DOES CRITICIZING ISRAEL MEAN YOU ARE AN ANTI-SEMITE?

Palestinian Refugee Camp in Lebanon After the 1948 War

A blog I recently read takes an interesting view on antisemitism, the Israeli conflict, and accountability. In short, the author asserts that, because Israelis have killed many less people in wars and conflicts than other nations, it is surprising that they are still hated.  The conclusion:  anti-Semitism continues because people are making excuses to justify hating Jews.  It is a long tradition that is unfair and will probably never change (at least in my lifetime).

There is no doubt that anti-Semitism is alive and kicking.  I believe hating Jews because they are Jews is a shame and a crime against human nature.  I do not consider myself an anti-Semite.  

However, I think the explanations for this phenomenon are more complicated than comparing how many people Israelis have killed in relationship to other countries.  Engendered hatred of the Jews has more to do with the potential danger Israel has created by invading Palestine and subjugating Palestinians, thus enraging the Arab world.   

The Zionist nation is a threat to world peace.  And, ironically, Americans are fostering this threat through their support of the Israeli state!

The blog states that Jews are only responsible (in modern times) for 0.07% of deaths through conflict.  I am interested to know the source of these figures on deaths caused by Israelis. The author argues that so many more deaths have been incurred by other countries, and yet they are not hated.  I see that as faulty logic. Therefore, I am compelled to argue the point.

First, a reason for hating a people should not be based on how many are killed by that people's country.

Second, let's take another look at the statistics.  Do the numbers include Arab deaths at the hands of Irgun and Haggenah before the creation of Israel by the U.N.?  Do they include a comparison of Arab and Israeli deaths during the 1967 war, which was a war of aggression on the part of the Israelis? (Even the UN considers the borders of the state of Israel after 1948 to be occupied territories. However, Israel insisted they needed "lebensraum".  Ironic, in view of the so-called reason for WWII.)

In my opinion, backed by numerous eyewitness reports, over one million Iraqis were killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom at the behest of Israel, through Israeli lobbyists and neo-conservative American officials, some of whom have duel Israeli/American citizenship.

(Some of these dual citizenship Americans served in the Israel army, but not the American army. Why didn’t these "dual citizens" also have enlisted in the American army, as well? This may be one illuminating factor regarding where their loyalties actually lie.)

The author of the blog asserts that Israelis have not been suicide bombers, hi-jackers, or bombers. That seems to be true on the surface of the facts with which we are presented.  

Hence, my third point:  I argue, why would they commit those acts knowing that it will incur the wrath of other nations, when they can cause a great amount of damage covertly?  (For example, there are many reports that the Mossad creates and engages in many conflicts.  If you think that sounds like a conspiracy theory, I say, read more!)

Fourth, Israelis have no need of resorting to such tactics; they have considerable military strength and international connections backing them up.

Israel's complaints that they are surrounded by enemies belies the fact that Israel has the most powerful army (financed and supplied by the U.S.) in the region, and possesses 200 or more nuclear weapons (that they will not admit they have).

Yes, anti-Semitism is alive.  However, more informed and thoughtful Americans, Israelis, Europeans, and other nationals will no longer be fooled by Zionists who label them as anti-Semitic simply for criticizing the unfair and dangerous policies of Israel.  They are not the same issue.  They are not excuses to hate Jews.  In fact, there are many intelligent, thoughtful people, among them Jews, who love Jews and Jewish culture, but who object to Israeli political actions in the Middle East.

Fifth, people are afraid of the strength and backing of the Israeli state and what that means for, not only Palestinians, but also the potential for world conflict erupting into WWIII.  This fear creates conditions for many people to hate the Jewish state—but not necessarily the Jews, themselves.  A crucial and important distinction needs to be made between a people and its country's politics.

Living many years in Greece, a pro-Palestinian country, I was exposed to another side of the propaganda machine.  There I had the opportunity to weigh carefully both sides of the argument.

 

In America, with so many pro-Israeli people at the helm of mass media, we are falling victim to propaganda.  Yes, the atrocities towards the Jews and many others are inexcusable.  We all seem to agree on that point.  However, using sympathies for Jews is a dirty tactic to convince the public that the Israel state is in the “right” and that we should continue supporting Zionist policies.  

Sixth, Judeo-Christian beliefs are also culpable for misplaced hatred.

Critical thinking skills are crucial to understanding this Arab/Israeli political morass--and courage to challenge the popular, misguided attitudes of the populace.

Increasing numbers of people in the world are sick of this incessant lethal tit-for-tat between Arabs and Jews and will no longer be persuaded by accusations of terrorism by state terrorists or otherwise.

EINSTEIN QUOTE ON ISRAEL

Many people believe that Einstein was in favor of the Zionist state and was a strong supporter in its creation.  These beliefs are far from the truth.  Please read the quote below; it will give you a deeper and more detailed understanding of Einstein's viewpoint on Israel.

 "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. …the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power…. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks…" ~  Einstein speech in New York, 1938

WHY HATE GILAD ATZMON?

Every once in a while, I post articles that I especially like and want to share.  No amount of writing on my part could communicate what this article says.

www.gilad.co.uk

Why Hate Gilad Atzmon?

By Kevin Barrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/08/why-hate-gilad-atzmon/  via  Gilad Atzmon  via  rense.com

March 9, 2012

Gilad Atzmon is one of the sweetest, funniest, most charming and likable people I’ve ever met.

He’s also one of the world’s best saxaphone players. Gilad’s music is not only gorgeous, but uncommonly accessible for music in its class.

His writing, which includes two novels, a nonfiction book, and countless essays, is grounded in the highest humanistic ideals, invigorating laughter, and an irrepressible joie de vivre.


In short, Gilad is outrageously easy to like.

So why is he hated so much?

Why are his appearances protested by angry picketers? Why is the most vicious and mendacious kind of calumny being hurled at him in such quantities? Why is there an organized effort to make this gentle, loving free spirit out to be some kind of deranged Nazi?

His detractors say his writing invites it. But they’re wrong. The proof is that the anti-Atzmon brigade has to resort to lies (or to be charitable, gratuitous distortions) to make him look bad.

There must be some deeper reason why they hate him.

Maybe it’s because he’s such a powerful symbol of – and argument for – the end of Zionism.

Gilad Atzmon grew up in Israel in a Jewish family that included Holocaust survivors. He fell in love with jazz as a teenager, so when it came time to serve in the IDF he joined a military band. During his IDF service, Gilad awakened to the horrors of Zionism and its brutality toward Palestinians. Shortly after leaving the IDF, he also left Israel and never returned.

Now London-based, Gilad Atzmon is considered one of Europe’s top jazz musicians – and, increasingly, its leading ex-Israeli anti-Zionist voice. He has published two acclaimed novels, and his new book The Wandering Who? has endured vicious attacks, smear campaigns, and boycotts by such Zionists as Alan Dershowitz, and is becoming a worldwide bestseller.

In all of this, Gilad Atzmon is quite the anti-Zionist success story. His creative output, both musical and verbal, challenges arbitrary boundaries and celebrates freedom. (Jazz, the greatest art form America ever produced, is at its root a celebration of musical freedom by once-enslaved African-Americans.)

Today, more and more Israelis are lining up to get second passports and asking themselves, “Is there life after Zionism?” Gilad Atzmon offers a perfect example, with plenty of supporting arguments, of how ex-Zionist Israelis can liberate themselves from the shackles of a brutal, abusive, and ultimately doomed ideology and identity.

So that’s why they hate him. He’s the walking, talking, saxaphone-blowing embodiment of the joy of life after Zionism.

You see, most of the people who hate Gilad are radical Zionists; all (including the handful of “pro-Palestine” phonies) are prisoners of Zionist ideology. They have been trained to heap mountains of hate on anyone who crosses the one meaningful line in the whole Israel-Palestine debate: The line that separates those who support or accept the existence of a “Jewish state” in Palestine from those of us who do not.

As Norman Finkelstein inadvertently pointed out, Israel – despite its horrendous human rights record – is not going to be changed by people focusing on ephemeral abuses of human rights. The Zionists (like Finkelstein) will simply respond, “There are, and have been, human rights abuses elsewhere that are just as bad; so anybody who focuses on Israeli human rights violations must be an anti-Semite.” (Most murderers don’t get off by pleading to the judge that someone else committed an equally bad murder; but we’ll let that slide.)

Chris Hedges might respond to Finklestein that nowhere else do army snipers lure children into range of their guns, then gut-shoot them for sport; and British Medical Journal might add that the more than 600 children sport-shot during the interval they examined, who were essentially hunted and killed for fun by IDF soldiers as a de facto national policy, died from a specific and horrific type of human rights abuse that has never been seen anywhere else. But these events will be buried by the Zionist-dominated media; and no matter how horrific the abuses, there will always be different sufficiently revolting examples of inhumanity from other times and places to relativize the Israeli atrocities.

There is only one argument the Zionists cannot possibly win: The argument over whether there should be a “Jewish state” in Palestine in the first place.

Defenders of this bizarre notion must argue that it is perfectly fine for a religious-ethnic group to invade and occupy another group’s land, halfway across the world, on the basis of the aggressor group’s ancient mythology. And that it is perfectly fine for the aggressor group to dispossess and destroy the people living on that land, and to create an ethnic-specific apartheid system under which the invaders are first class citizens, while the victims are either second-class citizens or permanently exiled from their homeland.

To defend Zionism, you would also have to grant American Celts (like me) the right to invade, occupy, and erect a “Celtic state” in the Baltic or Western France or wherever our mythology says we originated. You would have to allow Andalusian Muslims (another ethnic-religious category I identify with) to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Spain. You would have to allow Protestants, whose mythology tells them that they are the true Christians, to invade and occupy the Vatican – and Palestine, for that matter. You would have to allow virtually all of the 3,000 ethnic groups on earth to invade, occupy, and ethnically cleanse someplace halfway across the world that they can claim is their “ancient homeland.”

Obviously, any and all “invade-and-occupy-our-mythological-ancient-homeland” projects are equally indefensible and equally insane.

Zionism is genocidal insanity.

It must be ended.

No more Jewish state in Occupied Palestine.

Period.

This is the bottom line. This is the line that all the Zionists, from right-wingers like Netanyahu to left-wingers like Chomsky and Finklestein and Amy Goodman and Matt Rothschild and Michael Lerner and Rob Kall and Chip Berlet and all of the hundreds of other Zionist gatekeepers that dominate the “alternative” as well as mainstream media DO NOT WANT YOU TO CROSS. These are the Police Lines that the Zionist thought police have erected, and are working overtime to maintain.
Because if you ask that one little simple question – “is the Zionist project, and the Israeli ‘nation,’ legitimate in the first place?” the whole thing crumbles to dust and ashes.

That’s the real reason the Zionists want to nuke Iran. The Iranian government is the only government in the Middle East to have, as its official policy, exactly the same position as the vast majority of the people of the Middle East: The Zionist entity in Occupied Palestine is not, and never will be, legitimate; and it must be ended, preferably by nonviolent means, as soon as possible.

And that’s why the Zionists are getting more and more hysterical in their denunciations of “delegitimizers.” (How can you delegitimize something that was never legitimate in the first place?)

And that’s why they’re hate-swarming all over Jenny Tonge, who correctly pointed out that Israel won’t last forever.

And that’s why they hate Gilad Atzmon. Not only is Gilad forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby showing the “peacenik Zionist” phonies up for what they are; but he is also fearless in his analysis of the way Jewish identity politics fosters the delusion that Jews are an “exceptional people” who should be allowed to do things to Palestine that no other ethnic/religious group would ever be allowed to do to its mythological ancient homeland across the seas.

Worse: The guy expressing these taboo but obviously-correct views, and setting such a beautiful example as an ex-Israeli anti-Zionist, is an energetic and fabulously talented Renaissance man – a superb musician and writer and mesmerizing public speaker. This must gall the Zionists to no end.

No wonder they hate Gilad Atzmon.

Maybe someday, when they get tired of hating, they’ll drop their Zionism (itself an ideology of hatred, starting with self-hatred) and embrace the love, joy and liberation Gilad embodies so beautifully.

SEE POSTS:  "DOES CRITICIZING ISRAEL MEAN YOU ARE AN ANTISEMITE?", "SETTING THE ISRAELI QUESTION STRAIGHT" and "ILLEGAL TO CRITICIZE ISRAEL?!"

ZIONISM VS ANTISEMITISM RANT

I've been debating some of my BlogCatalog "friends" on the subject of Israel and racism.  I'm shocked at the reactions my comments inspired.  Intelligent, educated people (who need to be better informed) attacked me verbally, calling me a "racist".

ME...A RACIST.  Wow. Of course, these people do not know me personally.  Those who do, however, may call me many things but "racist" is not one of them!  Ridiculous.

So, while I've been "hibernating" in Greece the last 16 yrs. countries are beginning to make it illegal to criticize Israel.  Yeah.  I'm not kidding!

One even (I'm sure in his best superior attitude) said, "If you were in England, you would probably be subject to prosecution!"  And that's a GOOD thing?!

Now I'm reading about Canada's law along the same lines.  Aaaaahhhh!!!!!

People, they are trying to make this a law in the U.S.  THE U.S!  When this happens, you can be sure it is an evil harbinger for the future of FREE SPEECH in America. (I know, "evil" is a loaded word--but I am so outraged right now that I can't think of a more accurate one.)

So, the people in those countries where it is illegal to say the truth, are ham-stringed.  You can criticize ANY other country--but NOT Israel!  (I wanna fill this page with exclamation marks!)  >:0(  Grrrrrr.......  I feel angry.

I also feel sorrow for the future of the United States, the Palestinians, and anywhere else freedom of speech does not exist.  We are becoming a fascist nation fast!

There are even specific words you can't say like "occupied territories" and "massacre."  Here's a YouTube video on "S__T Canadian Students Can't Say. It is on:  http://seriouslyfreespeech.ca/

"But I'm not a racist! I am anti-Zionist.  Those are 2 totally different concepts."  And I have said it ad nauseum with many arguments to back up my statements.

It doesn't matter.  Logic doesn't matter, critical thinking skills don't matter.  DENIAL is furiously at work in the minds of most Zionists.  Really, it's like a switch is turned off in other people's critical thinking when discussing race.  Nobody home. Creepy.

The Powers That Be (TPTB) have decided that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism mean the SAME thing.  All over the web I read:  anti-Zionism is racism.  HUH?!! But if you say it enough times, write it enough times, write it into law, voila'! They have the same meaning. (NOT!)

Anti-Zionism is not racism.  Period.  They are two different words with different meanings.

You Zionists seem to be "well-conditioned" and purposely misled.  Your emotions have overcome your logic. For the sake of the world, put aside your fear and get your heads straight.  There really are people who are against the country of Israel, but have no ill feelings toward the inhabitants or believers of Zionism.

I don't hate Zionists; I hate their actions, their policies, their deceptions, their racism against the Arab, racism against everyone else who is NOT Jewish(!), their murders of women and children, their control over the lives of Palestinians (even over water!) purposely created to make life hell for Palestinians.

The hypocrisy of Israel is outrageous.  We don't hear enough about it on U.S. TV or in the news, but the WEB--ah, the web--

I'm sure I will post many, many articles on the Israeli conflict in the future.  And I better do it fast, before it becomes illegal. ;0)

SEE POSTS:  IS ANTI-ZIONISM ANTI-SEMITISM?  and SETTING THE ISRAELI QUESTION STRAIGHT

ZIONISM VS. ANTI-SEMITISM

MISUSE OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two different concepts. Too often, those who defend Israel and its policies will cry "racism" and "antisemitism" when their beliefs are challenged.

People with higher order thinking will understand the difference. We must try to reduce emotionality when discussing this crucial political threat.


Israelis may say, "Who is the U.S. to criticize us about colonialism and expansionism when they did the same against Native Americans?" Good question. 

We were wrong. We, as a nation, also committed genocide. We, therefore, know whereof we speak. Many of us feel guilty and regretful about this time in US history.


However, two wrongs...


It is understandable that, after the holocaust, Jews would do everything in their power never again to let such monstrous events happen to them. But at any cost? "The Nazis did it to us; we will do it to the Palestinians" attitude demonstrates a very low-level morality, in my opinion. 


The attitude stems from the "eye for an eye" law in Judaism. (I love the quote in "Fiddler on the Roof" when Tevia says, "Then what? We all end up blind and toothless?!")


Dear Jewish people, we know, we know; we have heard about it, read about it, watched movies about it (greatly disproportionate to other crimes of genocide). We see the power and influence you have created and continue to wield.

ANTI-ISRAELI (NOT ANTI-SEMITIC)

It is not difficult to understand your anger, your pain, and your resolve to survive. However, surviving at all costs, perhaps at the cost of world peace (?!) may accomplish the ultimate decimation of Israel--now that's ironic! That is a type of wounded insanity. Your solutions will only benefit the very politically connected and rich few.


Israel must stop committing crimes they have accused others of perpetrating against them. They must heal their emotional wounds; they must learn to forgive. (Forgiveness is not only a Christian concept!) Unless they do, Israel's people will continue to support the aberrant policies of Zionism that will lead the world to war--again!


Perhaps many Israelis are already blind, taking revenge and committing to whatever it takes to increase Israel's strength and security. 

It is very difficult for us to understand, much less condone, the reasons why they would create, knowingly and willingly, this potential for world destruction! It seems like a sickness: Self-sabotage? Extreme narcissism? Self-hatred? Sociopathy?


Some Jews are aware of the dangers Israel is causing;  however, others seem ignorant of them and have tunnel vision about their "rightful" place in the world. 


They need to stop acting like victims, lashing out, trying to control others, and thereby becoming as evil as those who perpetrated against them. 

The Israeli issue is not really about the past. Unfortunately, however, I believe that politicians and others will continue to take advantage of peoples' emotions to harness and keep support for the Zionist agenda.


We, the other citizens of the world, need to withdraw support from this insane Zionist scheme. We need more rational, levelheaded people to tackle these issues and prevent ultimate disaster.

SETTING THE ISRAELI QUESTION STRAIGHT

IN LIGHT OF MY RECENT POST ON ISRAEL, I AM SHARING THIS EXCELLENT AND CONCISE ARTICLE, REPLETE WITH REFERENCES.

The Real Story of How Israel Was Created

   By Alison Weir
   Information Clearing House

   October 11, 2011

To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 U.N. action on Israel-Palestine.

The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the U.N. created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the U.S. governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.

In reality, while the U.N. General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.

Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.

Third, the U.S. administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.

It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.

Let us look at the specifics.

Background of the U.N. Partition Recommendation

In 1947 the U.N. took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British.

Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 percent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.

As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: They would either buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated or, failing this, use violence to force them out.

When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.

Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War I, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations.

At this time, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6 percent.

Since a founding principle of the U.N. was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the U.N. to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)

U.S. Officials Oppose Partition Plan

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and U.S. interests.

Author Donald Neff reports that Loy Henderson, Director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, wrote a memo to the secretary of state warning:

[S]upport by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle East ….” [Citations.]

Henderson went on to emphasize:

At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war.

When Zionists began pushing for a partition plan through the U.N., Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal. He warned that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was “not based on any principle.” He went on to write:

[Partition] would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future ….

Henderson went on to emphasize:

[proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [U.N.] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race ….

Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”

Henderson wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”

Truman Accedes to Pro-Israel Lobby

President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice. Truman’s political adviser, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Truman’s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)

Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II general and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would cause “[t]he great dignity of the office of president [to be] seriously diminished.”

Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford “was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the president ….”

Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on U.S. national interests.

Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the Soviets.” He also described the decisive power of the lobby:

I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended …. I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty …. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson’s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another Author, John Mulhall, records Acheson’s warning:

[T]o transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.

Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman’s Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”

Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”

A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.

PROGRESSION OF ISRAELI LAND TAKEOVER

Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Department’s director of policy planning, issued a top-secret document on Jan. 19, 1947, that outlined the enormous damage done to the U.S. by the partition plan (“Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine”).

Kennan cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost through U.S. support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.

Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events. He noted:

The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests …. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes ….

He went on:

The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.

The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter — a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of U.N.’s own charter.

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

[T]he Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the U.N. …. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw another outcome of the partition plan: that no Arab State would actually ever come to be in Palestine.

Pro-Israel Pressure on General Assembly Members

When it was clear that the partition recommendation did not have the required two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.

Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the U.S. government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, “We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.

Another Zionist proudly stated, “Every clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.”

Financier and longtime presidential adviser Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia through rubber magnate Harvey Firestone, who told the Liberian president that if Liberia did not vote in favor of partition, Firestone would revoke his planned expansion in the country. Liberia voted yes.

Latin American delegates were told that the pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegates’ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.

Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with 10 senators and Truman domestic adviser Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress).

Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable “primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land.”

He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.”

Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate voted in favor of partition.

The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. For this reason, the resolution requested that “[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,” which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a “recommendation” and did not create any states.

What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the U.N. vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the U.S. under a number of front groups.

The U.N. eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial cease-fire. A Swedish U.N. mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him, and Israel continued what it was to call its “war of independence.”

At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 percent of Palestine.

At least 33 massacres of Palestinian civilians were perpetrated, half of them before a single Arab army had entered the conflict, hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed, and a team of cartographers was sent out to give every town, village, river, and hillock a new Hebrew name. All vestiges of Palestinian habitation, history, and culture were to be erased from history, an effort that almost succeeded.

Israel, which claims to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day. In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law. It has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land ever since.

Individual Israelis, like Palestinians and all people, are legally and morally entitled to an array of human rights.

On the other hand, the state of Israel’s vaunted “right to exist” is based on an alleged “right” derived from might, an outmoded concept that international legal conventions do not recognize and in fact specifically prohibit.

[Detailed citations for the above information are available at "The History of Israel-U.S. Relations, Part One."]

PICTURES ADDED BY BLOG AUTHOR

WHY STILL OCCUPY WALL STREET?

LONDON  (FROM "THE ATLANTIC")

Some people just do not understand why others believe in certain conspiracy theories.  The common response is to deride them, call them names, and belittle them in an effort to make themselves believe that the party-lines are truth.  Some people have made a "science" out of conspiracy theorists, creating their own theories for why people believe stuff that is out of the norm.  They have their points.

PICTURE CREDIT:  THE ATLANTIC

However, people who believe in conspiracies cannot fairly be lumped together.  There are also very good points for believing in conspiracies.  Just take a close look at history.  It is full of examples of conspiracies.

Weird theories are very difficult for most people to accept--it is hard to wrap your head around them.  And if they are true, they are very scary to believe sometimes.  It's easier, feels better to stay coddled in warm comforting lies.

It is true, some conspiracy theorists may be unbalanced; however, it does not follow that all are.  What are most people's response to conspiracy theorists?  It is just easier to judge them altogether, and their theories with them, and call them "kooky" or "crackpots" or worse.  That way people can stay away from some things that demand attention and investigation; that way people won't stand out from the crowd and be called names; that way people can feel safer and more optimistic.

LOS ANGELES (FROM "THE ATLANTIC")

Using Culture Theory, we can explain why there continues to be a separation between the many and the few.  Most people do not like to be on the "fringe" of society, be ridiculed and some kind of outcasts.  They prefer the sense of safety in conformity.

Using Terror Management Theory, we can explain why people shy away from believing the outrageous--phenomena that cannot be easily explained.  We like pat answers; we want to believe what we were conditioned to believe; we don't want to think that, willingly or unwillingly, our parents, our society at large, our churches, and our governments have deceived us.

We don't want to rock our worldviews.  We are all looking for security--reasons for life and afterlife.  It is our existential person hood, our basic psychology.  Critical thinking interferes with the nest of lies society has helped us build for ourselves.  Anyway, it is easier to have others do the thinking for us.  Sadly, some of us never grow up or out of that mind-set.  Terror is a great motivator to stay blind and stay in-line.

Personally, I don't know whether to believe in God, crop circles, alien interference in our world, the Lochness monster or Bigfoot.  However, there are certain conspiracies that are difficult to deny with logic.  World banking is one of them.

PICTURE CREDIT:  THE ATLANTIC

Some Clear Message for Occupy Wall Street By Rand Clifford, Information Clearing House, October 10, 2011 is an article I urge you to read.  I've provided a few quotes from the article to give you a taste truth and history.

"Abraham Lincoln said:

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe.”

"James Madison, fourth president of the United States, called the private international banking cartel of which the Fed is a part, the “Money Changers”. And Madison said, “History records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”

"President Monroe signed into law the charter for the Second Bank of the Untied States on April 10, 1816. This bloodletting also came with a twenty-year charter—at the end of which, President Jackson was able to disengage Bankula from America’s throat. Later, when asked what his greatest accomplishment had been during his two terms as President, Andrew Jackson replied “I killed the Bank.”

He stopped charter renewal of the second Rothschild-controlled central bank. Jackson even has “I Killed The Bank” written on his tombstone."

"In the words of Niall Ferguson, of the House of Rothschild:

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.”"

Are you getting the picture?  (The article will fill in some blanks.)

Knowing these facts, do you wonder why some people believe that The Fed is involved with Israeli politics?

With world politics?

With world economics?

Do you wonder why some people believe there is a relatively small group of powerful people pulling political strings?

Do you still wonder why we STILL "Occupy Wall Street"?