.

Trump’s best hope of succeeding in his new job is to try and fathom the root source of the hostility now being directed against him. There are Bible verses that provide clues were he to take the time to read them–such as this one from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:20):  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” As I have said elsewhere, “Christian anti-Semitism” was not the cause of the split between Christianity and Judaism. The antipathy to Jesus’ teachings was present right from the start. ]

***

By Israel Shamir

President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.

He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.

Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.

This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.

One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.

Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.

Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.

Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.

Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.

Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.

Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.

Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.

While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.

Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.

The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.

Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump. Israel had build a wall on its border with Sinai, and this wall stopped the black wave of African migrants. American Jews did not shout “No wall, no ban” in front of Israeli Embassy. Mystery, eh?

Kevin MacDonald wrote a thoughtful piece trying to unravel the mystery, Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees? and published it on January 17, a few days before Trump’s inauguration and full three weeks before the subject moved to the front burner. KMD correctly predicted that Donald Trump won’t appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address, though this was the guess of mass media. Moreover, KMD correctly predicted that “Trump will announce an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My (KMD’s) question: why would they do that?”

KMD provides a few possible answers, but none answers his own question. The world is full of troubles, and the US can get as many refugees as they wish from the Ukraine or Brazil, from China and Central Africa, without an anti-Israeli angle.

I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church.

Muslims of the Middle East are not, or weren’t, anti-Christian; they co-existed for millennia with their Christian neighbours. In Palestine, Christians and Muslims lived together and suffered together under the Jewish yoke.

But recently a new wind has blown in the Muslim faith, the wind of a very strong rejection of whatever is not strict Sunni Islam of the ISIS brand. Their first enemy is Shia Islam, but Christians follow Shias as a second-best object of persecution…

Continued here

Gilad Atzmon On Zionist Charities Targeting David Icke & The Meaning Of Jewish Identity

The Richie Allen Show

The Zionists vs. Jewish anti Zionists is a fake binary opposition. In this interview with Richie Allen I insist once again that people who identify politically ‘as Jews’ are subscribing to politics that are driven by race. In the program I also suggest for the first time that it is not Zionism that hijacked Judaism, it is actually the other way around. It is Judaism that hijacked Zionism! Zionism was initially an a secular, anti Jewish movement that promised to ‘civilise’ the Diaspora Jew by means of ‘homecoming’ (as if Palestine is a ‘Jewish home’).  But as time went by, it has become clear that the early Zionist initiative was defeated. Zionism was hijacked by Judaic exclusivity and adopted as a radical form of tribal exceptionalism. In practice, it is Rabbinical Jewish settlers who have been leading  plunderous Zionism since 1967. This is far from being a coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtji4ENgyo0&feature=share

Israeli rabbis: Trump is the Jewish Messiah

Posted on

????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????

In a recent Op-Ed at Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz – former Israeli cabinet minister Uzi Baram (born to Arab Jewish mother from Syria) said that extremist Jew members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government are rallying on US president Donald Trump to help destroy Islam’s sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of Rock at Al-Quds (occupied East Jerusalem). These fanatic religious Jews believe that the Muslim structures are hindering the fulfillment of Jewish salvation represented by the construction of the so-called Third Temple.

Several leading Israel rabbis at the Sanhedrin organization have claimed that two powerful pro-Israel world leaders, Vladimir and Donald Trump, not only support Israel’s right to exist – Trump even accepts Jewish right to Jerusalem as their spiritual inheritance. It is historically unprecedented (reported by Israel Today, November 15, 2016).

Rabbi Hillel Weiss, the top gun at the Sanhedrin sent letters to both Trump and Putin urging them to work together to fulfill a project that will benefit all mankind – the rebuilding of the Holy Temple atop Jerusalem’s hotly contested Temple Mount.

Torah (Old Testament) was written by rabbis in 1312 BCE. It doesn’t mention that Temple Mount would be destroyed first by Babylonian in 586 BCE and later by Roman in 70 AD. Furthermore, neither Torah nor the Christian Bible calls for the reconstruction of Third Temple.

According to the Jerusalem-based Temple Institute, it got the three things needed to rebuild the Third Temple; 1) a plan  (see the model above), 2) one million stones for the building, and 3) Red Heifer.

Ironically, in October 2016, UNESCO declared that Old City of Jerusalem (occupied East Jerusalem) had nothing to do with Judaism.

Jerry Rabow in his 2002 book, 50 Jewish Messiahs, claims that since the disappearance of Jesus (as), more than 50 men and women have claimed to be Jewish promised Messiah.

In my life time, I have read two Jewish Messiahs – multi-billionaire George Soro and former US president Barack Obama.

Americans Are Clueless on Muslim Views of Jesus

I came across this video and thought I would post it for the fun of it. As I have said for a long time, Christians have far more in common with Muslims, who venerate Jesus as a prophet, than with Jews, whose Talmud contains blasphemous depictions of Jesus as well as his mother Mary.

Christmas Memo to PM Theresa May, “Stop worshipping israel”

Stop worshipping Israel, learn the ugly truth … and find a new speechwriter!

By Stuart Littlewood | Dissident Voice | December 22, 2016

Prime Minister,

This is still a Christian country, as your colleague David Cameron reminded us not so long ago. But you wouldn’t think so when non-Christian creeds are given exceptional protection and privileges to smooth their ruffled feathers. Your government is even introducing new laws to stifle questions about Israel’s legitimacy and quash criticism of its criminal policies. We have entered a sinister era of censorship and harassment as the gulf between government and public widens.

In an excruciating speech to a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch earlier this month, you told 800 guests that the British government will be marking the centenary of the infamous Balfour Declaration next year “with pride”. Yet that ill-conceived letter by the British foreign secretary caused a running sore in the Middle East that has lasted a hundred years. And Britain’s failure to make amends continues to endanger the whole region and cause grief for millions.

You said some astonishing things too about Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine. For example, Britain stands “very firmly” for a two-state solution and the two sides must “sit down together, without preconditions, and work towards that lasting solution”. It is plain to nearly everyone that this futile and lopsided mantra is a ploy designed to buy Israel all the time it needs to establish enough irreversible ‘facts on the ground’ to ensure permanent annexation. But like all leaders before, you go along with it, And you’re careful not to mention that international law has already spoken and it’s high time for enforcement – or sanctions.

There seems little comprehension among you and your colleagues of the consequences for the Middle East, and indeed the whole world, if Israel is allowed to achieve its ambition to expand its borders to the Nile and the Euphrates.

You even praise Israel for being “a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance”, when it is obviously neither. Maybe an ethnocracy, or a theocracy, but certainly no liberal democracy. As for your remark that it is only when you walk through Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that you see a country where people of all religions “are free and equal in the eyes of the law” and “Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish”, have you ever walked through East Jerusalem?

What really offends me, though, is your belief that our two countries share “common values”. That’s straight out of Tel Aviv’s hasbara instruction manual. And it is deeply insulting to anyone who lives by Christian values, which are alien to the Israeli regime given its crimes against humanity and cruelty to the indigenous people it terrorises. I don’t suppose too many British people feel they have much in common with a criminal foreign power that tortures children.

However, the speech did provide mild amusement when you unwisely attacked the successful BDS campaign – that’s boycott, divestment and sanctions – calling it wrong and unacceptable and warning that your government would “have no truck with those who subscribe to it”.  Two hundred legal scholars and practising lawyers from 15 European countries promptly slapped you down in a statement that BDS is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right.  One expert pointed out that advocating for BDS is part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Another said BDS is civil society’s response to the international community’s irresponsible failure to act. Repressing it amounts to support for Israel’s violations of international law and a failure to honour the solemn pledge by states to ‘strictly respect the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations’.

Of course, if your Israeli friends don’t like BDS, they only have to comply with international law like everyone else, get back behind Israel’s internationally recognised borders and leave the Palestinians alone.

Just think for a moment about the shredded remnants of Palestine, the endless misery in Gaza and the obscene 8-metre wall with gun towers imprisoning Bethlehem and its Christian community – all courtesy of Israel. Remember that in their 2014 blitz on Gaza Israel killed more than 500 children, injured 3,374, left more than 1,500 orphaned and 373,000 in need of psycho-social support.

There are 1.75 million people, including about 800,000 children under 15, packed into the tiny Gaza enclave with no escape. They have suffered horribly under Israeli blockade – a collective punishment which as you know is considered a war crime – for nearly 10 years. And your own ministers report that 90% of Gaza’s water is not fit even for agricultural use.  The puzzle is why your government would have any truck with anyone who subscribes to an Israel fan club.

According to Wiki, you are the daughter of an Anglican priest and a regular churchgoer. The Holy Land is the well-spring of your religion, is it not? I wonder what the Good Lord, looking down on the hell-hole Balfour created and Western politicians have perpetuated, thinks of your performance this Christmas.


Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.uk.

%d bloggers like this: