Israel’s New Cultural War of Aggression

MAY 8, 2017

A few weeks ago my book Palestine’s Horizon: Toward a Just Peace was published by Pluto in Britain. I was in London and Scotland at the time to do a series of university talks to help launch the book. Its appearance happened to coincide with the release of a jointly authored report commissioned by the UN Social and Economic Commission of West Asia, giving my appearances a prominence they would not otherwise have had. The report concluded that the evidence relating to Israeli practices toward the Palestinian people amounted to ‘apartheid,’ as defined in international law.

There was a strong pushback by Zionist militants threatening disruption. These threats were sufficiently intimidating to academic administrators, that my talks at the University of East London and at Middlesex University were cancelled on grounds of ‘health and security.’ Perhaps, these administrative decisions partly reflected the awareness that an earlier talk of mine at LSE had indeed been sufficiently disrupted during the discussion period that university security personnel had to remove two persons in the audience who shouted epithets, unfurled an Israeli flag, stood up and refused to sit down when politely asked by the moderator.

In all my years of speaking on various topics around the world, I had never previously had events cancelled, although quite frequently there was similar pressure exerted on university administrations, but usually threatening financial reprisals if I was allowed to speak. What happened in Britain is part of an increasingly nasty effort of pro-Israeli activists to shut down debate by engaging in disruptive behavior, threats to security, and by smearing speakers regarded as critics of Israel as ‘anti-Semites,’ and in my case as a ‘self-hating,’ even a self-loathing Jew.

falkpalestine

Returning to the United States I encountered a new tactic. The very same persons who disrupted in London, evidently together with some likeminded comrades, wrote viciously derogatory reviews of my book on the Amazon website in the U.S. and UK, giving the book the lowest rate possible rating, This worried my publisher who indicated that how a book is rated on Amazon affects sales very directly. I wrote a message on my Facebook timeline that my book was being attacked in this way, and encouraged Facebook friends to submit reviews, which had the effect of temporarily elevating my ratings. In turn, the ultra-Zionists went back to work with one or two line screeds that made no effort whatsoever to engage the argument of the book. In this sense, there was a qualitative difference as the positive reviews were more thoughtful and substantive. This was a new kind of negative experience for me. Despite publishing many books over the course during this digital age I had never before had a book attacked in this online manner obviously seeking to discourage potential buyers and to demean me as an author. In effect, this campaign is an innovative version of digital book burning, and while not as vivid visually as a bonfire, its vindictive intentions are the same.

These two experiences, the London cancellations and the Amazon harassments, led me to reflect more broadly on what was going on. More significant, by far, than my experience are determined, well-financed efforts to punish the UN for its efforts to call attention to Israeli violations of human rights and international law, to criminalize participation in the BDS campaign, and to redefine and deploy anti-Semitism so that its disavowal and prevention extends to anti-Zionism and even to academic and analytic criticism of Israel’s policies and practices, which is how I am situated within this expanding zone of opprobrium. Israel has been acting against human rights NGOs within its own borders, denying entry to BDS supporters, and even virtually prohibiting foreign tourists from visiting the West Bank or Gaza. In a remarkable display of unity all 100 U.S. senators recently overcame the polarized atmosphere in Washington to join in sending an arrogant letter to the new UN Secretary General, António Guterres, demanding a more friendly, blue washing, approach to Israel at the UN and threatening financial consequences if their outrageous views were not heeded.

Israel’s most ardent and powerful backers are transforming the debate on Israel/Palestine policy into a cultural war of aggression. This new kind of war has been launched with the encouragement and backing of the Israeli government, given ideological support by such extremist pressure groups as UN Watch, GO Monitor, AIPAC, and a host of others. This cultural war is implemented at street levels by flame throwing militants that resort to symbolic forms of violence. The adverse consequences for academic freedom and freedom of thought in a democratic society should not be underestimated. A very negative precedent is being set in several Western countries. Leading governments are collaborating with extremists to shut down constructive debate on a sensitive policy issue affecting the lives and wellbeing of a long oppressed people.

There are two further dimensions of these developments worth pondering: (1) In recent years Israel has been losing the Legitimacy War being waged by the Palestinians, what Israeli think tanks call ‘the delegitimation project,’ and these UN bashing and personal smears are the desperate moves of a defeated adversary in relation to the moral and legal dimensions of the Palestinian struggle for rights. In effect, the Israeli government and its support groups have given up almost all efforts to respond substantively, and concentrate their remaining ammunition on wounding messengers who bear witness and doing their best to weaken the authority and capabilities of the UN so as to discredit substantive initiatives; (2) while this pathetic spectacle sucks the oxygen from responses of righteous indignation, attention is diverted from the prolonged ordeal of suffering that has long been imposed on the Palestinian people as a result of Israel’s unlawful practices and policies, as well as its crimes against humanity, in the form of apartheid, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and many others. The real institutional scandal is not that the UN is obsessed with Israel but rather that it is blocked from taking action that might exert sufficient pressure on Israel to induce the dismantling of apartheid structures relied upon to subjugate, displace, and dispossess the Palestinian people over the course of more than 70 years with no end in sight.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

More articles by:

How Information Is Controlled by Washington, Israel, and Trolls, Leading to Our Destruction

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 08, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Dear Readers: I very much appreciate the support you show for me in your emails. I seldom receive a rude email from you, and when I do it is usually something off subject, such as a reader angry with Israel and unloading on me with an accusation that I am a coward and a “Jew-lover” because I don’t do enough to expose the crimes of the Jews.

This accusation always amuses me as the ADL lists me as an anti-Semite because I occasionally make an entirely justified criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians and excessive influence over US foreign policy, as have many outstanding scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and many Jews themselves.

My friends find my designation by the ADL as an anti-Semite hilarious. The person whom I selected as my principal deputy in the US Treasury is a Jew. David Meiselman, my friend and co-author with me of an important study of the Congressional Budget Office, is a Jew (deceased). I went to Oxford for the express purpose of studying under Michael Polanyi, a Jew who had to leave his scientific post in Germany to escape the Nazis. Milton Friedman, an early supporter of the Institute for Political Economy, is a Jew (deceased). When my book (1971) on the Soviet economy was republished in 1990 without a word changed, it was a Jew who wrote the Introduction. He asked, “Why did only Roberts get it right?”

I have had Israelis as house guests.

And the ADL labels me an anti-Semite. Clearly, the term no longer means anything.

I hold Israel and the Israel Lobby accountable, just as I held accountable the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clinton regime, the George W. Bush regime, the Obama regime, and the Trump regime. (I differentiate between administration and regime on the basis of whether the president actually had meaningful control over the government. If the president has some control, he has an administration.)

According to the ADL’s logic, I am both anti-Reagan and anti-American. But readers see me as a true patriot, and Reagan-haters see me as a Reagan-apologist. Clearly, something is wrong with the ADL’s logic.

Obviously, the Israel Lobby has destroyed the meaning of anti-Semite. In its effort to control the explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israel Lobby has made “anti-Semite” into a badge of honor.

Control over explanations is important to Zionist Israel. If Americans can be convinced, as many have been, that Palestinians are terrorists out to kill all Jews, Israel’s theft of Palestine and mistreatment of Palestinians is not the issue that it would otherwise be. The Israel Lobby also works hard to control which voices are acceptable and which are not. For example, no one is permitted to investigate the Holocaust. Some European countries have a law against Holocaust investigation, and historians have been sent to prison for challenging the official explanation, which it is mandatory to believe.

In the US the Israel Lobby can even overturn decisions on academic tenure. For example, the outstanding scholar, Norman Finkelstein, a Jew and a critic of Israel, was denied tenure at a Catholic University solely on the basis of objection from the Israel Lobby. I find it extraordinary that not even Catholic Universities can stand up to the power of the Israel Lobby. The tenure committee and the faculty voted Finkelstein’s tenure, and the Israel Lobby interceded with the university president and blocked it.

Similarly, Steven Salaita was offered a tenure appointment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, accepted it, resigned his tenure at Virginia Tech, sold his house and moved his family to Illinois only to have the president of the University of Illinois illegally cancel his appointment, apparently on orders from the Israel Lobby. Salaita’s attitude toward Israel was not acceptable to Israel.

The Israel Lobby succeeded in eliminating two outstanding scholars from American academic life, thereby extending Zionist control of the Israeli/Palestinian explanation by eliminating alternative explanations. As far as I can ascertain, neither scholar has been able to overcome the slander and obtain an academic appointment, a great loss to students and scholarship.

If a writer so much as reports these factual events, the writer is branded an anti-Semite by the Israel Lobby. In former times, an anti-Semite meant a person who hated Jews. But today it means anyone who makes even a mild criticism of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians whose lands Israel occupies and is stealing. Indeed, practically nothing is left of Palestine except the Gaza ghetto that is totally controlled by Israel. All movements of supplies and people in and out are controlled by Israel. Essentially, Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto.

These are simple irrefutable facts. Every aware person knows this, but if you say it or write it, you are a “Jew-hater.”

Many Jews have been conditioned to believe that any criticism of Israel, no matter how justified, is anti-Semitic. Even Israel’s friend, former US President Jimmy Carter, is reviled by the Israel Lobby as an anti-Semite. Carter cautioned Israel against mistreatment of the Palestinians and was instantly branded a “Jew-hater.” The Jews on the board of the Carter Center resigned.

How do we account for the vast power of the lobby of a foreign power whose entire consequence in the world depends solely on Washington’s support? How does a dependent country control, or if control is too strong, so heavily influence, Washington’s policy in the Middle East, resulting in millions of deaths of Muslims and the destruction of entire countries, and also overturn the tenure decisions of US Catholic and state universities? If the US is a superpower, clearly Israel is the Hyperpower.

Israel owes much of its influence to the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars that Washington gives each year to Israel. Money is fungible, and it comes back to the US in the form of political campaign contributions to support Israel’s friends and defeat Israel’s critics. It come back in support for friendly media, academics, and university administrations. It influences entertainment and some say court cases, not by paying off judges, but by influencing the explanation of the case. And so on. In other words, US taxpayers’ money is used to give a foreign government more control over the US than US citizens have.

There is a great deal of hostility toward the Zionist government among European populations and Muslims. But this hostility does not transfer to all Jews. People are capable of differentiating the responsible from the powerless.

All Jews are not Israelis and all Israelis are not Zionists. Some Israelis complain that the Zionist government is squeezing morality out of the Israeli population, and they pay a price for saying so. Israelis who organize in protest to the Zionist policies against the Palestinians, such as Jeff Halper, coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, are branded “self-hating Jews” by the Zionist government.

Few Americans know that the Israeli government confiscates entire Palestinian villages and demolishes Palestinians’ homes, using specially built equipment by the American corporation, Caterpillar, and constructs housing for Israelis. The Israel Lobby will deny this despite the fact that Israeli citizens have formed an organization that seeks to use law and Israeli courts to prevent it. Western governments and presstitutes are not interested in what becomes of the dispossessed Palestinians.

Halper is Jewish, but the Palestinians do not hate him. He can go to Gaza without any danger from the Muslims. The only danger he faces is from the Israeli government who arrested him for going to Gaza. Indeed, distinguished Israelis, such as Gilad Atzmon and Ilan Pappe have left Israel for safety in Europe. Both are demonized by the Israel Lobby. If you care to understand Zionist Israel, read Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who? For Palestine, read Pappe’s books.

Think about this more generally. As Muslims have been under foreign occupation for a very long time, they are aware that they have no control over “their” governments. Some of them are aware that Europeans and Americans also have no control over their governments. Just as Muslims in Palestine do not hold Halper responsible for Israel’s murderous policies toward Palestinians, what sense does it make for Muslims to hold hapless Europeans and Americans responsible for the evil policies of the US and European governments?

If you think about this, you can see why it is suspicious that “Muslim terrorism” commits acts only against innocents, who have no influence over government policy, and not against the responsible government officials.

If Muslim terrorists are so sophisticated that they can pull off events such as 9/11 and the Nice truck attack, they are sufficiently sophisticated to understand who their real enemies are. They know that the enemy is not Frenchmen enjoying an evening on French streets.

As I have previously observed, the main neoconservatives are well known from their high positions in the George W. Bush and Obama regimes. Their responsibility for the years of US invasions, bombings, and destruction of millions of Muslim peoples is known. None of the neoconservatives have any protection. Yet there has never been a terrorist attack against any of them.

Considering that the alleged Muslim terrorists are so inconsiderate of their own lives, they could easily take out former VP Dick Cheney, who has only minimal protection. Consider that there have been no Muslim terror attacks on unprotected US Senators and Representatives and presstitutes who have fervently supported two decades of murderous warfare against Muslims. Consider that the US and Europe are now full of Muslim refugees from Washington’s wars, and terrorist events (which are probably false flag events) are rare.

In a real democracy with a real media and real opposition parties, these questions would be investigated and part of public debate, not dismissed as “conspiracy theory.” As I reported in a previous column, CIA documents were discovered that show that the CIA invented the use of “conspiracy theory” to prevent a real investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/31/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge-paul-craig-roberts/

To return to the purpose of this missive, which is to thank you for your support, I agree with the numerous readers who wrote to tell me that they do not waste time reading comment sections in which the majority of comments are the work of narcisstic idiots and paid trolls, and in which anonymous commentators slander not only the columnist but also one another. Readers advise me to treat the comments as water off the duck’s back.

I did not protest because of thin skin. As I understand it, many governments, agencies of governments, and private interest groups and individuals with agendas, such as Monsanto and George Soros, finance trolls to attack Internet writers who are critical of their agendas. Other reports say that Google is cooperating with the government’s control over explanations by making it more difficult to find truth-tellers online. Other reports say that Twitter and Facebook are censoring what can be posted.

The process of discrediting truth-tellers works as follows: A writer provides an explanation that differs from the official explanation. He or she is set upon both by narcissists full of themselves and by trolls.

His or her argument is mischaracterized. He or she is branded a “conspiracy theorist,” a “Putin dupe” or “Russian agent,” an “anti-Semite,” an “anti-American,” a “Reagan apologist.” Once these comments are posted, the troll network spreads them into social media, with the intention of discrediting the writer and creating suspicion about his or her motives and sanity. As most people are poorly informed and have difficulty differentiating The Matrix from The Reality, the trolls succeed in limiting the writer’s audience.

It is not “thin skinned” to object to a process that discredits those who provide real information when the purpose of the discrediting is to protect the official disinformation used to control explanations.

Readers continually ask me what can be done to regain control over the government. My answer is that the people cannot do anything until they understand the situation. Without good information, they cannot understand the situation. Narcissists and trolls work to keep people confused about legitimate sources.

If comment sections required real names and real email addresses, comments would be less damaging to the truth as commentators would be less inclined toward irresponsibility and malice.

Everywhere in the Western World, and this includes the Asian provinces of the American Empire, it is close to impossible to acquire accurate information. The only purpose of information from Washington and from the print and TV media and NPR is to get the captive populations to accept the officlal explanation that serves the ruling agenda. Those who provide real news, such as RT, are attacked as fonts of “fake news.” In other words, for Washington truth is an enemy. As George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

The Saker says that the agenda most in need of our attention is the “anglo-zionist agenda” of US/Israeli domination. The overriding fact of our time is that any country or person in the way of US/Israeli domination is destined for destruction.

That is our reality.

Russia and China have finally caught on that the democratic rhetoric issuing from Washington is a cloak for the evil that is the operating force of the US government.

Will Russia and China accept the hegemony of this evil or will they not? It is a very serious matter that Washington has convinced the Russian and Chinese governments that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear strike against them. This is extremely serious, not something for narcissists and trolls to play with.

For all who ask what to do, the answer is to speak out strongly against Washington for risking all life by convincing Russia and China that Washington is preparing to nuke them. To understand how dire the situation is, ask yourself why you hear no protests against such provocation of Russia and China from the West’s print and TV media, from the US Senate, from the House of Representatives, from European political leaders, from hardly anyone.

The absence of protest tells the Russians and Chinese that the American Empire is OK with the preemptive attack. Where is Merkel’s voice? Where is May’s? Where is any leader’s voice?

The absence of protest voices tells Russia and China that the die is cast.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

Bernie Sanders Talks Out of Both Sides of His Mouth, Tries to Justify Signing onto UN Letter


Last week all 100 members of the US Senate signed onto a letter criticizing the UN, and particularly the UN Human Rights Council, for seeking to “advance an anti-Israel agenda.” In the above video, Bernie Sanders, probably beloved by more liberals than any other member of the Senate, attempts to justify his decision to add his signature to the letter.

“The thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have have human rights issues. It does,” he says in his defense.

One of course would not know this from reading the letter (the full text of which can be found here ). If Sanders and the other senators truly feel that Israel indeed has “human rights issues,” they evidently don’t regard these as serious enough to merit mentioning.  Israel in the letter is portrayed as nothing more than a victim of persecution.

The first paragraph accuses UN agencies and member states of seeking to exploit the UN as “a vehicle for targeting Israel,” and goes on to assert that such actions have “at times reinforced the broader scourge of anti-Semitism.”

So let’s see…if you criticize Israel at the UN you are helping to advance “the broader scourge of anti-Semitism,” this despite the fact that Israel maintains an illegal occupation “that has no end in sight,” as the interviewer in the above video puts it.

The letter is addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who actually gets cudos from the senators for axing a recent report on Israeli apartheid that had been compiled by the Economic and  Social Commission for Western Asia. Guterres’ deletion of the report from the UN’s website was an act of censorship that prompted the resignation of Rima Khalaf, the ESCWA’s director, as I discussed in a previous post.

But adulation for Guterres notwithstanding, the senators, as mentioned above, particularly have it in for the UNHRC. They grouse that the body “even maintains a permanent item on its agenda–‘Agenda Item VII’–to assess Israel…” Heaven forbid!

Israel is an apartheid state (as the ESCWA report makes abundantly clear) whose policies toward the Palestinians probably even meet the legal definition of genocide, as I have pointed out a number of times previously. The UNHRC would be derelict if it did not have a separate agenda item to discuss such matters. Yet Sanders and the other 99 senators accuse the UNHRC of an “imbalanced focus on Israel.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of the UN, which more often than not has been used as a tool to advance US foreign policy goals, and Guterres seems well on his way to following in his predecessor Ban Ki-moon’s footsteps in that regard. Occasionally, however, one or another member of the UN will work up the nerve to criticize Israel or oppose a US war. This is one of the UN’s redeeming qualities.

As for Sanders, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth to such an extent in the above video that I almost feel embarrassed for him. Welllll…I–I–didn’t write the letter, I only signed onto it! Yes, yes I’m a lifetime proponent of nonviolent protests…uh…but no, I don’t support the BDS movement. Well then what is left for the Palestinians to do, Senator Sanders?—change the subject.

 photo ckpnt_zpsejhzkyf1.jpg

If there were a country somewhere in the world where Jews were forced into an apartheid ghetto surrounded by walls and checkpoints would Sanders, who is Jewish, be opposed to a boycott of that nation? The answer probably is yes–because instead of a boycott, the senator from Vermont would be too busy advocating a military invasion.

This is Jewish hypocrisy from the liberal end of the Zionist spectrum. Hardly any wonder, then, that Sanders, in the video’s closing segment, expresses opposition to a one-state solution–in which Palestinians and Israelis would enjoy equal rights and equal citizenship–because, as he puts it, “that would be the end of the state of Israel.”

In saying this, is Sanders not in effect admitting that Israel is an ethno-theocratic state rather than a democracy? It would seem so, but apparently Sanders has a fondness for ethno-theocratic states provided they are Jewish.

“And I support Israel’s right to exist,” he reminds us.

Given that the left in America so often tends to elevate such “luminaries” as Sanders as its leaders and role models, it is no wonder that the American left has been such a colossal failure.

I Lament Dershowitz’ Defeat?

April 28, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Alan Dershowitz, used to be my arch detractor. He chased, harassed and intimidated professors who endorsed my work. He campaigned against venues that hosted my music. Not that long ago Dershowitz saw me  as Israel’s most dangerous enemy. He even, at one stage, complained about my “obscure” sax playing.

He did it all in vain.  Dershowitz has been bitterly defeated on each and every battle he picked against me. Not a single scholar surrendered to his pressure, not even one withdrew his or her endorsement of my work. They practically just laughed to his face. Not a single institution bowed to his pressure either as he himself admits. Dershowitz has now learned the lesson. The ethnic cleanser enthusiast has raised a white flag.

Simon Hardy Butler, a NYC morbid character who writes for the Times of Israel (when he isn’t making ‘culinary videos’ that no one watches except his mother)  was stupid enough to report this week that Dershowitz ran away when he was asked to interfere against my appearance at Theater 80 on Sunday 30 April.

“What do you suggest I do” was Dershowitz’ answer to the Zionist call for action against the“notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon.”

Simon Butler, himself a dubious pathological case, wasn’t impressed. He suggested to Dershowitz to write an editorial in a major New York publication, such as the New York Daily News. “He has done this sort of thing before. Why not do it again …” But Dershowitz declined. Unfortunately, he had enough.

The truth of the matter is that Dershowitz was an elementary part of my marketing strategy. We worked very well together.  He was my favourite  enemy. The man is  known to be a compulsive liar and easy to rebut. His constant frenzy is amusing on the verge of proper entertainment. Out of the Jewish media ghetto Dershowitz is largely perceived as a clown. The ardent Zionist has managed to sell thousands of copies of The Wandering Who?  The more he engaged in my destruction the more he made himself into the archetypical ‘wandering who’.  Dershowitz was my best publicity asset. He will be missed. I actually lament his defeat.

Watch Dershowitz making The Wandering Who  into a best seller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdDJvJJsVsU

Horst Mahler: No. 1 German Political Prisoner Now ‘On the Run’

Hat tip to Nahida Izzat, who comments,

“When thoughts are criminalised and when people are thrown in prison for their ideas, we know we live in the DARKEST ages of humanity.”

But maybe not all is dark. According to a report here, Mahler is now out of prison and “on the run.”

Horst Mahler’s checkered career has taken another sharp turn. The 81-year-old neo-Nazi and Holocaust-denier has declared that he is on the run from the judiciary and is now thought to have fled the country.

In a video released on YouTube (and since removed) by the far-rightaffiliated network “Nordland TV,” the lawyer said he would not be following an order to serve his latest prison sentence, and would instead “ask for asylum in a sovereign state that is ready to accept people.”

He called the charges against him “political persecution without legal basis,” and accused Munich’s state prosecutor Manfred Nötzel of attempting to murder him in prison. An associate of Mahler’s told public broadcaster ARD that he was no longer in the country.

Related Video

Multiculturalism and the Jews

By Richard Edmondson

It was maybe five to seven years ago I first came across that now rather famous video of Barbara Lerner Spectre being interviewed in Sweden on the subject of multiculturalism. Here was an American Jewish woman condescendingly giving advice to a group of Swedes about embracing multiculturalism, and stating unequivocally that “Jews are going to be at the center” of a “huge transformation” that Europe was about to undergo.

Now here we are in the year 2017. Europe is experiencing a swelling migrant invasion–due in no small part to wars in the Middle East and North Africa initiated and promoted by Jews–and traditional European culture is under threat.

As I noted in a post last month, there is something stupendously hypocritical about Jews who preach the gospel of racial tolerance and multiculturalism in America (or in their countries of residence in Europe), while saying nothing about the apartheid policies of Israel. If you want to know how racist and intolerant Israel is, simply ask a Palestinian. Yet not only do Jews by and large support the state of Israel, they have formed lobbying groups to advocate on its behalf–this all while campaigning noisily for open borders in their countries of residence and labeling as “racist” anyone who dares suggest that unlimited immigration might be a bad idea.

Europeans and white Americans are now finding their once “monolithic societies” being ripped apart by unceasing waves of immigrants; they are finding their histories and cultures disparaged, their religious faith demeaned and denigrated, by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth “anti-fascists” who preach tolerance but who seem willing to commit acts of violence against anyone they disagree with.

The fact that Jews have been behind much of this is something that people increasingly are becoming aware of–and Barbara Lerner Spectre, bless her heart, has probably done more than any single person to wake people up to this fact. So much is this the case that you can now find a number of videos parodying her. Here is one:

Spectre is the founding director of Paideia, also known as the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden. The organization was founded in 2001 with funding by the Swedish government, and today, on its website, touts itself as both “non-denominational” and “dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe.” According to Wikipedia, Spectre herself was born in Madison, Wisconsin and studied at Columbia University and NYU. In 1967 she and her husband, who is a rabbi, moved to Israel, but in 1999, they immigrated again, to Stockholm, where her husband served as rabbi of the Stockholm Synagogue.

In an article published on a Jewish website in 2014, Spectre is quoted as speaking of an “unholy alliance” between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic sentiment in the “far left and the far right.” The article, written by Gary Rosenblatt, focuses on the problem of “increased anti-Semitism” and seeks to address the question of whether there is a “future for Jewish life in Europe.”

Rosenblatt offers no analysis of what could be the cause of rising anti-Semitism other than to suggest it was “sparked by the Gaza war” (which at the time the article was published had only been fought just three months previously–that is, of course, assuming Rosenblatt was referring to “Operation Protective Edge”–not really a war so much as a massacre of more than 2,000 people, most of them civilians), but he does include one rather remarkable paragraph–a paragraph which discusses Jewish immigration to Israel (or “making aliyah”) but that also includes a striking admission about Jews in general and their constant promotion of multiculturalism:

Similarly, European Jewish officials cringe when Israeli political leaders, in their quest to promote aliyah, assert that there is no future for European Jewry. Asserting that “the world hates us, Israel is the only safe haven,” could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such an attitude is far from helpful to those who would prefer to build a more secure future in their native country, fostering democracy and pluralism, rather than emigrate out of fear of oppression. (Emphasis added.)

So the choice before Jews, it seems, is: stay in their “native countries” where they, or the vast majority of them at any rate, can usually be found working industriously to foster “democracy and pluralism”–or, alternately, they can move to the apartheid state of Israel where they will find “safe haven” from “rising anti-Semitism.” In other words, work to ensure that multiculturalism prevails in the one place, and racism and oppression in the other. The contradiction, of course, is glaring.

But why–why do Jews work so energetically to throw open the borders of America, Sweden, and other countries to foreigners knowing that such massive influxes will be detrimental to these countries (if they can deduce widespread immigration would be bad for Israel, surely they can extrapolate that the same principle applies elsewhere)? The most widely held view is that Jews just naturally feel “safer” in a “pluralistic” society, but the gentleman in the video below posits an alternate theory. i.e. that the motive, at least for some Jews, is revenge for the holocaust.

Whether we can assume Jews are carrying out an ‘ethnic revenge fantasy’ (and it’s entirely possibly some are), a few broad coffee house-style observations and/or generalizations can be put forth. These are not my own original ideas. They are observations that have been made at many times in the past and by a wide variety of people, but they are worth repeating here.

  1. Jews regard themselves as “chosen”;
  2. This view of themselves as chosen is probably given added fuel by the fact that Jews dominate the banking and finance and media and entertainment sectors;
  3. Domination in these two sectors gives them, by way of extension, control over the politicians;
  4. Never before in history has one tiny ethnic group found itself with so much power;
  5. Jews, the ethnic group in question, obsess in a psychologically unhealthy manner over the holocaust;
  6. Obsessing over the holocaust can give rise to other pathologies, including the inability to self reflect and the tendency to see oneself as an “eternal victim”;
  7. Jews in Europe and America have promoted wars to benefit Israel;
  8. The power of the media to “demonize” this or that foreign leader (irregardless of facts) makes it relatively easy for them to get such wars started;
  9. The foreign leaders are generally accused of “killing their own people”;
  10. The wars that then are fought kill in large numbers the very same “people” the Jews initially expressed such concern for;
  11. Jews in Europe and America by and large advocate multiculturalism;
  12. In this they receive a lot of sympathetic support from the media;
  13. The same media portray as “racists” politicians who call for limits on immigration;
  14. By contrast, the media–owned by the same owners who support multiculturalism in the West–also support Israel, a country with elected leaders who are openly racist and whose policies are precisely the opposite of multiculturalism;
  15. Rising anti-Semitism among the public is the inevitable reaction to Jewish power and the hypocrisy and contradictions (and their often destructive results) in Jewish behavior.

It seems that Jews are in favor of “monolithic societies” as long as they are Jewish.

Let me return once more to the article by Rosenblatt. As I mentioned above, it seeks to address the issue of whether there is a “future” for Jews in Europe. On that question the author quotes Spectre as saying, “We have to be careful and strategic,” and then adds:

While Hungary, with its strong supremacist, nationalist government presents a threat, for instance, the German government is aggressive in its efforts to confront the anti-Jewish problem. Just last week the Conference of European Rabbis, meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia, urged governments across the continent to pass laws banning hate speech against Jews, as have France and Germany.

So let’s see…if Rosenblatt is correct, the rabbis are pushing for laws “banning hate speech against Jews” specifically. But what about hate speech against other groups of people? Apparently that’s not on the agenda.

Laws against hate speech, no matter who the speech is directed against, are a bad idea; they are nothing more than thinly disguised attacks upon free speech. I’ll go out on a limb here and venture a guess: the more such laws are promulgated, the greater the likelihood Rosenblatt’s “self-fulfilling prophecy” may come to pass.

Last year I wrote an article discussing attacks on the BDS movement in which I speculated that the motive behind these attacks may not be what it appears to be. Hate speech laws fall very much into the same category as legislative efforts targeting the BDS movement, and in my article I posed the hypothesis that such endeavors may intentionally be designed to increase rather than decrease anti-Semitism. Here in part is what I wrote:

One seemingly preferred method used by Jewish leaders to exert control over other Jews–and certainly one which Gentiles are more familiar with–is the strategy of instilling fear. And the fear button is especially manipulated to inculcate fears of rising anti-Semitism…

The right to call for a boycott is a free speech issue. And those seeking to implement penalties of this sort are in essence waging a war against the First Amendment. If there is any document the American people hold sacred and inviolable, it is the US Constitution (the Bible probably runs a very, very distant second), and if there is one part of the Constitution held as sacrosanct above all others, it is the First Amendment. Any attempt to curtail our free speech rights would be bound to elicit a visceral response from a large number of Americans.

So why would Israel supporters seek to impose such measures? Do they really believe it is going to stop the BDS movement? You could in fact argue, quite plausibly, that it will do just the opposite. Whenever a popular political movement encounters government repression, regardless of the country, the almost invariable result is that more people flock to join it. For government repression tends to legitimize social justice movements.

My guess is that the Jewish leaders pushing these initiatives have no realistic expectations of stopping the BDS movement. But the initiatives conveniently serve another purpose as well: they increase anti-Semitism. Attempts to curtail free speech in America will, as I say, trigger a visceral reaction, and if a particular group of people can be perceived as being behind such efforts, the resultant hostility will be directed at that group.

The article is entitled Synagogues and Prisons. The title is self explanatory. Jewish tribalism has in effect become a matrix in which ordinary, rank and file Jews are imprisoned. And maybe, I suggested, the time has come for a break. The greatest fear of Jewish leaders is the fear of Jews leaving the fold, so to speak–that is to say of shedding the chains of their societal reclusion and joining the rest of humanity.

Maybe, were that to come to pass, we would see far fewer Jews obsessing over the holocaust and campaigning for multiculturalism.

%d bloggers like this: