The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
The American Right Should Respect Bibi
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I may be offending other members of the Old Right by expressing enthusiasm for the Israeli prime minister, but no one can accuse me of doing this in order to butter up Bibi’s American partisans. There is no group on Earth I loathe more deeply than the neoconservatives and the rest of Bibi’s cheering gallery on Murdoch Central, and I would defy anyone to show that he’s suffered more battle wounds than I from having been beaten up by the loathsome Israeli lobby. I also find myself in agreement with most of the anti-Zionists on the right, on just about any subject other than the options open to Israel in the present geopolitical circumstances. Admittedly the Jews could have avoided a heap of trouble by creating a Jewish state in a less troubled spot of the world or by taking a deal that many Ukrainians and a handful of Russian Jews did when they were offered farm land in the Canadian prairies in the early twentieth century. But most Jews held out for the Holy Land, which was hardly, with due respect to Alan Dershowitz, a “land waiting for a people.” As we know, the Zionist settlers have been suffering the consequences ever since.

The question is where we go from here. For Bibi there is no realistic choice in negotiating with the Palestinians but to allow a two-state solution. Neither he and his party nor presumably those who belong to what is counterfactually called “the Zionist Union Left” want to deal with an eventual Arab Muslim majority, which may well develop in Israel, unless Israeli Jews, and not just the ultra-Orthodox, start producing large families. Although Netanyahu in an eleventh-hour bid for votes nixed any support for a Palestinian state, once assured of an electoral victory, he immediately backtracked and explained that he only opposed such a political entity because its present leadership would endanger his country.

Netanyahu, also in the heat of battle, accused the opposition of “busing Arabs to the polls,” an accusation that greatly disturbed the Obama administration. Needless to say, the GOP and the employees of the Murdoch media had absolutely no moral problem with Netanyahu’s insensitive statement. Of course if a Republican politician were to accuse the Democrats of enticing blacks to the polls, that remark would spell the end of that hapless creature. Both his colleagues and the “conservative” press would demand the head of this “racist” Republican, even before Fox-News’ erstwhile friend Al Sharpton began grousing.

ORDER IT NOW

I also have no doubt that many who voted for Likud or who are willing to coalesce with it believe that Israel should expand to include the West Bank (and perhaps a lot more) and that the Israeli Palestinians should be stripped of all political rights. After all, Netanyahu and his family come from the right-nationalist wing of the Zionist movement, and the Revisionist Zionists, starting with their founder Zeev Jabotinsky, called for an Israel “on both sides of the Jordan.” This was to be achieved while subjecting the native Arab population to Jewish colonial rule. Jabotinsky was an effusive admirer of Mussolini and was truly shocked when the Duce went over to the dark side by allying himself with Nazi Germany. Despite the quasi-fascist genesis of the Zionist tradition from whence the Likud (and its predecessor Heirut) emerged, Netanyahu has shown himself to be more interested in Israeli security than Israeli expansion. If he’s unfortunately allowed the building of settlements on the West Bank that will likely result in escalated tensions, that’s the price he’s had to pay to form and preserve a parliamentary coalition. He needed the support of the Orthodox parties, which has brought in its wake an unwise settlement policy.

Almost involuntarily I am drawn to Netanyahu as a figure of stature. Despite the nonstop announcement by Republican politicians and Fox-news lackeys that Bibi is “another Churchill,” as a person of the Right, I can warm up to this patriot. Indeed I respect Bibi more than Winnie, who was a frenetic war-monger, ordered terror-bombing in Central Europe during the last sixteen months of World War Two and did more than FDR to appease and flatter Stalin. I believe that Netanyahu is telling us the truth when he says he is concerned first and foremost with the survival of his country, and I never mistake the global democratic drivel that I hear him spewing on Fox-news with his sense of organic nationhood and his love for his own people.

I also can’t help contrasting this Israeli leader who takes bold stands in defiance of “world opinion” to the pygmy politicians who now abound in the US and in much of Western Europe. With the exceptions of Jeff Sessions, Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orban, I find no Western leader whom I would want to see running a state in which I happened to live. In contrast to Bam, Hillary, Jeb, Romney, Merkel and the rest of this fatuous, largely indistinguishable crew, Netanyahu devotes his life to his people and its continued existence as a cultural and historic as well as political nation. Whether or not one agrees that Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel, I have never met an Israeli who didn’t believe this was the case. Israelis may have a nuclear arsenal with which they could respond to an Iranian attack, but they have no interest in engaging in such a devastating struggle. They would rather nip the threat in the bud. Moreover, as I explained to the surprise of the editor of a German nationalist publication who was interviewing me, if I were living in Israel, I would favor the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities before my enemies tried to make good on their promise to destroy me.

ORDER IT NOW

Note I am not arguing that every stand Netanyahu takes coincides with the interest of America. On the other hand, I’m not sure that the US as a global imperial power has an “interest” in the same way as Israel, Austria or Latvia does. It may be seen as being in our interest to reduce European countries to a multicultural blob by way of an expanded, politically intrusive EU. Empires generally seek control over other political entities and are not concerned with the preservation of national particularities. They can also afford to waste their energies on such projects as spreading “democratic values” and protecting homosexual rights in Central Asia. Indeed Secretary-of-State John Kerry recently announced that “gay rights are at the heart of American diplomacy.” The American empire does not have to be focused on what Marine Le Pen calls the “primordial interests of the nation.” Equally important, the US will survive and generate wealth, even when plagued by indescribably poor leadership. Less powerful countries cannot afford the mistakes that would affect us only minimally. And international boycotts can hurt their relatively fragile economies. They can be financially ruined and even swallowed up, like eighteenth-century Poland or the Baltic States through much of the twentieth century.

Lest anyone think that I have begun to sound like my lifelong adversaries, I shall close by affirming the obvious. Neoconservatives and their lackeys apply a double standard when they compare the US and Israel. They expect the US to be a global creedal nation, perpetually apologizing to certain aggrieved minorities, while the Israelis are encouraged to express their ethnic national character. AIPAC and the Murdoch media then bully into silence those who notice this double standard and brainwash their cognitively challenged gentile subjects into thinking that “Bibi is doing all this for us.” The Israeli prime minister is not working for this country. He is acting, as he should, when he looks at the survival interest of his own nation state. Although like most Zionists he plays the Holocaust-card, he does so without laying a guilt-trip on Western countries that are itching to do the PC-cringe. What Netanyahu derives from the sad experiences of the past is that his country should look after itself and leave nothing to chance. This may be a wise lesson not only for Israel but for other small nations that have to survive in dangerous neighborhoods.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anowow says:

    He has the interests of his own people at heart, which is more than can be said for leaders in the US, baring the true-believers amongst the race-hustlers. Maybe our leaders have a different definition of people, they do of interests, as in American interests they are always going on about. Maybe people and interests for them is more a matter of economics, class and affectations than ancestry or history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-american-right-should-respect-bibi/#comment-906089
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. terryt says:

    “he immediately backtracked and explained that he only opposed such a political entity because its present leadership would endanger his country”.

    He immediately backtracked because he realised it wasn’t a good look for any but Israeli conservatives. What he meant was that conditions were not right to talk about a two state solution because Israeli settlers are yet to occupy the whole of the West Bank. Surely if he was at all serious about any sort of peace solution he would cease allowing settlers to expand further into regions that must inevitably be part of a Palestinian state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Area C is the last area that can be reasonably annexed in the near-term future. In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option.

    In the longer term, if Arab birthrates fall enough, the entire West Bank could be annexed. Israeli Jews have the highest fertility rate of any OECD group. Even the seculars are growing faster than their counterparts in the US, EU, KJT.
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Neoconservatives and their lackeys apply a double standard when they compare the US and Israel. They expect the US to be a global creedal nation, perpetually apologizing to certain aggrieved minorities, while the Israelis are encouraged to express their ethnic national character.”

    But this isn’t true.

    If Neocons really believed in such a thing for the US, they wouldn’t demand that US foreign policy favor Israel over all other nations. If US should be racially and ethnically colorblind and be purely creedal and global, why should it favor Israel over Iran or Palestinians?

    What kind of a creedal nation invites the leader of another to address Congress in opposition to the president?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up a giant Menorah outside the White House every Hannukah season?

    What kind of a creedal nation has Jews vastly over-represented in all the elite institutions?

    By ‘creedal’, Neocons really mean whites should surrender their white interests and serve Jewish interests.

    A truly creedal nation would not only dispense with white identity/interests but also with Jewish identity/interests. And since when have Neocons and AIPAC been for that?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up the Holocaust Museum when Jews are only 2% of the US population and the Holocaust happened in Europe, not here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong



    If Neocons really believed in such a thing for the US, they wouldn’t demand that US foreign policy favor Israel over all other nations. If US should be racially and ethnically colorblind and be purely creedal and global, why should it favor Israel over Iran or Palestinians?

     

    To most observers, Israel is a "liberal state" that operates under modernity. In Western countries, Jewish identity is near-synonymous with liberalism.

    I doubt many would consider the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas to be in "modernity"

    The Gulf Arab monarchs are content with the commercial side of "neoliberalism" even if they are culturally illiberal. (Dubai excepted)
    , @Kyle McKenna

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up the Holocaust Museum when Jews are only 2% of the US population and the Holocaust happened in Europe, not here?
     
    And when that museum was built, there was still nothing of the kind for American Indians or Blacks. Whose relevant experiences, however you wish to characterize them, definitely occurred on American soil.
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    Hello, why has Priss been banned?

    Bubblegum Crisis rocks?

    Read More
  5. Noah172 says:

    Netanyahu and his ilk have been inflicting grievous harm on this country, my country, Paul Gottfried’s country, for years, at unconscionable cost in American (mostly white gentile) blood and treasure. Nixon’s airlift, Reagan in Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War and its 12-year aftermath, the Iraq debacle, and now Iran: we do their dirty work, while they snicker and count the money. Netanyahu has been laboring long and hard to bamboozle the American people into a cataclysmic clash with Iran, with tactics as brazen as they are shameful (and shameless). I don’t care if he’s a nationalist for his people; he’s trying to get my people killed (can’t say the same about Marine Le Pen or Viktor Orban), so to hell with him and the nation that reelects him.

    Read More
  6. KA says:

    Did the Zionist really want a peaceful independent trouble free country somewhere in the world? In the affairs of finaces and economics , wars have been the coin of the realm for the Zionist. Conflicts have enriched them,have allowed them to rehash the myth of victim hood ,have allowed them free money,massive loans,grants,and milotary aids and penetrate the Western government apparatus
    . An Israel away from the conflicts with the neighbors ( current conflicts that have religious dimension ) would never have achieved what it has. Israel would endured conflicts just like any other country does with the bordering countries but the conflicts would have remained local without the passion,zeal,bigotry,hatred,and religious touch.

    If peace were ever its goal,it could have accepted Saudi proposal. It could have completed its side of the bargain of Oslo. It could have come to tolerate and live next to Hamas territory without imposing most gruesome destructive arrogant sanctions and blockade .
    It knows that violence is what keeps it richly alive. An Israel in Cyprus,Argentina or Ugunda or even in Western Sahara wouldn’t have accomplished any of these gains. Israel would have faced the prospect of hard work just like any other country to survive .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charlesz Martel
    Sorry to break the news to you, but Jews do better than their host population pretty much everywhere in the world, and not because of your war mongering fantasies. They are simply smarter than the average bear. This translates into better political connections and influence. Much like the overseas Chinese do.

    And to further prick your bubble, we have bigger dicks as well. Sorry!

    There are many legitimate critiques that can be made of Israel and American Jews. But please apply the same standards to all groups/people that you critique. Otherwise, you're simply displaying your envy and jealousy. Which are usually due to well-founded feelings of inadequacy.

    Just sayin'.
  7. Maj. Kong says:
    @terryt
    "he immediately backtracked and explained that he only opposed such a political entity because its present leadership would endanger his country".

    He immediately backtracked because he realised it wasn't a good look for any but Israeli conservatives. What he meant was that conditions were not right to talk about a two state solution because Israeli settlers are yet to occupy the whole of the West Bank. Surely if he was at all serious about any sort of peace solution he would cease allowing settlers to expand further into regions that must inevitably be part of a Palestinian state.

    Area C is the last area that can be reasonably annexed in the near-term future. In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option.

    In the longer term, if Arab birthrates fall enough, the entire West Bank could be annexed. Israeli Jews have the highest fertility rate of any OECD group. Even the seculars are growing faster than their counterparts in the US, EU, KJT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @terryt
    "In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option".

    At the expense of the Arabs (call them 'Palestinians if you like) who live there at present. The whole situation is similar to that of European settlement of Tasmania, or European settlement of America. Just ignore the local inhabitants, or treat them as vermin to be disposed of.
  8. Maj. Kong says:
    @Anon
    "Neoconservatives and their lackeys apply a double standard when they compare the US and Israel. They expect the US to be a global creedal nation, perpetually apologizing to certain aggrieved minorities, while the Israelis are encouraged to express their ethnic national character."

    But this isn't true.

    If Neocons really believed in such a thing for the US, they wouldn't demand that US foreign policy favor Israel over all other nations. If US should be racially and ethnically colorblind and be purely creedal and global, why should it favor Israel over Iran or Palestinians?

    What kind of a creedal nation invites the leader of another to address Congress in opposition to the president?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up a giant Menorah outside the White House every Hannukah season?

    What kind of a creedal nation has Jews vastly over-represented in all the elite institutions?

    By 'creedal', Neocons really mean whites should surrender their white interests and serve Jewish interests.

    A truly creedal nation would not only dispense with white identity/interests but also with Jewish identity/interests. And since when have Neocons and AIPAC been for that?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up the Holocaust Museum when Jews are only 2% of the US population and the Holocaust happened in Europe, not here?

    If Neocons really believed in such a thing for the US, they wouldn’t demand that US foreign policy favor Israel over all other nations. If US should be racially and ethnically colorblind and be purely creedal and global, why should it favor Israel over Iran or Palestinians?

    To most observers, Israel is a “liberal state” that operates under modernity. In Western countries, Jewish identity is near-synonymous with liberalism.

    I doubt many would consider the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas to be in “modernity”

    The Gulf Arab monarchs are content with the commercial side of “neoliberalism” even if they are culturally illiberal. (Dubai excepted)

    Read More
  9. This article is a perfect example of something that I have come to realize increasingly of late. You can’t really be an anti-zionist (or anti-any other ideology) if you accept all the premises of the ideology that you ostensibly oppose.

    First glaring case in point: Paul Gottfried says that the Israelis decided to create the Jewish State in a “troubled spot in the world”. Well, actually, I beg to differ. It seems to me that before the Zionists showed up, Palestine had largely been a peaceful backwater for centuries, in which Muslims, Christians, and some Jews even (religious ones, not Zionists) got along perfectly well. Does it not occur to the author that the Zionists did not choose to set up their State in a “troubled spot”, but rather, it became a “troubled spot” precisely because they set up their Jewish State there!!!??

    And from there, it gets worse. Gottfried just accepts the whole poppycock notion that it is Israel that is constantly under threat, rather than that it is Israel constantly making the threats. Not only does Israel constantly make the threats, but she makes good on them. This whole Global War on Terror is largely a neocon/zionist project in which country after country is marked for destruction: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran… Now, if you really believe all that this is “pre-emptive defense”, well, fine. I would put it to you that there is another simpler word for “pre-emptive defense” — that is “aggression”.

    That the author simply parrots the claim that Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, which is based on a complete (and surely deliberate) mistranslation of something Ahmadinejad (no longer president, and not in a position to start a war anyway) said. Anybody can google that. The whole idea that the country that starts a new war every few years, Israel, is under threat from the country that has not started a war in centuries, is nonsense.

    Now, I do agree that the leadership of the western countries are one sorry ass lot, but that in itself does not make me want to live under the leadership of somebody like Netanyahu, who is an ultra-violent nutcase and general whack job.

    But, anyway, here is a closing thought: What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) “I’m no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children…”

    and

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    I think, in deep structure, none. You can’t accept the vicious lies of the people you oppose. To turn the old saying on its head, with enemies like Mr. Gottfried, the zionists hardly need friends!

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    thanks Jonathan Revuskey.

    You pretty well covered all the essential points.

    I have to confess I did not read the entire essay due to brain meltdown at "Iran wants to destroy me." If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously. Jews have lived longer and more securely in Persia/Iran than in any other place on the globe; indeed, it's one of the few state that has not expelled Jews.

    When someone who purports to be serious regurgitates such readily debunked nonsense I have to assume he has no respect whatsoever for his reader's intelligence and ability to fact-check. It follows that the remainder of the writer's comments must be equally fact-challenged and disrespectful. In other words, the writer has nothing to say that advances the cause of justice and the interests of the American people.

    But tell me this: Did Gottfried mention Netanyahu's Sept 12, 2002 appearance before a US House subcommittee (with Ron Dermer at his back), the session where Netanyahu urged the Congress to invade Iraq? US Congress followed Netanyahu's advice; the invasion of Iraq has been called the greatest blunder in US, perhaps all modern, history.

    Is this the same person Gottfried would prefer to live under?

    One more reason not to grant any credibility to this writer.

    , @Cali Curmudgeon
    What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) “I’m no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children…”

    and

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.


    The second is painfully obvious.....
    , @iffen
    Give Mr. Gottfried a break, he thinks the American Civil War was fought over tariffs.
  10. Neoconservatives and their lackeys apply a double standard when they compare the US and Israel.

    Partially true! It’s not only the “Neoconservatives”; it’s Jews as a whole, including you Mr. Gottfried.

    The United States is NOT a credal nation!

    The racial foundation of the American nation is Northern European Protestants, into whose society their kindred stocks from across Europe later assimilated.

    Jews are NOT a Western people.

    They are profoundly unlike us in character and conduct.

    What’s more, they are not our kin, in the literal sense of the word.

    And THAT is really the essence of nationalism – whether explicit or implied (as in traditionalism) – that what is owed to one’s kin is NOT owed to the stranger.

    I find it particularly disingenuous of the author to reserve Israel for the Jewish race but deny the West/America a European Christian ethno-religious identity.

    Read More
  11. @Anon
    "Neoconservatives and their lackeys apply a double standard when they compare the US and Israel. They expect the US to be a global creedal nation, perpetually apologizing to certain aggrieved minorities, while the Israelis are encouraged to express their ethnic national character."

    But this isn't true.

    If Neocons really believed in such a thing for the US, they wouldn't demand that US foreign policy favor Israel over all other nations. If US should be racially and ethnically colorblind and be purely creedal and global, why should it favor Israel over Iran or Palestinians?

    What kind of a creedal nation invites the leader of another to address Congress in opposition to the president?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up a giant Menorah outside the White House every Hannukah season?

    What kind of a creedal nation has Jews vastly over-represented in all the elite institutions?

    By 'creedal', Neocons really mean whites should surrender their white interests and serve Jewish interests.

    A truly creedal nation would not only dispense with white identity/interests but also with Jewish identity/interests. And since when have Neocons and AIPAC been for that?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up the Holocaust Museum when Jews are only 2% of the US population and the Holocaust happened in Europe, not here?

    What kind of a creedal nation puts up the Holocaust Museum when Jews are only 2% of the US population and the Holocaust happened in Europe, not here?

    And when that museum was built, there was still nothing of the kind for American Indians or Blacks. Whose relevant experiences, however you wish to characterize them, definitely occurred on American soil.

    Read More
  12. SFG says:

    I agree. The problem is that covering for Israel has made the entire Arab world hate our guts–Israeli and American interests are now opposed. This happens from time to time in international relations, but the MSM won’t let us admit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I agree. The problem is that covering for Israel has made the entire Arab world hate our guts–Israeli and American interests are now opposed.

    You would be amazed at how fast that hatred would melt were the United States to cease covering for Israel.
  13. Jonathan Revusky’s comments are spot on.

    Even if we accept the dubious premise that Netanyahu is simply a flawed patriot (e.g. like Putin), the simple fact is that his country lives parasitically off of the US, and if the American political class had the slightest concern for US interests or was remotely objective in policy towards Israel, Israel would be forced to come to terms with the Arabs. The Israeli Left was once fairly reasonable (a good example of how war erodes the character of any nation), and as bad as Netanyahu is, he’s actually a moderate on the Israeli right. The more belligerent strains of Israeli politics have life because of the U.S. backstop. There is no reason American nationalists should admire exploiters like Netanyahu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …Israel would be forced to come to terms with the Arabs.
     
    How'd that work out for the Persians? The Alexandrians? The Hispanians? The Copts? The Darfurese?
  14. The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking. A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region. Part of the reason was a desire for control of the holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews. Even among the Palestinians there have been struggles between the religionists and secular revolutionaries; and these would have drawn in surrounding Arab countries no matter if no Jewish state existed. Look at the instability in the governments of Israel’s Arab neighbors (with the notable exception of Jordan). Why shouldn’t we believe the same fissures would not have developed in a non-Jewish Palestine?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking.
     
    Okay, I believe I am the "respondent" you are referring to above. (That would be clearer if you had responded by hitting the "reply" button to write your response.) First of all, thank you for responding. I always do take it as a sign of some level of integrity when writers engage with commenters.

    That said, it would have been even better if you actually had engaged with the main thrust of what I was saying rather than what is really second or nth order quibbling.

    No, I was not joking when I asserted my belief that, historically, in Palestine, there was not that much of a problem between Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- before the Zionists showed up. I am not an expert on the history of that region, but I suspect you might have to go back to the time of the Crusades to find any kind of widespread sectarian conflict, as you have now. And, of course, the Crusades (aside from being one heck of a long time ago anyway) were also the result of an invasion by foreigners from Europe who were not historically from the region.

    In general, my understanding of the history is that there were more important Jewish communities in other Muslim countries: Morocco, Iraq, Iran, for example. But, generally, over the course of centuries of history, there were not major problems for Jews in these places. Maybe you could point at some isolated incidents here and there, but there was nothing like the longstanding sectarian conflict that you have between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland -- and that's just pulling one example out of many possible ones. No similar problem.

    Until Zionism...

    A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region.
     
    The fact that the Middle East was a battlefield of the First World War, as far as I can see, has just about nothing to do with my conjecture that there was very little sectarian conflict between Muslims, Christians, and Jews prior to the advent of Zionism. This is a completely orthogonal proposition.

    But, regardless, it boils down to two world views:

    (a) The State of Israel is in a tough spot because they chose a particularly problematic piece of real estate in the world to set themselves up in.

    (b) Wherever the Zionists had set up their State, they would be having massive problems, because it is their ideology, their behavior, that is the problem.

    Your view would be (a) and my view would be (b). Now, I think the facts of the matter support view (b) better than (a). However, if you really maintain view (a) just answer me one question, okay? In your article, you write:

    Admittedly the Jews could have avoided a heap of trouble by creating a Jewish state in a less troubled spot of the world or by taking a deal that many Ukrainians and a handful of Russian Jews did when they were offered farm land in the Canadian prairies in the early twentieth century.
     
    First of all, the farm land in the Canadian prairies is a non-sequitir because they were not being offered a Jewish State there. And they sure wanted that Jewish State. So, you say they should have maybe created a jewish state in a "less troubled spot of the world".

    Could you please name me one (or more, if you like) of these "less troubled spots" where the Zionists could have set up a Jewish State without having the same problems they currently have in Palestine? I ask because I really am curious. In what part of the world could they have gone and set up a Jewish State, displacing the indigenous people who had been there for centuries, and not have roughly the same problems? Please name this place or places.
    , @moi
    True, most have battled/quarreled among themselves, but how does this justify European Jews coming in and taking over Palestine? I guess you'd also justify whites taking over what is now the US because Native Americans also fought each other.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One,
     
    Well before WWI Arthur Ruppin had already visited Palestine on behalf of The [Jewish] Colonization Society of Vienna, assessed its failings and recommended corrective measures.

    By about 1910 Ruppin had acquired the most fertile land in the region, and had built Tel Aviv hard-by the prosperous Arab port at Jaffa, with the intent of displacing Arab trade and commerce.

    By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews.
     
    The yishuv was already well underway; several groups had made aliyeh by the time war broke out. Zionist Jews had already telegraphed their determination to displace Arabs from their own lands, homes and businesses.

    Try to keep up, professor.

    When you get the facts wrong it makes you look dumb.
    Nobel committee no likey likey dumb.
  15. @Jonathan Revusky
    This article is a perfect example of something that I have come to realize increasingly of late. You can't really be an anti-zionist (or anti-any other ideology) if you accept all the premises of the ideology that you ostensibly oppose.

    First glaring case in point: Paul Gottfried says that the Israelis decided to create the Jewish State in a "troubled spot in the world". Well, actually, I beg to differ. It seems to me that before the Zionists showed up, Palestine had largely been a peaceful backwater for centuries, in which Muslims, Christians, and some Jews even (religious ones, not Zionists) got along perfectly well. Does it not occur to the author that the Zionists did not choose to set up their State in a "troubled spot", but rather, it became a "troubled spot" precisely because they set up their Jewish State there!!!??

    And from there, it gets worse. Gottfried just accepts the whole poppycock notion that it is Israel that is constantly under threat, rather than that it is Israel constantly making the threats. Not only does Israel constantly make the threats, but she makes good on them. This whole Global War on Terror is largely a neocon/zionist project in which country after country is marked for destruction: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran... Now, if you really believe all that this is "pre-emptive defense", well, fine. I would put it to you that there is another simpler word for "pre-emptive defense" -- that is "aggression".

    That the author simply parrots the claim that Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, which is based on a complete (and surely deliberate) mistranslation of something Ahmadinejad (no longer president, and not in a position to start a war anyway) said. Anybody can google that. The whole idea that the country that starts a new war every few years, Israel, is under threat from the country that has not started a war in centuries, is nonsense.

    Now, I do agree that the leadership of the western countries are one sorry ass lot, but that in itself does not make me want to live under the leadership of somebody like Netanyahu, who is an ultra-violent nutcase and general whack job.

    But, anyway, here is a closing thought: What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) "I'm no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children..."

    and

    (b) "I'm no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust".

    I think, in deep structure, none. You can't accept the vicious lies of the people you oppose. To turn the old saying on its head, with enemies like Mr. Gottfried, the zionists hardly need friends!

    thanks Jonathan Revuskey.

    You pretty well covered all the essential points.

    I have to confess I did not read the entire essay due to brain meltdown at “Iran wants to destroy me.” If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously. Jews have lived longer and more securely in Persia/Iran than in any other place on the globe; indeed, it’s one of the few state that has not expelled Jews.

    When someone who purports to be serious regurgitates such readily debunked nonsense I have to assume he has no respect whatsoever for his reader’s intelligence and ability to fact-check. It follows that the remainder of the writer’s comments must be equally fact-challenged and disrespectful. In other words, the writer has nothing to say that advances the cause of justice and the interests of the American people.

    But tell me this: Did Gottfried mention Netanyahu’s Sept 12, 2002 appearance before a US House subcommittee (with Ron Dermer at his back), the session where Netanyahu urged the Congress to invade Iraq? US Congress followed Netanyahu’s advice; the invasion of Iraq has been called the greatest blunder in US, perhaps all modern, history.

    Is this the same person Gottfried would prefer to live under?

    One more reason not to grant any credibility to this writer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cali Curmudgeon
    If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously.

    Where most have been driven into exile? Where for the handful who remain dhimmi and scapegoat status is "peacefully and prosperously"? What color is the sky in your world?

  16. I can’t resist responding to the last writer whose emotional breakdown I seem to have contributed to. Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution. Between 70 and 8o percent of the Jews have since fled and the ones who remain are largely over 60. Please speak to Iranian Jewish refugees (I have) in suburban Washington, D.C. or in Los Angeles and they’ll tell you how hideous the conditions are under which their relatives are living back home. As for Netanyahu having tried to push the US into a confrontation with Iraq, the fault if we did what he urged was with the Republican Party, not the head of a foreign government. No one has ordered our government to do what the Israeli head of state urges. We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    Paul Gottfried-

    1. The "breakdown" was not emotional but in the realm of reason and logic, and basic facts, which were distorted and misrepresented in your writing.

    2. Iran STILL has the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country.

    I have been to Iran and have visited the parts of Tehran where Jews still live and prosper, and where they prefer to remain in spite of a series of offers of significant amounts of money to leave Iran for Palestine. See, for example, Our National Identity is Not for Sale, and also Moshe the Jewish antiques dealer drinks vodka.

    I am acquainted with the Iranian diaspora community in the DC area, although not many of them are Jewish. My Iranian-American friends relate that leaving their motherland was painful, but while maintaining their Persian culture and respecting its heritage, they find that their lives work best if they contribute to the place where they now live, the USA, and they do so, to the great benefit of the rest of us Americans. Theirs is a culture of reflexive hospitality and generosity, and an innate quest for beauty and justice.

    My East Coast Iranian friends tell me that Iranian "refugees" in Los Angeles -- "Tehrangeles" -- are extremely and, in their view, disgustingly, absorbed in accumulating wealth and the trinkets that reflect wealth. It may be the case that they are much like Cuban "refugees" who are still outraged at having "lost" things of great value when they left their motherland. People make choices; they should learn to own them.

    3. re Netanyahu having "pushed" US to war in Iraq -- let's skip the part about US Congress having followed the advice he urged upon them.

    Let's talk about you.

    Maybe you think that was such good advice that the person who proffered it should be "respected." Maybe you think that it was appropriate that the same body that made that horrendous decision should once again seek the advice of the person who gave advice that was not only boneheaded but even melodramatically sophomoric -- review the entire Sept 12, 2002 hearing; it's as painful to listen to Netanyahu spin Hollywood fantasy tales about "someone with a knife ..." as it is pathetic to watch US Congressmen (the women were more critical & skeptical) fawn over Netanyahu like a pup to an alpha dog.


    4. Finally, you wrote:


    We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.
     
    Americans in the millions, and other millions around the world protested US plans to wage war on Iraq. Their voices were not heard.

    US Congress enjoys the support of 16% of the American people.

    By the numbers, that means that Most Americans would NOT endorse the behavior of United States Congress as they adulate the leader of a foreign state who gives them bad advice again after having given them bad advice before -- tragically bad advice that resulted in

    the deaths of thousands of Americans;

    the wounding and serious physical, mental and emotional disabling of tens of thousands of America's young people;

    the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis;

    the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis;

    the destruction of an entire nation;

    the expenditure of billions of US tax dollars;

    the ruin of US moral standing.

    It gives me great hope that 84% of the American people do NOT "respect Bibi."

    , @D. K.
    Why not speak, instead, to Iranian Jews in, say, Iran, Dr. Gottfried? There are videos on youtube.com that you can watch, if Teheran is not on your own travel itinerary, any time soon.

    In my time in Beverly Hills, Iranian Jewish "refugees"-- or, as they preferred to call themselves, "Persian Jews" (which strikes me as either an oxymoron or, at best, an anachronism)-- were practically colonizing the city. My sister and Ashkenazi brother-in-law sold their house to Persian Jews, and most of their neighborhood had been bought up by the "refugee" community, as well (except for Racquel Welch's place, at that time).

    I spent a lot of time in the library, and it was like being in the Middle East, the patrons were so overwhelmingly swarthy. What they did not strike me as, however, was overwhelmingly religious. I think that that might be the essential difference between the Iranian Jews in Iran, these days, and the Persian Jews in Beverly Hills: the former actually cherish their Jewish heritage, while the latter tend to cherish their own worldly success. They did not arrive in the New World empty-handed-- which is why so many of them wound up near Rodeo Drive!

    I found the Persian-Jewish women in Beverly Hills to be extremely attractive, aesthetically, and all the more so with their haute couture designer outfits-- complete with haute fourrure handbags! I did not get any sense, however, that they were nearly as attractive, on the inside, as they were on the outside. Perhaps they had just "gone native" in that rarified environment; but, something tells me that they were markedly different from those Iranian Jews that they left behind, before they ever had left!?!
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution.
     
    Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran's oil wealth for the benefit of her people.

    Now, the regime of the Shah had a very tight relationship with the Zionists. For example, the Shah's feared secret police was very tight with Israeli Mossad.

    Okay, so this is what I am wondering... you mention the fact that very many Jews fled Iran after the revolution. However, very many non-Jews also fled Iran after the revolution. Did the Jews who fled have to flee because they were Jews specifically? Or was it because they were associated with the previous regime of the Shah? Do you know the answer? (I don't claim to know for sure...)

    You mention the "hideous conditions" in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions "hideous" because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?

    But, now, as for this part, this is where I really started to wonder about your grasp of reality:

    We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.
     
    You know, Mr. Gottfried, at some point in the beginning of the modern age, there was a Copernican revolution. Copernicus (and others, I'm sure) realized that the sun doesn't go round the earth. The earth goes round the sun.

    What does this have to do with this conversation, you might ask... Well, bear with me and I'll get there...

    So, if you have to discuss astronomy but pretend that the sun goes round the earth, because otherwise, you're committing heresy, then you end up coming up with very convoluted (and incorrect) explanations of things, that, if you had the right paradigm, actually have a simple explanation.

    Now, similarly, you see, to be a respectable commentator on current events, you have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as false flag terrorism. To believe in false flag terrorism makes you a "conspiracy theorist". You also have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as the power of organized world Jewry. Because if you talk about that, then you are not only a "conspiracy theorist" but an "anti-semite", which is even worse.

    But, you see, the problem is that the earth does go round the sun, false flag terrorism does exist, and also there really is a formidable Judaeo-Zionist power structure that largely controls U.S. foreign policy.

    But, okay, let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am wrong, and that the mess in Iraq and all these other places were stupidities that the U.S. "independently committed".

    The architects of these policies, who just happen to largely be dual loyalty Zionist Jews (they just "happen to be" because there is no organized world Jewish power, perish the thought...), have now got the policies they advocated enacted. (Since 9/11, which just fortuitously and randomly happened, allowing them to start all these wars...) Now, after 13 years or so, we can assess all these policies and say that they have been absolutely horrendous and disastrous, both from the humanitarian point of view in the various countries (which they likely don't give a damn about) and also from the point of view of U.S. national interest (which they presumably do give a damn about.)

    If these people, the neocons, are always wrong about everything, disastrously, tragically wrong, why do they still dominate all the discourse? I mean, the U.S. is a country that acts independently. So you say. It is not the big sock puppet of some (nonexistent) Judaeo-Zionist power structure, no. So you say. So, if all these people are always wrong about EVERYTHING, why are they never replaced? Why do these people never get run out of Washington?

    You understand the above question, right? Could you take a stab at answering that?
  17. I disagree with the following statement from this otherwise fine article:

    “The American empire does not have to be focused on what Marine Le Pen calls the “primordial interests of the nation.” Equally important, the US will survive and generate wealth, even when plagued by indescribably poor leadership.”

    American citizens are currently making the same mistake many of them do when inheriting a bourgeois estate: They are assuming, incorrectly, that their good fortune is large enough to last forever no matter what they do. In a generation or two, that good fortune can disappear if not managed and cultivated properly.

    If immigration, outsourcing, and foreign entanglements (including those with Israel) are not reduced to manageable levels now, the United States will not be recognizable at the end of this century, and its power will have shrunk.

    Read More
  18. @paul gottfried
    I can't resist responding to the last writer whose emotional breakdown I seem to have contributed to. Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution. Between 70 and 8o percent of the Jews have since fled and the ones who remain are largely over 60. Please speak to Iranian Jewish refugees (I have) in suburban Washington, D.C. or in Los Angeles and they'll tell you how hideous the conditions are under which their relatives are living back home. As for Netanyahu having tried to push the US into a confrontation with Iraq, the fault if we did what he urged was with the Republican Party, not the head of a foreign government. No one has ordered our government to do what the Israeli head of state urges. We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    Paul Gottfried-

    1. The “breakdown” was not emotional but in the realm of reason and logic, and basic facts, which were distorted and misrepresented in your writing.

    2. Iran STILL has the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country.

    I have been to Iran and have visited the parts of Tehran where Jews still live and prosper, and where they prefer to remain in spite of a series of offers of significant amounts of money to leave Iran for Palestine. See, for example, Our National Identity is Not for Sale, and also Moshe the Jewish antiques dealer drinks vodka.

    I am acquainted with the Iranian diaspora community in the DC area, although not many of them are Jewish. My Iranian-American friends relate that leaving their motherland was painful, but while maintaining their Persian culture and respecting its heritage, they find that their lives work best if they contribute to the place where they now live, the USA, and they do so, to the great benefit of the rest of us Americans. Theirs is a culture of reflexive hospitality and generosity, and an innate quest for beauty and justice.

    My East Coast Iranian friends tell me that Iranian “refugees” in Los Angeles — “Tehrangeles” — are extremely and, in their view, disgustingly, absorbed in accumulating wealth and the trinkets that reflect wealth. It may be the case that they are much like Cuban “refugees” who are still outraged at having “lost” things of great value when they left their motherland. People make choices; they should learn to own them.

    3. re Netanyahu having “pushed” US to war in Iraq — let’s skip the part about US Congress having followed the advice he urged upon them.

    Let’s talk about you.

    Maybe you think that was such good advice that the person who proffered it should be “respected.” Maybe you think that it was appropriate that the same body that made that horrendous decision should once again seek the advice of the person who gave advice that was not only boneheaded but even melodramatically sophomoric — review the entire Sept 12, 2002 hearing; it’s as painful to listen to Netanyahu spin Hollywood fantasy tales about “someone with a knife …” as it is pathetic to watch US Congressmen (the women were more critical & skeptical) fawn over Netanyahu like a pup to an alpha dog.

    4. Finally, you wrote:

    We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    Americans in the millions, and other millions around the world protested US plans to wage war on Iraq. Their voices were not heard.

    US Congress enjoys the support of 16% of the American people.

    By the numbers, that means that Most Americans would NOT endorse the behavior of United States Congress as they adulate the leader of a foreign state who gives them bad advice again after having given them bad advice before — tragically bad advice that resulted in

    the deaths of thousands of Americans;

    the wounding and serious physical, mental and emotional disabling of tens of thousands of America’s young people;

    the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis;

    the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis;

    the destruction of an entire nation;

    the expenditure of billions of US tax dollars;

    the ruin of US moral standing.

    It gives me great hope that 84% of the American people do NOT “respect Bibi.”

    Read More
  19. D. K. says:
    @paul gottfried
    I can't resist responding to the last writer whose emotional breakdown I seem to have contributed to. Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution. Between 70 and 8o percent of the Jews have since fled and the ones who remain are largely over 60. Please speak to Iranian Jewish refugees (I have) in suburban Washington, D.C. or in Los Angeles and they'll tell you how hideous the conditions are under which their relatives are living back home. As for Netanyahu having tried to push the US into a confrontation with Iraq, the fault if we did what he urged was with the Republican Party, not the head of a foreign government. No one has ordered our government to do what the Israeli head of state urges. We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    Why not speak, instead, to Iranian Jews in, say, Iran, Dr. Gottfried? There are videos on youtube.com that you can watch, if Teheran is not on your own travel itinerary, any time soon.

    In my time in Beverly Hills, Iranian Jewish “refugees”– or, as they preferred to call themselves, “Persian Jews” (which strikes me as either an oxymoron or, at best, an anachronism)– were practically colonizing the city. My sister and Ashkenazi brother-in-law sold their house to Persian Jews, and most of their neighborhood had been bought up by the “refugee” community, as well (except for Racquel Welch’s place, at that time).

    I spent a lot of time in the library, and it was like being in the Middle East, the patrons were so overwhelmingly swarthy. What they did not strike me as, however, was overwhelmingly religious. I think that that might be the essential difference between the Iranian Jews in Iran, these days, and the Persian Jews in Beverly Hills: the former actually cherish their Jewish heritage, while the latter tend to cherish their own worldly success. They did not arrive in the New World empty-handed– which is why so many of them wound up near Rodeo Drive!

    I found the Persian-Jewish women in Beverly Hills to be extremely attractive, aesthetically, and all the more so with their haute couture designer outfits– complete with haute fourrure handbags! I did not get any sense, however, that they were nearly as attractive, on the inside, as they were on the outside. Perhaps they had just “gone native” in that rarified environment; but, something tells me that they were markedly different from those Iranian Jews that they left behind, before they ever had left!?!

    Read More
  20. Feeding nationalism, along with stoking grievance and victimhood, leads to circumstances such as in Weimar Germany, where serious pathologies of mind become mainstream, with no good consequence. People and their leaders should think about the consequences, before indulging in it themselves or imposing it upon others.

    Read More
  21. schmenz says:

    As much as I respect Dr Gottfried, and have always respected him, it would be extremely difficult for me to respect a war criminal which, by any rational criteria, describes Mr Netanyahu.

    Read More
  22. I don’t really care what happens between Israel, its neighbors, Palestinians or Iran. I understand that Israelis will defend their interests. At the same time, it’s beyond dispute that the Palestinians have been horribly wronged, no matter how one views their history, and that Palestinians have far more reasons to be fearful of Israelis than the reverse. It’s completely reasonable for Israel’s neighbors and targets to want every single weapon that the Israelis have. They have interests that are threatened by Israel.

    If I’m not on the American right, I don’t know where I would fit on the political spectrum, and I have no love for Netanyahu. The fact that our crooked politicians bow to him makes me dislike him even more, no matter how much he loves Israel and Jews. Traditional America doesn’t tend to benefit from Jewish politics from any point on the political spectrum. Is it okay if we vigorously defend our interests from the obvious aggression from leftist and neocon Jews? How far can we go in protecting our interests? How far is too far?

    Read More
  23. LarryS says:

    Don’t Zionists, Jewish and Christian, believe that the Jews, who call themselves Israel, are entitled to the Holy Land because of God’s promise to Abram? Genesis 15:18 (see map link) says “On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— ”

    Many Zionists deny that Israel intends to take all this land. Then on what basis do they claim that the Jews are entitled to any of the land? I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    >> I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?


    Maybe that they're getting a taste of their own medicine for having genocided (and stolen the land of) the Aramaeans, the Syriacs, the Copts, and the Berbers.


    It's cute that lots and lots of Westerners want to start the social-justice calender at the world situation as of 1946. Sorry, that's not in our playbook. You can ask Rachel Corrie.

    We were here as the indigenii long before the Arabic-speakers arrived in AD 630..... and we'll be here when they're as gone as they are from Al Andalus.
  24. @paul gottfried
    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking. A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region. Part of the reason was a desire for control of the holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews. Even among the Palestinians there have been struggles between the religionists and secular revolutionaries; and these would have drawn in surrounding Arab countries no matter if no Jewish state existed. Look at the instability in the governments of Israel's Arab neighbors (with the notable exception of Jordan). Why shouldn't we believe the same fissures would not have developed in a non-Jewish Palestine?

    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking.

    Okay, I believe I am the “respondent” you are referring to above. (That would be clearer if you had responded by hitting the “reply” button to write your response.) First of all, thank you for responding. I always do take it as a sign of some level of integrity when writers engage with commenters.

    That said, it would have been even better if you actually had engaged with the main thrust of what I was saying rather than what is really second or nth order quibbling.

    No, I was not joking when I asserted my belief that, historically, in Palestine, there was not that much of a problem between Muslims, Christians, and Jews — before the Zionists showed up. I am not an expert on the history of that region, but I suspect you might have to go back to the time of the Crusades to find any kind of widespread sectarian conflict, as you have now. And, of course, the Crusades (aside from being one heck of a long time ago anyway) were also the result of an invasion by foreigners from Europe who were not historically from the region.

    In general, my understanding of the history is that there were more important Jewish communities in other Muslim countries: Morocco, Iraq, Iran, for example. But, generally, over the course of centuries of history, there were not major problems for Jews in these places. Maybe you could point at some isolated incidents here and there, but there was nothing like the longstanding sectarian conflict that you have between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland — and that’s just pulling one example out of many possible ones. No similar problem.

    Until Zionism…

    A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region.

    The fact that the Middle East was a battlefield of the First World War, as far as I can see, has just about nothing to do with my conjecture that there was very little sectarian conflict between Muslims, Christians, and Jews prior to the advent of Zionism. This is a completely orthogonal proposition.

    But, regardless, it boils down to two world views:

    (a) The State of Israel is in a tough spot because they chose a particularly problematic piece of real estate in the world to set themselves up in.

    (b) Wherever the Zionists had set up their State, they would be having massive problems, because it is their ideology, their behavior, that is the problem.

    Your view would be (a) and my view would be (b). Now, I think the facts of the matter support view (b) better than (a). However, if you really maintain view (a) just answer me one question, okay? In your article, you write:

    Admittedly the Jews could have avoided a heap of trouble by creating a Jewish state in a less troubled spot of the world or by taking a deal that many Ukrainians and a handful of Russian Jews did when they were offered farm land in the Canadian prairies in the early twentieth century.

    First of all, the farm land in the Canadian prairies is a non-sequitir because they were not being offered a Jewish State there. And they sure wanted that Jewish State. So, you say they should have maybe created a jewish state in a “less troubled spot of the world”.

    Could you please name me one (or more, if you like) of these “less troubled spots” where the Zionists could have set up a Jewish State without having the same problems they currently have in Palestine? I ask because I really am curious. In what part of the world could they have gone and set up a Jewish State, displacing the indigenous people who had been there for centuries, and not have roughly the same problems? Please name this place or places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Please name this place or places."

    Antarctica?
  25. anon says: • Disclaimer

    It’s hard – I’d say impossible really – to respect Israelis for doing what’s best for their people while despising the western politicians they bought to achieve it. The two responses crowd each other out like matter and anti-matter.

    Read More
  26. @paul gottfried
    I can't resist responding to the last writer whose emotional breakdown I seem to have contributed to. Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution. Between 70 and 8o percent of the Jews have since fled and the ones who remain are largely over 60. Please speak to Iranian Jewish refugees (I have) in suburban Washington, D.C. or in Los Angeles and they'll tell you how hideous the conditions are under which their relatives are living back home. As for Netanyahu having tried to push the US into a confrontation with Iraq, the fault if we did what he urged was with the Republican Party, not the head of a foreign government. No one has ordered our government to do what the Israeli head of state urges. We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution.

    Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran’s oil wealth for the benefit of her people.

    Now, the regime of the Shah had a very tight relationship with the Zionists. For example, the Shah’s feared secret police was very tight with Israeli Mossad.

    Okay, so this is what I am wondering… you mention the fact that very many Jews fled Iran after the revolution. However, very many non-Jews also fled Iran after the revolution. Did the Jews who fled have to flee because they were Jews specifically? Or was it because they were associated with the previous regime of the Shah? Do you know the answer? (I don’t claim to know for sure…)

    You mention the “hideous conditions” in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions “hideous” because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?

    But, now, as for this part, this is where I really started to wonder about your grasp of reality:

    We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.

    You know, Mr. Gottfried, at some point in the beginning of the modern age, there was a Copernican revolution. Copernicus (and others, I’m sure) realized that the sun doesn’t go round the earth. The earth goes round the sun.

    What does this have to do with this conversation, you might ask… Well, bear with me and I’ll get there…

    So, if you have to discuss astronomy but pretend that the sun goes round the earth, because otherwise, you’re committing heresy, then you end up coming up with very convoluted (and incorrect) explanations of things, that, if you had the right paradigm, actually have a simple explanation.

    Now, similarly, you see, to be a respectable commentator on current events, you have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as false flag terrorism. To believe in false flag terrorism makes you a “conspiracy theorist”. You also have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as the power of organized world Jewry. Because if you talk about that, then you are not only a “conspiracy theorist” but an “anti-semite”, which is even worse.

    But, you see, the problem is that the earth does go round the sun, false flag terrorism does exist, and also there really is a formidable Judaeo-Zionist power structure that largely controls U.S. foreign policy.

    But, okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am wrong, and that the mess in Iraq and all these other places were stupidities that the U.S. “independently committed”.

    The architects of these policies, who just happen to largely be dual loyalty Zionist Jews (they just “happen to be” because there is no organized world Jewish power, perish the thought…), have now got the policies they advocated enacted. (Since 9/11, which just fortuitously and randomly happened, allowing them to start all these wars…) Now, after 13 years or so, we can assess all these policies and say that they have been absolutely horrendous and disastrous, both from the humanitarian point of view in the various countries (which they likely don’t give a damn about) and also from the point of view of U.S. national interest (which they presumably do give a damn about.)

    If these people, the neocons, are always wrong about everything, disastrously, tragically wrong, why do they still dominate all the discourse? I mean, the U.S. is a country that acts independently. So you say. It is not the big sock puppet of some (nonexistent) Judaeo-Zionist power structure, no. So you say. So, if all these people are always wrong about EVERYTHING, why are they never replaced? Why do these people never get run out of Washington?

    You understand the above question, right? Could you take a stab at answering that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cali Curmudgeon
    "Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran’s oil wealth for the benefit of her people."

    Expropriation and theft, Soviet style, in other words, by a willing Soviet agent. Would a Soviet satellite Iran have been wonderful to you?

    Whatever happened to "Zionist Bolshevism", by the way?
  27. Paul Gottfried shouldn’t be pulling Bibi’s chestnuts out of the fire without understanding the wider dynamics:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/14/gods-chosen-a-dumb-idea/

    And the fact Bibi is an unabashed sponsor of assassins (state terror) and not only of Iranian scientists:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/04/death-of-a-mossad-agent/

    &

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/06/mossad-and-jews-for-jesus/

    And a whole lot more:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/02/02/on-israel/

    For the short attention spans, this brief satire sums the relationship in short & sweet terms:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/22/demons-anonymous/

    ^

    No one in their right mind would trust Bibi (other than MOSSAD linked organized crime)

    Read More
  28. “The American Right Should Respect Bibi”

    Huh? The American Right DOES respect Bibi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The American Right DOES respect Bibi.
     
    I guess... if bending over and offering him their buttocks is what you mean by "respect"...
  29. How could anyone read Netanyahu’s book A Place Among the Nations and not see that he is a pseudo-intellectual, a rewriter of history and a political charlatan?

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    With his father, Benzion (Milikovsky) Netanyahu, Bibi hosted the first Jerusalem Conference at the Jonathan Institute in July 1979.

    George H W Bush was among the presenters.

    George Schultz was in attendance, as were a number of non-Jewish neoconservatives.

    The Conference drew the blueprint of the Global War on Terror. It proceedings were published in

    International Terrorism: Challenge and Response.

    Bibi published the book in several different iterations over the years, re-crafting it only slightly to produce the "pseudo-intellectual re-write of history" and work of "political charlatanism" that Philip Neal mentioned.

    To the best of my knowledge, there was only one version of Mein Kampf.
  30. @Jonathan Revusky
    This article is a perfect example of something that I have come to realize increasingly of late. You can't really be an anti-zionist (or anti-any other ideology) if you accept all the premises of the ideology that you ostensibly oppose.

    First glaring case in point: Paul Gottfried says that the Israelis decided to create the Jewish State in a "troubled spot in the world". Well, actually, I beg to differ. It seems to me that before the Zionists showed up, Palestine had largely been a peaceful backwater for centuries, in which Muslims, Christians, and some Jews even (religious ones, not Zionists) got along perfectly well. Does it not occur to the author that the Zionists did not choose to set up their State in a "troubled spot", but rather, it became a "troubled spot" precisely because they set up their Jewish State there!!!??

    And from there, it gets worse. Gottfried just accepts the whole poppycock notion that it is Israel that is constantly under threat, rather than that it is Israel constantly making the threats. Not only does Israel constantly make the threats, but she makes good on them. This whole Global War on Terror is largely a neocon/zionist project in which country after country is marked for destruction: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran... Now, if you really believe all that this is "pre-emptive defense", well, fine. I would put it to you that there is another simpler word for "pre-emptive defense" -- that is "aggression".

    That the author simply parrots the claim that Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, which is based on a complete (and surely deliberate) mistranslation of something Ahmadinejad (no longer president, and not in a position to start a war anyway) said. Anybody can google that. The whole idea that the country that starts a new war every few years, Israel, is under threat from the country that has not started a war in centuries, is nonsense.

    Now, I do agree that the leadership of the western countries are one sorry ass lot, but that in itself does not make me want to live under the leadership of somebody like Netanyahu, who is an ultra-violent nutcase and general whack job.

    But, anyway, here is a closing thought: What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) "I'm no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children..."

    and

    (b) "I'm no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust".

    I think, in deep structure, none. You can't accept the vicious lies of the people you oppose. To turn the old saying on its head, with enemies like Mr. Gottfried, the zionists hardly need friends!

    What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) “I’m no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children…”

    and

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..
     

    Yeah, obvious. Just like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. In the fable, how many times did the boy cry wolf before the villagers stopped paying him any heed?

    It reminds me of the old proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me 537 times... WTF??? I must be ****in' stupid!"

    (Or something like that...)

    , @solontoCroesus
    Curmudgeon wrote:

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..
     
    That's an assertion.

    Got any evidence to back it up?
    Hard evidence, not misquoted rhetoric.

    Hard evidence means something like, oh, the assassination of Israeli nuclear scientists ...

    ---

    re the Rhetoric:

    In a discussion in NYC a year or so ago hosted by Dr. Hooshang Ahmirimadi, pres. of the American Iranian Friendship Council, Dr. Richard Bulliet of Columbia University talked about the oft-quoted phrase, "Death to America."

    In preparing for the talk Bulliet asked a Farsi-speaking colleague how to say Death to America, Death to Israel in Farsi.
    The colleague told him.
    Then Bulliet asked, "How do you say Down with America, Down with Israel?"
    "It's the same," said the colleague: "Down with Israel" is the same as "Death to Israel." There is no different way to say Down with Israel ---."

    Bulliet then suggested to the audience that, whatever the accurate translation, it would be advisable for Iranians to stop chanting Down with Israel.
    And that is true.
    And in fact they have.

    On the other hand, should Americans and Israelis expect Iranians to throw flower petals and welcome sanctions that are intended to destroy their economy and are having the very real effect of causing physical harm to their grandparents, nutritional harm to their children, high unemployment among their young people?

    What would American do if an alien force interfered with the US economy with the goal of causing it to implode?
    Oh, wait a minute: the difference between Iranians and Americans is that Iranians know that they are being screwed and who is screwing them and they register their resistance, while Americans do not.
  31. @solontoCroesus
    thanks Jonathan Revuskey.

    You pretty well covered all the essential points.

    I have to confess I did not read the entire essay due to brain meltdown at "Iran wants to destroy me." If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously. Jews have lived longer and more securely in Persia/Iran than in any other place on the globe; indeed, it's one of the few state that has not expelled Jews.

    When someone who purports to be serious regurgitates such readily debunked nonsense I have to assume he has no respect whatsoever for his reader's intelligence and ability to fact-check. It follows that the remainder of the writer's comments must be equally fact-challenged and disrespectful. In other words, the writer has nothing to say that advances the cause of justice and the interests of the American people.

    But tell me this: Did Gottfried mention Netanyahu's Sept 12, 2002 appearance before a US House subcommittee (with Ron Dermer at his back), the session where Netanyahu urged the Congress to invade Iraq? US Congress followed Netanyahu's advice; the invasion of Iraq has been called the greatest blunder in US, perhaps all modern, history.

    Is this the same person Gottfried would prefer to live under?

    One more reason not to grant any credibility to this writer.

    If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously.

    Where most have been driven into exile? Where for the handful who remain dhimmi and scapegoat status is “peacefully and prosperously”? What color is the sky in your world?

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    best of my knowledge, Curmudgeon, Iranian Jews who left drove their own wagons.

    They made a choice, just as did any number of non-Jewish Iranians.


    for even stronger arguments I defer to Jonathan Revulsky; for example, @ 7:42 ---


    "You mention the “hideous conditions” in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions “hideous” because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?"
     
    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany before the US and British deployed the Carthage strategy on Germany, reducing it to rubble, laying waste 800 years of Germany's cultural legacy.

    There is every reason to believe zionists intend the same treatment for Iran, a supposition only heightened by this passage from Michael Ledeen's "The War Against the Terror Masters" --


    In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

    Creative destruction is our* middle name, both within our own* society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our* enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America* undo traditional societies, they fear us,* for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we* are there, for our very existence—our* existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us* in order to survive, just as we* must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
     

     
    --applied to this set of historical facts: that Israel is behindISIL's destruction of Assyrian & Babylonian artifacts, as a means to obliterate the truths that zionists have no claim whatsoever to the land of Palestine.

    * Ledeen dons Joseph's coat and masquerades as an American. The ideology expressed, however, is from the Hebrew mythos. It does not square with Washington's counsels to the young American Constitutional republic:


    Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?
    Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

    32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

    33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
     

    Nothing, not one word in this lengthy passage even hints that the American people and their leaders should carry out as a matter of policy the deliberate destruction of the culture and practices of another nation.
  32. terryt [AKA "terry"] says:
    @Maj. Kong
    Area C is the last area that can be reasonably annexed in the near-term future. In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option.

    In the longer term, if Arab birthrates fall enough, the entire West Bank could be annexed. Israeli Jews have the highest fertility rate of any OECD group. Even the seculars are growing faster than their counterparts in the US, EU, KJT.

    “In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option”.

    At the expense of the Arabs (call them ‘Palestinians if you like) who live there at present. The whole situation is similar to that of European settlement of Tasmania, or European settlement of America. Just ignore the local inhabitants, or treat them as vermin to be disposed of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Conquering a continent is easier when you have the "winds of change" on your side. In the 16-18th centuries, that was disease immunity. In the 20th, it was Marxism. In the 21st, I predict it will be identitarianism.

    Area C is less dense than Areas A and B, the replaced are mostly going to be farmers. In other terms, no different than what China does every day.
  33. @Jonathan Revusky

    Iran had the largest Jewish community in a Muslim country until the Ayatollahs carried out their portentous revolution.
     
    Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran's oil wealth for the benefit of her people.

    Now, the regime of the Shah had a very tight relationship with the Zionists. For example, the Shah's feared secret police was very tight with Israeli Mossad.

    Okay, so this is what I am wondering... you mention the fact that very many Jews fled Iran after the revolution. However, very many non-Jews also fled Iran after the revolution. Did the Jews who fled have to flee because they were Jews specifically? Or was it because they were associated with the previous regime of the Shah? Do you know the answer? (I don't claim to know for sure...)

    You mention the "hideous conditions" in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions "hideous" because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?

    But, now, as for this part, this is where I really started to wonder about your grasp of reality:

    We commit our own stupidities quite independently of other states.
     
    You know, Mr. Gottfried, at some point in the beginning of the modern age, there was a Copernican revolution. Copernicus (and others, I'm sure) realized that the sun doesn't go round the earth. The earth goes round the sun.

    What does this have to do with this conversation, you might ask... Well, bear with me and I'll get there...

    So, if you have to discuss astronomy but pretend that the sun goes round the earth, because otherwise, you're committing heresy, then you end up coming up with very convoluted (and incorrect) explanations of things, that, if you had the right paradigm, actually have a simple explanation.

    Now, similarly, you see, to be a respectable commentator on current events, you have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as false flag terrorism. To believe in false flag terrorism makes you a "conspiracy theorist". You also have to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no such thing as the power of organized world Jewry. Because if you talk about that, then you are not only a "conspiracy theorist" but an "anti-semite", which is even worse.

    But, you see, the problem is that the earth does go round the sun, false flag terrorism does exist, and also there really is a formidable Judaeo-Zionist power structure that largely controls U.S. foreign policy.

    But, okay, let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am wrong, and that the mess in Iraq and all these other places were stupidities that the U.S. "independently committed".

    The architects of these policies, who just happen to largely be dual loyalty Zionist Jews (they just "happen to be" because there is no organized world Jewish power, perish the thought...), have now got the policies they advocated enacted. (Since 9/11, which just fortuitously and randomly happened, allowing them to start all these wars...) Now, after 13 years or so, we can assess all these policies and say that they have been absolutely horrendous and disastrous, both from the humanitarian point of view in the various countries (which they likely don't give a damn about) and also from the point of view of U.S. national interest (which they presumably do give a damn about.)

    If these people, the neocons, are always wrong about everything, disastrously, tragically wrong, why do they still dominate all the discourse? I mean, the U.S. is a country that acts independently. So you say. It is not the big sock puppet of some (nonexistent) Judaeo-Zionist power structure, no. So you say. So, if all these people are always wrong about EVERYTHING, why are they never replaced? Why do these people never get run out of Washington?

    You understand the above question, right? Could you take a stab at answering that?

    “Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran’s oil wealth for the benefit of her people.”

    Expropriation and theft, Soviet style, in other words, by a willing Soviet agent. Would a Soviet satellite Iran have been wonderful to you?

    Whatever happened to “Zionist Bolshevism”, by the way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    Expropriation and theft, Soviet style, in other words, by a willing Soviet agent.
     
    When one is the leader of a nation, how does one steal the nation's property for the benefit of the nation?
    Am I stealing the tomatoes from my garden when I feed them to my family?

    Would a Soviet satellite Iran have been wonderful to you?
     
    Shouldn't that have been the people of Iran to decide?
  34. @Cali Curmudgeon
    "The American Right Should Respect Bibi"

    Huh? The American Right DOES respect Bibi.

    The American Right DOES respect Bibi.

    I guess… if bending over and offering him their buttocks is what you mean by “respect”…

    Read More
  35. @Cali Curmudgeon
    If Iran wanted to destroy Jewish people, why not start with the 20,000 or so Jews who live in Iran, peacefully and prosperously.

    Where most have been driven into exile? Where for the handful who remain dhimmi and scapegoat status is "peacefully and prosperously"? What color is the sky in your world?

    best of my knowledge, Curmudgeon, Iranian Jews who left drove their own wagons.

    They made a choice, just as did any number of non-Jewish Iranians.

    for even stronger arguments I defer to Jonathan Revulsky; for example, @ 7:42

    “You mention the “hideous conditions” in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions “hideous” because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?”

    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany before the US and British deployed the Carthage strategy on Germany, reducing it to rubble, laying waste 800 years of Germany’s cultural legacy.

    There is every reason to believe zionists intend the same treatment for Iran, a supposition only heightened by this passage from Michael Ledeen’s “The War Against the Terror Masters” —

    In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

    Creative destruction is our* middle name, both within our own* society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our* enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America* undo traditional societies, they fear us,* for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we* are there, for our very existence—our* existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us* in order to survive, just as we* must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

    –applied to this set of historical facts: that Israel is behindISIL’s destruction of Assyrian & Babylonian artifacts, as a means to obliterate the truths that zionists have no claim whatsoever to the land of Palestine.

    * Ledeen dons Joseph’s coat and masquerades as an American. The ideology expressed, however, is from the Hebrew mythos. It does not square with Washington’s counsels to the young American Constitutional republic:

    Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?
    Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

    32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

    33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

    Nothing, not one word in this lengthy passage even hints that the American people and their leaders should carry out as a matter of policy the deliberate destruction of the culture and practices of another nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?
     
    The Zionists, historically, are not just unconcerned by suffering of their coreligionists outside Israel; in fact, it suits their purposes. After all, their whole ideological line is that Jews are only safe in the Jewish State and they want to encourage them to come to Israel. To that end, there is even a long history of false flag terrorism conducted by the Mossad with Jewish victims. This has been hushed up in the Zionist controlled media much the same way the U.S. Liberty attack has been. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice Jewish lives in false flag terrorism attacks when it suits their purposes. (I am fairly sure that these recent events in Europe, particularly Charlie Hebdo in France and the earlier Toulouse Jewish school shootings were false flag Mossad terrorism.)

    So, you could say that, actually, that sanctions make the life of remaining Jews in Iran difficult is, for them, a feature, not a bug. (As for the US congress, they are, as far as I can tell, just indifferent.)

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany
     
    My understanding of this history is that the Zionists of the time also were quite happy about laws in Germany that made the lives of German Jews difficult, i.e. the Nuremberg laws. The goals of the German policy of the time and that of the Zionists coincided, which was emigration of the Jews. The Zionist viewpoint was very much in the minority in Germany at that time. There was no particular reason for a typical German Jew to want to go off and live in Palestine. The majority sentiment among German Jews was most likely assimilationist. They just wanted to be normal Germans basically. Most of them. The Nuremberg laws made that impossible -- for example, dating and marrying of Jews with non-Jews became illegal. All of this served the purpose of the Zionists as much (probably more) than it did the National Socialists.

    One fascinating aspect of this is that Hitler himself was quite leery of sending all these Jews to Palestine, because, in his world view, the Arabs were a race of noble people and foisting all these Jews on them was unfair and would be a disaster for them. (Don't mistake me for a Hitler fan, BTW, but even his detractors will admit that he was a pretty sharp cat. The old boy certainly nailed it on this point...)

    In any case, contrary to what they will tell you, the Zionists had a pretty good relationship with the National Socialists in the 1930's and as late as 1940, one faction, the Stern gang people wrote a letter offering to join the war on Germany's side.
  36. @Philip Neal
    How could anyone read Netanyahu's book A Place Among the Nations and not see that he is a pseudo-intellectual, a rewriter of history and a political charlatan?

    With his father, Benzion (Milikovsky) Netanyahu, Bibi hosted the first Jerusalem Conference at the Jonathan Institute in July 1979.

    George H W Bush was among the presenters.

    George Schultz was in attendance, as were a number of non-Jewish neoconservatives.

    The Conference drew the blueprint of the Global War on Terror. It proceedings were published in

    International Terrorism: Challenge and Response.

    Bibi published the book in several different iterations over the years, re-crafting it only slightly to produce the “pseudo-intellectual re-write of history” and work of “political charlatanism” that Philip Neal mentioned.

    To the best of my knowledge, there was only one version of Mein Kampf.

    Read More
  37. @Cali Curmudgeon
    "Well, surely you know that the history does not begin then. The revolution against the Shah did not occur ex-nihilo. As I understand it, the Shah was placed in power by the C.I.A. in a coup because the president, Mossadegh, wanted to use Iran’s oil wealth for the benefit of her people."

    Expropriation and theft, Soviet style, in other words, by a willing Soviet agent. Would a Soviet satellite Iran have been wonderful to you?

    Whatever happened to "Zionist Bolshevism", by the way?

    Expropriation and theft, Soviet style, in other words, by a willing Soviet agent.

    When one is the leader of a nation, how does one steal the nation’s property for the benefit of the nation?
    Am I stealing the tomatoes from my garden when I feed them to my family?

    Would a Soviet satellite Iran have been wonderful to you?

    Shouldn’t that have been the people of Iran to decide?

    Read More
  38. I think I once saw the following argument in a Fred Reed article; it’s a powerful argument applicable in many cases.

    Here is a list of countries invaded by Iran/Persia since the time of Napoleon:

    Here is a list of countries invaded/bombed/whatever by Israel/US/Britain since the time of Napoleon: Practically the entire world. Many places bombed multiple times.

    And we’re supposed to be believe that Iran is a threat to Israel? Please.

    Read More
  39. KenH says:

    Bibi can afford to take a “bold stand in defiance of world opinion” when Israel never suffers any blowback since the world is afraid of its great benefactor and enforcer, the good old U.S. of A. I doubt he would be so brash if Israel weren’t insulated by America in the UN. Most Congressman have learned by the examples of Paul Findlay, Paul McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney and others that to put America’s interests ahead of Israel’s is political career suicide.

    And I fail to see how Gottfried can on the one hand “loathe the neo-conservatives and the rest of Bibi’s cheering gallery” and on the other grudgingly admire him, especially when he is doing all he can to hype Iran as a mortal threat and engineer a war with Iran, the cost of which will be borne not by God’s chosen people, but their white gentile slaves in America, England and Europe. A statesman tries to prevent wars and save lives and Bibi has been trying mightily to do the exact opposite. But then, as long as gentiles are busy killing gentiles the Jews of Israel and the diaspora can breathe easy.

    Although Bibi hides behind pleasant sophistries to fool the FOXtards, the Israel worshipping airheads and now, sadly, professor Gottfried, he’s acutely aware that Israel and the U.S.’s interests are often conflicting and that what is often good for Israel is bad (very bad) for the United States and perhaps others. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are evidence of that as well as our reckless foreign policy in general.

    Read More
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SFG
    I agree. The problem is that covering for Israel has made the entire Arab world hate our guts--Israeli and American interests are now opposed. This happens from time to time in international relations, but the MSM won't let us admit it.

    I agree. The problem is that covering for Israel has made the entire Arab world hate our guts–Israeli and American interests are now opposed.

    You would be amazed at how fast that hatred would melt were the United States to cease covering for Israel.

    Read More
  41. Karl says:

    >>> regions that must inevitably be part of a Palestinian state

    Well, the Rakhine Buddhists haven’t run into any actual physical opposition in their new policy of de-facto transferring the muslim “rohingya” out of Rakhine.

    And the buddhist monks don’t even have MIRV’d thermonuclear weapons or the missles that can deliver them to Berkeley – unlike one country I know of.

    Show of hands please, who here who wants to be the first to get killed by a Magav bullet in order to maintain Bethlehem as an Muslim city?

    Read More
  42. Karl says:
    @LarryS
    Don't Zionists, Jewish and Christian, believe that the Jews, who call themselves Israel, are entitled to the Holy Land because of God's promise to Abram? Genesis 15:18 (see map link) says "On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— "

    Many Zionists deny that Israel intends to take all this land. Then on what basis do they claim that the Jews are entitled to any of the land? I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?

    http://www.reficultnias.org/mikesfiles/cachedfiles/photofiles/eretz-israel.jpg

    >> I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?

    Maybe that they’re getting a taste of their own medicine for having genocided (and stolen the land of) the Aramaeans, the Syriacs, the Copts, and the Berbers.

    It’s cute that lots and lots of Westerners want to start the social-justice calender at the world situation as of 1946. Sorry, that’s not in our playbook. You can ask Rachel Corrie.

    We were here as the indigenii long before the Arabic-speakers arrived in AD 630….. and we’ll be here when they’re as gone as they are from Al Andalus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/03/25/516487isil-helps-israel-conceal-its-historical-origin/

    the origin land of Judaism and the Israelite tribe was – contrary to what most believed – in ancient Arabia and North Yemen and not in Palestine.

    The tradition of linking Judaism to Christianity as the (Judeo-Christian faith) and (Old/New Testament) has led many, mostly westerners, to believe Judaism was a western or west-influenced faith. Thus Judaism is perceived (actually misperceived) as a monotheistic faith whose early Patriarchs lived in ancient Palestine (part of western Greek/Roman empire)

    Moses, Michelangelo, Church of San Pietro in Vincola
    Moses, Michelangelo, Church of San Pietro in Vincola

    The distorted translation of the Hebrew book to Greek in what came later to be known as the Septuagint Bible, had helped disseminate the (Arabic) Israelite faith and stories in the West. From that moment on, the Israelite book and stories have been seeping into the Western cultural fabric


    As many Arabic names in the Israelite book got westernized (Aaron, Joseph, Abela, Abraham, Sarah, Adam and Noah) so did the stories and the faith. In his phenomenal sculpture of Moses, Michelangelo wouldn’t have surpassed the tradition boundaries and ventured into ingenuity had he not believed Moses and his book was one of the building blocks of western culture.

    Unfortunately with this misperception (overshadowed and diluted by ingenious works of classical art and literature inspired by the Israelite book) the state of Israel has been established on Palestine (a land completely alien from the Israelite Patriarchs and their stories) with the blessings and support of the deluded western world.

    The truth of the matter is that Judaism originated in ancient Southern Arabia and Northern Yemen (why do you think Jews wear the Arabic skull cap).
     

    as noted elsewhere, another false narrative, that of the holocaust, is being propagated by Israelites with the same dumbed down complicity of Westerners. Israelites are making of themselves the new Christ on the Cross and are building temples -- museums -- to their false and psychotic notion of victimhood.
    , @D. K.
    Your own sacred texts show that the Jews were not indigenous to Palestine. They also show that your own people wallowed in committing genocide against those that were. The onus is on the Jewish people, therefore, for the genocides that your ancestors committed, when they stole Palestine from its rightful inhabitants, for the first time, as documented in your own sacred texts.
  43. @Karl
    >> I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?


    Maybe that they're getting a taste of their own medicine for having genocided (and stolen the land of) the Aramaeans, the Syriacs, the Copts, and the Berbers.


    It's cute that lots and lots of Westerners want to start the social-justice calender at the world situation as of 1946. Sorry, that's not in our playbook. You can ask Rachel Corrie.

    We were here as the indigenii long before the Arabic-speakers arrived in AD 630..... and we'll be here when they're as gone as they are from Al Andalus.

    http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/03/25/516487isil-helps-israel-conceal-its-historical-origin/

    the origin land of Judaism and the Israelite tribe was – contrary to what most believed – in ancient Arabia and North Yemen and not in Palestine.

    The tradition of linking Judaism to Christianity as the (Judeo-Christian faith) and (Old/New Testament) has led many, mostly westerners, to believe Judaism was a western or west-influenced faith. Thus Judaism is perceived (actually misperceived) as a monotheistic faith whose early Patriarchs lived in ancient Palestine (part of western Greek/Roman empire)

    Moses, Michelangelo, Church of San Pietro in Vincola
    Moses, Michelangelo, Church of San Pietro in Vincola

    The distorted translation of the Hebrew book to Greek in what came later to be known as the Septuagint Bible, had helped disseminate the (Arabic) Israelite faith and stories in the West. From that moment on, the Israelite book and stories have been seeping into the Western cultural fabric

    As many Arabic names in the Israelite book got westernized (Aaron, Joseph, Abela, Abraham, Sarah, Adam and Noah) so did the stories and the faith. In his phenomenal sculpture of Moses, Michelangelo wouldn’t have surpassed the tradition boundaries and ventured into ingenuity had he not believed Moses and his book was one of the building blocks of western culture.

    Unfortunately with this misperception (overshadowed and diluted by ingenious works of classical art and literature inspired by the Israelite book) the state of Israel has been established on Palestine (a land completely alien from the Israelite Patriarchs and their stories) with the blessings and support of the deluded western world.

    The truth of the matter is that Judaism originated in ancient Southern Arabia and Northern Yemen (why do you think Jews wear the Arabic skull cap).

    as noted elsewhere, another false narrative, that of the holocaust, is being propagated by Israelites with the same dumbed down complicity of Westerners. Israelites are making of themselves the new Christ on the Cross and are building temples — museums — to their false and psychotic notion of victimhood.

    Read More
  44. D. K. says:
    @Karl
    >> I wonder what the neighboring Arab countries think of this?


    Maybe that they're getting a taste of their own medicine for having genocided (and stolen the land of) the Aramaeans, the Syriacs, the Copts, and the Berbers.


    It's cute that lots and lots of Westerners want to start the social-justice calender at the world situation as of 1946. Sorry, that's not in our playbook. You can ask Rachel Corrie.

    We were here as the indigenii long before the Arabic-speakers arrived in AD 630..... and we'll be here when they're as gone as they are from Al Andalus.

    Your own sacred texts show that the Jews were not indigenous to Palestine. They also show that your own people wallowed in committing genocide against those that were. The onus is on the Jewish people, therefore, for the genocides that your ancestors committed, when they stole Palestine from its rightful inhabitants, for the first time, as documented in your own sacred texts.

    Read More
  45. @solontoCroesus
    best of my knowledge, Curmudgeon, Iranian Jews who left drove their own wagons.

    They made a choice, just as did any number of non-Jewish Iranians.


    for even stronger arguments I defer to Jonathan Revulsky; for example, @ 7:42 ---


    "You mention the “hideous conditions” in which the relatives of Iranian Jews you know, ones still in Iran, are living. Are the conditions “hideous” because these people are being oppressed specifically for being Jews? Surely, you know that Iran is under coordinated economic attack by the West, sanctions and so forth, in order specifically to make the lives of ordinary Iranians extremely difficult. Are you sure that the hard conditions of the relatives back in Iran are not primarily due to this, rather than the fact that they are Jews?"
     
    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany before the US and British deployed the Carthage strategy on Germany, reducing it to rubble, laying waste 800 years of Germany's cultural legacy.

    There is every reason to believe zionists intend the same treatment for Iran, a supposition only heightened by this passage from Michael Ledeen's "The War Against the Terror Masters" --


    In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

    Creative destruction is our* middle name, both within our own* society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our* enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America* undo traditional societies, they fear us,* for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we* are there, for our very existence—our* existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us* in order to survive, just as we* must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
     

     
    --applied to this set of historical facts: that Israel is behindISIL's destruction of Assyrian & Babylonian artifacts, as a means to obliterate the truths that zionists have no claim whatsoever to the land of Palestine.

    * Ledeen dons Joseph's coat and masquerades as an American. The ideology expressed, however, is from the Hebrew mythos. It does not square with Washington's counsels to the young American Constitutional republic:


    Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?
    Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

    32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

    33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
     

    Nothing, not one word in this lengthy passage even hints that the American people and their leaders should carry out as a matter of policy the deliberate destruction of the culture and practices of another nation.

    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?

    The Zionists, historically, are not just unconcerned by suffering of their coreligionists outside Israel; in fact, it suits their purposes. After all, their whole ideological line is that Jews are only safe in the Jewish State and they want to encourage them to come to Israel. To that end, there is even a long history of false flag terrorism conducted by the Mossad with Jewish victims. This has been hushed up in the Zionist controlled media much the same way the U.S. Liberty attack has been. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice Jewish lives in false flag terrorism attacks when it suits their purposes. (I am fairly sure that these recent events in Europe, particularly Charlie Hebdo in France and the earlier Toulouse Jewish school shootings were false flag Mossad terrorism.)

    So, you could say that, actually, that sanctions make the life of remaining Jews in Iran difficult is, for them, a feature, not a bug. (As for the US congress, they are, as far as I can tell, just indifferent.)

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany

    My understanding of this history is that the Zionists of the time also were quite happy about laws in Germany that made the lives of German Jews difficult, i.e. the Nuremberg laws. The goals of the German policy of the time and that of the Zionists coincided, which was emigration of the Jews. The Zionist viewpoint was very much in the minority in Germany at that time. There was no particular reason for a typical German Jew to want to go off and live in Palestine. The majority sentiment among German Jews was most likely assimilationist. They just wanted to be normal Germans basically. Most of them. The Nuremberg laws made that impossible — for example, dating and marrying of Jews with non-Jews became illegal. All of this served the purpose of the Zionists as much (probably more) than it did the National Socialists.

    One fascinating aspect of this is that Hitler himself was quite leery of sending all these Jews to Palestine, because, in his world view, the Arabs were a race of noble people and foisting all these Jews on them was unfair and would be a disaster for them. (Don’t mistake me for a Hitler fan, BTW, but even his detractors will admit that he was a pretty sharp cat. The old boy certainly nailed it on this point…)

    In any case, contrary to what they will tell you, the Zionists had a pretty good relationship with the National Socialists in the 1930′s and as late as 1940, one faction, the Stern gang people wrote a letter offering to join the war on Germany’s side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
    J. Revusky wrote:

    "The goals of the German policy of the time and that of the Zionists coincided, which was emigration of the Jews. . . .

    There was no particular reason for a typical German Jew to want to go off and live in Palestine."
     

    By Feb 14 1933 Louis Brandeis, a parushim and Hofjuden, said to Rabbi Stephen Wise,

    "All Jews must leave Germany ... I urge that no Jew remain in Germany." Wise responded, "How shall 587,000 Jews be removed from Germany?"

    (stated in "The Transfer Agreement," by Edwin Black; footnote refers to Wise's autobiography, "The Challenging Years.")

    At least two reasons for Brandeis's diktat appear feasible:


    First: Palestine needed German Jewish money.
    Immediately after citing this exchange, Black describes the straitened economic conditions in the Jewish project in Palestine -- by 1933, it was threatened to fail unless it received a quick infusion of cash. British mandate laws restricted Jewish migration to only those Jews who had (equivalent of) $5000; only German Jews had the kind of wealth. They had to be "persuaded" to leave the comforts and prosperity of Germany for the uncertainties of Palestine. (see "Ship of Fools")

    Second: Germany was marked for creative destruction. It was essential to remove Jews from Germany before the firebombing began.

    By early October 1938 Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and FDR began planning the destruction of Germany by aerial bombardment. This date fits nicely between the date of the Munich Agreement and the assassination of Ernst com Rath by Herschel Grynszpyn, a Polish Jew.

    The Munich agreement was Hitler's non-violent resolution of the conflict involving minority Germans in Sudetenland who were being abused, in contravention of the Versailles guarantees that minority rights would be respected -- rights that zionist Jews in Wilson's delegation insisted upon and enjoyed in Weimar Germany (see "The Transfer Agreement.") A nonviolent resolution -- the Munich Agreement -- jeopardized zionist intentions to destroy Germany.

    Hence, the second event, which set off "Kristallnacht," a night of mob violence against Jewish synagogues, shops and homes that provoked condemnation against Germany throughout the international community and sabotaged the Munich agreement.

    The cui bono question is central.

    Surely it is just a coincidence that the boilerplate screeds the Israel lobby is pumping out to try to sabotage an agreement between Iran and USA include a reference to the Munich agreement. Some folks just can't resist boasting about how successfully they can pull off false flag ops and provoke killing and destruction.

    (see, for example, Here’s Why Obama Panders to Iran, Throws Israel Under the Bus -- At least Neville Chamberlain learned his lesson after Munich, albeit far too late for the Czechoslovakians, Eastern Europe, and millions of Jews. Obama and Kerry seem determined to repeat those same mistakes. ).

    So -- FDR, Morgenthau, and most of all Churchill and zionists got their war against Germany, and the desired destruction of Germany's people and cultural legacy. All it took was the assassination of a German diplomat; dispatching zionist agents who were on the ground in Germany to foment rioting against German Jews which motivated the remaining, reluctant Jews to agree to leave Germany; and pulling out all the stops to further demonize Germans through British-controlled propaganda organs and in the Jewish-controlled press.

    Just like what is happening today wrt Iran.

    ---

    How many Jews died in the firebombing of 131 of Germany's cities? Between 1940 and 1945 600,000 German civilians were incinerated or asphyxiated in Allied firebombing raids; 70,000 were children (like Anne Frank, but they didn't have ballpoint pens). How many of them were Jewish?

    45% of Germany's residences were destroyed in firestorms and 7 million Germans were rendered homeless -- where did they go? How many of them were Jewish? Were they housed in concentration camps? Were those emaciated corpses German civilians who had been bombed out of their homes?

    ---

    Are we going to let zionists and their fellow travelers get away with the same scheme and scam to destroy Iran?

  46. @Cali Curmudgeon
    What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) “I’m no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children…”

    and

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.


    The second is painfully obvious.....

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..

    Yeah, obvious. Just like Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. In the fable, how many times did the boy cry wolf before the villagers stopped paying him any heed?

    It reminds me of the old proverb: “Fool me once, shame on you… fool me 537 times… WTF??? I must be ****in’ stupid!”

    (Or something like that…)

    Read More
  47. @Jonathan Revusky

    Have Bibi & US Congress calculated that sanctions on Iran are harming their co-religionists, or do they not really care all that much?
     
    The Zionists, historically, are not just unconcerned by suffering of their coreligionists outside Israel; in fact, it suits their purposes. After all, their whole ideological line is that Jews are only safe in the Jewish State and they want to encourage them to come to Israel. To that end, there is even a long history of false flag terrorism conducted by the Mossad with Jewish victims. This has been hushed up in the Zionist controlled media much the same way the U.S. Liberty attack has been. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice Jewish lives in false flag terrorism attacks when it suits their purposes. (I am fairly sure that these recent events in Europe, particularly Charlie Hebdo in France and the earlier Toulouse Jewish school shootings were false flag Mossad terrorism.)

    So, you could say that, actually, that sanctions make the life of remaining Jews in Iran difficult is, for them, a feature, not a bug. (As for the US congress, they are, as far as I can tell, just indifferent.)

    In WWII American zionists & Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine were careful to get most of the Jews out of Germany
     
    My understanding of this history is that the Zionists of the time also were quite happy about laws in Germany that made the lives of German Jews difficult, i.e. the Nuremberg laws. The goals of the German policy of the time and that of the Zionists coincided, which was emigration of the Jews. The Zionist viewpoint was very much in the minority in Germany at that time. There was no particular reason for a typical German Jew to want to go off and live in Palestine. The majority sentiment among German Jews was most likely assimilationist. They just wanted to be normal Germans basically. Most of them. The Nuremberg laws made that impossible -- for example, dating and marrying of Jews with non-Jews became illegal. All of this served the purpose of the Zionists as much (probably more) than it did the National Socialists.

    One fascinating aspect of this is that Hitler himself was quite leery of sending all these Jews to Palestine, because, in his world view, the Arabs were a race of noble people and foisting all these Jews on them was unfair and would be a disaster for them. (Don't mistake me for a Hitler fan, BTW, but even his detractors will admit that he was a pretty sharp cat. The old boy certainly nailed it on this point...)

    In any case, contrary to what they will tell you, the Zionists had a pretty good relationship with the National Socialists in the 1930's and as late as 1940, one faction, the Stern gang people wrote a letter offering to join the war on Germany's side.

    J. Revusky wrote:

    “The goals of the German policy of the time and that of the Zionists coincided, which was emigration of the Jews. . . .

    There was no particular reason for a typical German Jew to want to go off and live in Palestine.”

    By Feb 14 1933 Louis Brandeis, a parushim and Hofjuden, said to Rabbi Stephen Wise,

    “All Jews must leave Germany … I urge that no Jew remain in Germany.” Wise responded, “How shall 587,000 Jews be removed from Germany?”

    (stated in “The Transfer Agreement,” by Edwin Black; footnote refers to Wise’s autobiography, “The Challenging Years.”)

    At least two reasons for Brandeis’s diktat appear feasible:

    First: Palestine needed German Jewish money.
    Immediately after citing this exchange, Black describes the straitened economic conditions in the Jewish project in Palestine — by 1933, it was threatened to fail unless it received a quick infusion of cash. British mandate laws restricted Jewish migration to only those Jews who had (equivalent of) $5000; only German Jews had the kind of wealth. They had to be “persuaded” to leave the comforts and prosperity of Germany for the uncertainties of Palestine. (see “Ship of Fools”)

    Second: Germany was marked for creative destruction. It was essential to remove Jews from Germany before the firebombing began.

    By early October 1938 Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and FDR began planning the destruction of Germany by aerial bombardment. This date fits nicely between the date of the Munich Agreement and the assassination of Ernst com Rath by Herschel Grynszpyn, a Polish Jew.

    The Munich agreement was Hitler’s non-violent resolution of the conflict involving minority Germans in Sudetenland who were being abused, in contravention of the Versailles guarantees that minority rights would be respected — rights that zionist Jews in Wilson’s delegation insisted upon and enjoyed in Weimar Germany (see “The Transfer Agreement.”) A nonviolent resolution — the Munich Agreement — jeopardized zionist intentions to destroy Germany.

    Hence, the second event, which set off “Kristallnacht,” a night of mob violence against Jewish synagogues, shops and homes that provoked condemnation against Germany throughout the international community and sabotaged the Munich agreement.

    The cui bono question is central.

    Surely it is just a coincidence that the boilerplate screeds the Israel lobby is pumping out to try to sabotage an agreement between Iran and USA include a reference to the Munich agreement. Some folks just can’t resist boasting about how successfully they can pull off false flag ops and provoke killing and destruction.

    (see, for example, Here’s Why Obama Panders to Iran, Throws Israel Under the BusAt least Neville Chamberlain learned his lesson after Munich, albeit far too late for the Czechoslovakians, Eastern Europe, and millions of Jews. Obama and Kerry seem determined to repeat those same mistakes. ).

    So — FDR, Morgenthau, and most of all Churchill and zionists got their war against Germany, and the desired destruction of Germany’s people and cultural legacy. All it took was the assassination of a German diplomat; dispatching zionist agents who were on the ground in Germany to foment rioting against German Jews which motivated the remaining, reluctant Jews to agree to leave Germany; and pulling out all the stops to further demonize Germans through British-controlled propaganda organs and in the Jewish-controlled press.

    Just like what is happening today wrt Iran.

    How many Jews died in the firebombing of 131 of Germany’s cities? Between 1940 and 1945 600,000 German civilians were incinerated or asphyxiated in Allied firebombing raids; 70,000 were children (like Anne Frank, but they didn’t have ballpoint pens). How many of them were Jewish?

    45% of Germany’s residences were destroyed in firestorms and 7 million Germans were rendered homeless — where did they go? How many of them were Jewish? Were they housed in concentration camps? Were those emaciated corpses German civilians who had been bombed out of their homes?

    Are we going to let zionists and their fellow travelers get away with the same scheme and scam to destroy Iran?

    Read More
  48. @Cali Curmudgeon
    What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) “I’m no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children…”

    and

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.


    The second is painfully obvious.....

    Curmudgeon wrote:

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..

    That’s an assertion.

    Got any evidence to back it up?
    Hard evidence, not misquoted rhetoric.

    Hard evidence means something like, oh, the assassination of Israeli nuclear scientists …

    re the Rhetoric:

    In a discussion in NYC a year or so ago hosted by Dr. Hooshang Ahmirimadi, pres. of the American Iranian Friendship Council, Dr. Richard Bulliet of Columbia University talked about the oft-quoted phrase, “Death to America.”

    In preparing for the talk Bulliet asked a Farsi-speaking colleague how to say Death to America, Death to Israel in Farsi.
    The colleague told him.
    Then Bulliet asked, “How do you say Down with America, Down with Israel?”
    “It’s the same,” said the colleague: “Down with Israel” is the same as “Death to Israel.” There is no different way to say Down with Israel —.”

    Bulliet then suggested to the audience that, whatever the accurate translation, it would be advisable for Iranians to stop chanting Down with Israel.
    And that is true.
    And in fact they have.

    On the other hand, should Americans and Israelis expect Iranians to throw flower petals and welcome sanctions that are intended to destroy their economy and are having the very real effect of causing physical harm to their grandparents, nutritional harm to their children, high unemployment among their young people?

    What would American do if an alien force interfered with the US economy with the goal of causing it to implode?
    Oh, wait a minute: the difference between Iranians and Americans is that Iranians know that they are being screwed and who is screwing them and they register their resistance, while Americans do not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stranger Is Danger

    ...the difference between Iranians and Americans is that Iranians know that they are being screwed and who is screwing them and they register their resistance, while Americans do no...
     
    Ahh, only if more Americans/Westerners realized this the way you did, Solon, we wouldn't be here today arguing with these charlatans.

    P.S. Add to it the martial and organizational spirit of Hezbollah.
  49. Maj. Kong says:
    @terryt
    "In a country with over-inflated housing markets, expanding the Area C settlements will prove the cheapest option".

    At the expense of the Arabs (call them 'Palestinians if you like) who live there at present. The whole situation is similar to that of European settlement of Tasmania, or European settlement of America. Just ignore the local inhabitants, or treat them as vermin to be disposed of.

    Conquering a continent is easier when you have the “winds of change” on your side. In the 16-18th centuries, that was disease immunity. In the 20th, it was Marxism. In the 21st, I predict it will be identitarianism.

    Area C is less dense than Areas A and B, the replaced are mostly going to be farmers. In other terms, no different than what China does every day.

    Read More
  50. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    This article is a perfect example of something that I have come to realize increasingly of late. You can't really be an anti-zionist (or anti-any other ideology) if you accept all the premises of the ideology that you ostensibly oppose.

    First glaring case in point: Paul Gottfried says that the Israelis decided to create the Jewish State in a "troubled spot in the world". Well, actually, I beg to differ. It seems to me that before the Zionists showed up, Palestine had largely been a peaceful backwater for centuries, in which Muslims, Christians, and some Jews even (religious ones, not Zionists) got along perfectly well. Does it not occur to the author that the Zionists did not choose to set up their State in a "troubled spot", but rather, it became a "troubled spot" precisely because they set up their Jewish State there!!!??

    And from there, it gets worse. Gottfried just accepts the whole poppycock notion that it is Israel that is constantly under threat, rather than that it is Israel constantly making the threats. Not only does Israel constantly make the threats, but she makes good on them. This whole Global War on Terror is largely a neocon/zionist project in which country after country is marked for destruction: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran... Now, if you really believe all that this is "pre-emptive defense", well, fine. I would put it to you that there is another simpler word for "pre-emptive defense" -- that is "aggression".

    That the author simply parrots the claim that Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, which is based on a complete (and surely deliberate) mistranslation of something Ahmadinejad (no longer president, and not in a position to start a war anyway) said. Anybody can google that. The whole idea that the country that starts a new war every few years, Israel, is under threat from the country that has not started a war in centuries, is nonsense.

    Now, I do agree that the leadership of the western countries are one sorry ass lot, but that in itself does not make me want to live under the leadership of somebody like Netanyahu, who is an ultra-violent nutcase and general whack job.

    But, anyway, here is a closing thought: What is the basic difference between the following affirmations:

    (a) "I'm no anti-semite, but those Jews really do drink the blood of Christian children..."

    and

    (b) "I'm no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust".

    I think, in deep structure, none. You can't accept the vicious lies of the people you oppose. To turn the old saying on its head, with enemies like Mr. Gottfried, the zionists hardly need friends!

    Give Mr. Gottfried a break, he thinks the American Civil War was fought over tariffs.

    Read More
  51. @solontoCroesus
    Curmudgeon wrote:

    (b) “I’m no zionist, but those Iranians really do want to perpetrate a second holocaust”.

    The second is painfully obvious…..
     
    That's an assertion.

    Got any evidence to back it up?
    Hard evidence, not misquoted rhetoric.

    Hard evidence means something like, oh, the assassination of Israeli nuclear scientists ...

    ---

    re the Rhetoric:

    In a discussion in NYC a year or so ago hosted by Dr. Hooshang Ahmirimadi, pres. of the American Iranian Friendship Council, Dr. Richard Bulliet of Columbia University talked about the oft-quoted phrase, "Death to America."

    In preparing for the talk Bulliet asked a Farsi-speaking colleague how to say Death to America, Death to Israel in Farsi.
    The colleague told him.
    Then Bulliet asked, "How do you say Down with America, Down with Israel?"
    "It's the same," said the colleague: "Down with Israel" is the same as "Death to Israel." There is no different way to say Down with Israel ---."

    Bulliet then suggested to the audience that, whatever the accurate translation, it would be advisable for Iranians to stop chanting Down with Israel.
    And that is true.
    And in fact they have.

    On the other hand, should Americans and Israelis expect Iranians to throw flower petals and welcome sanctions that are intended to destroy their economy and are having the very real effect of causing physical harm to their grandparents, nutritional harm to their children, high unemployment among their young people?

    What would American do if an alien force interfered with the US economy with the goal of causing it to implode?
    Oh, wait a minute: the difference between Iranians and Americans is that Iranians know that they are being screwed and who is screwing them and they register their resistance, while Americans do not.

    …the difference between Iranians and Americans is that Iranians know that they are being screwed and who is screwing them and they register their resistance, while Americans do no…

    Ahh, only if more Americans/Westerners realized this the way you did, Solon, we wouldn’t be here today arguing with these charlatans.

    P.S. Add to it the martial and organizational spirit of Hezbollah.

    Read More
  52. moi says:
    @paul gottfried
    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking. A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region. Part of the reason was a desire for control of the holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews. Even among the Palestinians there have been struggles between the religionists and secular revolutionaries; and these would have drawn in surrounding Arab countries no matter if no Jewish state existed. Look at the instability in the governments of Israel's Arab neighbors (with the notable exception of Jordan). Why shouldn't we believe the same fissures would not have developed in a non-Jewish Palestine?

    True, most have battled/quarreled among themselves, but how does this justify European Jews coming in and taking over Palestine? I guess you’d also justify whites taking over what is now the US because Native Americans also fought each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    At least USicans beat the injuns on their own, at least for a large portion of the continent. Obviously they were subsidized by European powers in the beginning. Israel couldn't decide what to have for breakfast without our money, influence, and power.
  53. @paul gottfried
    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking. A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region. Part of the reason was a desire for control of the holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews. Even among the Palestinians there have been struggles between the religionists and secular revolutionaries; and these would have drawn in surrounding Arab countries no matter if no Jewish state existed. Look at the instability in the governments of Israel's Arab neighbors (with the notable exception of Jordan). Why shouldn't we believe the same fissures would not have developed in a non-Jewish Palestine?

    A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One,

    Well before WWI Arthur Ruppin had already visited Palestine on behalf of The [Jewish] Colonization Society of Vienna, assessed its failings and recommended corrective measures.

    By about 1910 Ruppin had acquired the most fertile land in the region, and had built Tel Aviv hard-by the prosperous Arab port at Jaffa, with the intent of displacing Arab trade and commerce.

    By the time the interwar Jewish yishuv (settlement) was set up, it was inevitable that conflicts would break out and that these conflicts would not be limited to the Jews.

    The yishuv was already well underway; several groups had made aliyeh by the time war broke out. Zionist Jews had already telegraphed their determination to displace Arabs from their own lands, homes and businesses.

    Try to keep up, professor.

    When you get the facts wrong it makes you look dumb.
    Nobel committee no likey likey dumb.

    Read More
  54. guest says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The respondent who claims that Palestine was a peaceful part of the world until Israel was created must be joking.
     
    Okay, I believe I am the "respondent" you are referring to above. (That would be clearer if you had responded by hitting the "reply" button to write your response.) First of all, thank you for responding. I always do take it as a sign of some level of integrity when writers engage with commenters.

    That said, it would have been even better if you actually had engaged with the main thrust of what I was saying rather than what is really second or nth order quibbling.

    No, I was not joking when I asserted my belief that, historically, in Palestine, there was not that much of a problem between Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- before the Zionists showed up. I am not an expert on the history of that region, but I suspect you might have to go back to the time of the Crusades to find any kind of widespread sectarian conflict, as you have now. And, of course, the Crusades (aside from being one heck of a long time ago anyway) were also the result of an invasion by foreigners from Europe who were not historically from the region.

    In general, my understanding of the history is that there were more important Jewish communities in other Muslim countries: Morocco, Iraq, Iran, for example. But, generally, over the course of centuries of history, there were not major problems for Jews in these places. Maybe you could point at some isolated incidents here and there, but there was nothing like the longstanding sectarian conflict that you have between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland -- and that's just pulling one example out of many possible ones. No similar problem.

    Until Zionism...

    A struggle for control went on there between the British and Turks during World War One, and once the British invaders pushed out the Ottoman Empire, their former Arab collaborators fought for dominance in the region.
     
    The fact that the Middle East was a battlefield of the First World War, as far as I can see, has just about nothing to do with my conjecture that there was very little sectarian conflict between Muslims, Christians, and Jews prior to the advent of Zionism. This is a completely orthogonal proposition.

    But, regardless, it boils down to two world views:

    (a) The State of Israel is in a tough spot because they chose a particularly problematic piece of real estate in the world to set themselves up in.

    (b) Wherever the Zionists had set up their State, they would be having massive problems, because it is their ideology, their behavior, that is the problem.

    Your view would be (a) and my view would be (b). Now, I think the facts of the matter support view (b) better than (a). However, if you really maintain view (a) just answer me one question, okay? In your article, you write:

    Admittedly the Jews could have avoided a heap of trouble by creating a Jewish state in a less troubled spot of the world or by taking a deal that many Ukrainians and a handful of Russian Jews did when they were offered farm land in the Canadian prairies in the early twentieth century.
     
    First of all, the farm land in the Canadian prairies is a non-sequitir because they were not being offered a Jewish State there. And they sure wanted that Jewish State. So, you say they should have maybe created a jewish state in a "less troubled spot of the world".

    Could you please name me one (or more, if you like) of these "less troubled spots" where the Zionists could have set up a Jewish State without having the same problems they currently have in Palestine? I ask because I really am curious. In what part of the world could they have gone and set up a Jewish State, displacing the indigenous people who had been there for centuries, and not have roughly the same problems? Please name this place or places.

    “Please name this place or places.”

    Antarctica?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Antarctica?
     
    LOL. Well, that would be a good candidate for a "land without a people for a people without a land". Except, somehow, I don't think Antarctica was the "less troubled spot" Mr. Gottfried had in mind!

    Well, unless Professor Gottfried answers the question, we can just keep on guessing where these "less troubled spots" are. It was a straightforward, concrete question that he ought to answer, I feel -- i.e. what "less troubled spot" are you actually referring to, Professor?

    However, I am not exactly holding my breath waiting for a response...
  55. guest says:
    @moi
    True, most have battled/quarreled among themselves, but how does this justify European Jews coming in and taking over Palestine? I guess you'd also justify whites taking over what is now the US because Native Americans also fought each other.

    At least USicans beat the injuns on their own, at least for a large portion of the continent. Obviously they were subsidized by European powers in the beginning. Israel couldn’t decide what to have for breakfast without our money, influence, and power.

    Read More
  56. @guest
    "Please name this place or places."

    Antarctica?

    Antarctica?

    LOL. Well, that would be a good candidate for a “land without a people for a people without a land”. Except, somehow, I don’t think Antarctica was the “less troubled spot” Mr. Gottfried had in mind!

    Well, unless Professor Gottfried answers the question, we can just keep on guessing where these “less troubled spots” are. It was a straightforward, concrete question that he ought to answer, I feel — i.e. what “less troubled spot” are you actually referring to, Professor?

    However, I am not exactly holding my breath waiting for a response…

    Read More
  57. Also worth bearing in mind that no matter how many wars Israel may win any one it loses will be its last.

    Read More
    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    "no matter how many wars Israel may win any one it loses will be its last."
     
    Israel has not fought any "wars" since ~ 1973, and it won that only with US assistance and at the cost of the British economy and sky-rocketing oil prices around the world.

    Israel's other military 'engagements' since then have been attacks on imprisoned people armed with stones and hi-tech bottle rockets.

    Even the 2006 skirmish with Lebanon resulted in Israeli forces being routed.

    So if the fear is real that losing one war would be the end of Israel, perhaps Israel should put more effort into being friendly with its neighbors and just to the people whose land it is stealing. Such a strategy is low-cost, high reward.
  58. @Irish Savant
    Also worth bearing in mind that no matter how many wars Israel may win any one it loses will be its last.

    “no matter how many wars Israel may win any one it loses will be its last.”

    Israel has not fought any “wars” since ~ 1973, and it won that only with US assistance and at the cost of the British economy and sky-rocketing oil prices around the world.

    Israel’s other military ‘engagements’ since then have been attacks on imprisoned people armed with stones and hi-tech bottle rockets.

    Even the 2006 skirmish with Lebanon resulted in Israeli forces being routed.

    So if the fear is real that losing one war would be the end of Israel, perhaps Israel should put more effort into being friendly with its neighbors and just to the people whose land it is stealing. Such a strategy is low-cost, high reward.

    Read More
  59. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Jonathan Revusky's comments are spot on.

    Even if we accept the dubious premise that Netanyahu is simply a flawed patriot (e.g. like Putin), the simple fact is that his country lives parasitically off of the US, and if the American political class had the slightest concern for US interests or was remotely objective in policy towards Israel, Israel would be forced to come to terms with the Arabs. The Israeli Left was once fairly reasonable (a good example of how war erodes the character of any nation), and as bad as Netanyahu is, he's actually a moderate on the Israeli right. The more belligerent strains of Israeli politics have life because of the U.S. backstop. There is no reason American nationalists should admire exploiters like Netanyahu.

    …Israel would be forced to come to terms with the Arabs.

    How’d that work out for the Persians? The Alexandrians? The Hispanians? The Copts? The Darfurese?

    Read More
  60. For Bibi there is no realistic choice in negotiating with the Palestinians but to allow a two-state solution.

    Where are the Christians supposed to go? Pontiac?

    No one ever mentions a three-state solution.

    Read More
  61. @KA
    Did the Zionist really want a peaceful independent trouble free country somewhere in the world? In the affairs of finaces and economics , wars have been the coin of the realm for the Zionist. Conflicts have enriched them,have allowed them to rehash the myth of victim hood ,have allowed them free money,massive loans,grants,and milotary aids and penetrate the Western government apparatus
    . An Israel away from the conflicts with the neighbors ( current conflicts that have religious dimension ) would never have achieved what it has. Israel would endured conflicts just like any other country does with the bordering countries but the conflicts would have remained local without the passion,zeal,bigotry,hatred,and religious touch.

    If peace were ever its goal,it could have accepted Saudi proposal. It could have completed its side of the bargain of Oslo. It could have come to tolerate and live next to Hamas territory without imposing most gruesome destructive arrogant sanctions and blockade .
    It knows that violence is what keeps it richly alive. An Israel in Cyprus,Argentina or Ugunda or even in Western Sahara wouldn't have accomplished any of these gains. Israel would have faced the prospect of hard work just like any other country to survive .

    Sorry to break the news to you, but Jews do better than their host population pretty much everywhere in the world, and not because of your war mongering fantasies. They are simply smarter than the average bear. This translates into better political connections and influence. Much like the overseas Chinese do.

    And to further prick your bubble, we have bigger dicks as well. Sorry!

    There are many legitimate critiques that can be made of Israel and American Jews. But please apply the same standards to all groups/people that you critique. Otherwise, you’re simply displaying your envy and jealousy. Which are usually due to well-founded feelings of inadequacy.

    Just sayin’.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS