The truth about the protests

The protests are peaceful, it's the cops that make them violent.

Gaza Liberation Seder

I never really got the idea of Easter since, unlike other Christian holidays, it didn't fall on the same day every year. It wasn't until I was married to a Jewish woman that I figured out it was a passover Seder that was geared to fall on Sunday.

One of the big differences between Passover and Easter is the reading of the Seder. I was curious about the Gaza Liberation Haggadah being read by the Columbia Students. I wasn't able to find the exact text, but there are a lot of suggestions for how to conduct the seder this year.

Reading these suggestions make it clear that Zionism isn't Judaism. In fact, it is very contrary to the tenets of Judaism. For example, the quoted texts come from the Australian New Israel Fund's Haggadah Supplement for Pesach 2024:

The Rabbis taught that it was wrong to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy: (Proverbs 24:17) “Rejoice not when your enemy falls and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles”. This idea led to the Ashkenazi tradition of removing one drop of wine for each plague. We can not celebrate “with a full cup” knowing we have achieved freedom through the suffering of others.

The Zionist state talks of Amelek, but there is this:

Near the end of the Passover Seder, as we open the door to welcome Elijah the prophet, we recite the shefokh khamatkha, Pour Out Your Wrath: a prayer in which we request divine vengeance be poured upon those who persecute us. In general the idea of vengeful retribution is a challenging text to discuss, but even more so this year.

and this:

For those who believe in God, we can see this as a prayer to remove the need for vengeance from our hearts by relinquishing this to the Divine. Weare not the ones who are able to effect justice adequately in this world, instead we must trust that just responses to evil will be pursued by Hashem. With this faith we can free ourselves from the bitterness of pursuing revenge and instead focus our energies on our journey out of slavery and into freedom.

 I've been on quite a few of these protests and have yet to see any real "anti-semitism". What is see are mobs of "Anti-semitic" Jewish students protesting lsraeli actions. Jews protesting against Zionism.

Of course, criticism of the Zionist state and Zionism is smeared as "anti-semitic" by Zionists since they want to try to stop any scrutiny. On the other hand, Zionism is one of those things that fall apart when under scrutiny.

There's a presumption of genocide and definite evidence of 100 years of ethnic cleansing

 It's sort of undeniable. It's not anti-semitic to point out that Zionism is a racist ideology. Actually, like the ethnic cleansing and genocide, it's pretty obvious. Just read Herzl's Mauschel. Talk about self-loathing Jews!

Why Some people don't like the United Nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).


 

The textcan be found here. It's Article 21 that drove me to post this, although the other rights are worth supporting.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

A Biblical Refutation of Christian Zionism

The REAL Reason Palestinian Christians Are Fleeing The Holy Land

Dimitri Dilani is the spokesperson of the Democratic Reformist faction within Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Dilani is also the head of the Christian National Coalition in Palestine.

Did Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, just say the obvious?

Gilad Erdan just confirmed pretty much everything I'm saying here if this is an uncut or edited video.

ANd Just remember that Israel has been in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty for a while (maybe over 60 years). The US Legislators who have been funding Israel have been in violation of United States law as well.

American aid to Israel is illegal under a law passed in the 1970s that prohibits aid to nuclear powers who don't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 U.S.C. ch. 39). The US has long suspected that lsrael has been making nuclear weapons. Mordecai Vanunu showed conclusively that Dimona Nuclear plant was making nuclear weapons. Still, the US has not shut off aid to Israel.

Israel refuses to confirm or deny it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, a policy of deliberate ambiguity known as "nuclear ambiguity" or "nuclear opacity." This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to describe the country's true nuclear policy definitively, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments. However, over the years, some Israeli leaders have publicly acknowledged their country's nuclear capability: Ephraim Katzir in 1974, Moshe Dayan in 1981, Shimon Peres in 1998, and Ehud Olmert in 2006.

During his 2006 confirmation hearings before the United States Senate regarding his appointment as George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates admitted that Israel had nuclear weapons, and two years later, in 2008, former US president Jimmy Carter stated the number of nuclear weapons held by Israel to be "150 or more". 

There is also the Leahy Law: section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. 2378d and  10 U.S. Code § 362, says that no funds may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretaries of State or Defense have credible information that a country has committed a gross violation of human rights.

The U.S. is a signatory to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Congress passed the Genocide Convention Implementation Act (18 U.S.C. § 1091) in 1988, making it federal law. International law imposes on Biden and other high-level officials a legal duty to prevent genocide. The United States has significant capacity to influence Israel's actions as its primary provider of military and political support. Therefore, the U.S. has been obligated, since learning of the serious risk of genocide in Gaza, to exercise its considerable influence on the Israeli government to prevent the crime.

Israel and Zionism are their own worst enemy.

How Does the Government of Israel Treat Christians?

I'm starting this out with something from Wally Rashid about why Tucker's interview with Rev. Munther Isaac. I'm glad to see Rev. Isaac get publicity.

And here is Tucker to annoy my co-bloggers. I'm only posting this because of Rev. Isaac.

Former Israeli captive holds government accountable for hostages' lives

I've made it quite clear that the people who fixate on the Israeli hostages being returned are being played. Here is a former hostage who reiterates that point.

If the people who fixate on the hostages were actually serious, they would be asking for a ceasefire louder than the pro-Palestinian crowd. That's because Israel's reckless bombing campaign has resulted in the deaths of 50-70 of the hostages.

Toss in the hostages the Israelis who were njust killed because the IOF is a bunch of trigger happy idiots.

Never forget the USS Liberty.

An excellent explanation about why the USS Liberty incident is important for any pro-Palestinian activist to know about. Any US condemnation was very subdued. Offical US line has been to repeat that it was an accident.

The reality is that lsrael attacked a US Navy ship and killed 34 and wounded 171 crew members.

And said it was a "mistake".

Wally does a short and sweet job to explain why it wasn't.

Yes, there can be peace in the Holy Land.

Maoz Inon, an Israeli entrepreneur and peace activist, who lost both of his parents on 7 October due to a Hamas rocket fire, is now campaigning for peace.

 

OK. I've been wanting to refute Christian Zionists' ideas of the "end times" for a while

OK, Christian Zionists try to second guess god, as do a lot of "fundamentalists". But the problem is that an English translation of the Bible is reading a REALLY bad translation since the Hebrew alphabet is an important aspect of the Old Testament.

Rabbi Avrohom Brashevitzky has a couple of videos that explain why this doesn't work.

A Joke for the Christian Zionists.

Shlomo, the village idiot, went to the rebbe to ask for a job

The rebbe says: "Shlomo, I have the perfect job for you. You can sit at the edge of the Stetl and wait for the mashiach to come. For this, I will pay you a ruble a day."

Shlomo says, "A ruble a day! That's not very much,"

To which the rebbe responds: "Yes, but think of the job security!"

Israel has killed the "two state solution"

Rabbi Manis Friedman, self-dubbed 'Youtube's most popular rabbi,' is the dean of Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies in Minnesota.

 

The Answer to the Palestine issue is simple

All that needs to be done is to recognise the Palestinians' rights: especially THEIR right of return and reparations for the Nakba. Of course, that means the end of the Israeli ethno-state, but that is something which should have happened long ago. It probably would have if people knew about the Nakba.

Two Names to Remember of the 30,000 Killed in Gaza

 By Jarrod McKenna from the Red Letter Christians blog

One of the most powerful elements of the GazaCeasefirePilgrimage.com movement globally is hearing from the Palestinian Christian minority, like our new friend, Cami.

You may remember, the week before Christmas, Pope Francis condemned the Israeli military’s murder of two women, one 84 years old, who were sheltering in Holy Family Church in Gaza City. They were shot by a sniper leaving the church. The Pope called the murder of these innocent Christian women by the Israeli military, “terrorism”. Kat and I prayed for them and their families when we found out. On Saturday, we met Cami, one of the people we prayed for. Nahida Anton and Samar Anton were Cami’s family.

It was Cami’s 84-year-old aunty Nahida who walked outside the doors of the church into the courtyard to go to the convent when she was shot in the stomach by an Israeli sniper. What threat was this grandmother and beloved elder? What justification is there for looking down a high powered telescope getting a clear look at an elderly woman and deciding to pull the trigger?

It was Cami’s cousin Samar who ran from the church to embrace her elderly mother who lay in an expanding pool of blood when she too was targeted by the sniper. How can you look at a defenceless woman running towards an elderly woman lifeless on the ground and decided to again pull the trigger?

That image, of these two Christian women, a daughter seeking to embrace her murdered mother like her mother held her as a baby, on the grounds of a place of worship, now slumped over each other’s bodies, I cannot shake.

I must not shake.
It must shake us all.
Shake us from our apathy.
Shake us from our indifference.
Shake us from inaction.

This is not just Cami’s aunty.
This is not just Cami’s cousin.
These are our sisters in Christ!
These are human beings!!!

This is the church, the living stones, flesh and blood, being targeted alongside every soul in Gaza.

Our sister Samar served as a volunteer cook for the poor and hungry at Sisters of Mother Teresa House. Our 84-year-old sister Nahida was a beloved grandmother, not just to her own grandchildren, but to the whole community of Holy Family Church where they worshipped Christ and served him by serving those in need. Not just the Christian community, but they saw Christ in every hungry child, every suffering soul.

You might not be able to fathom the murder of 30,000 souls in Gaza.

You don’t have to.

Just hold these two women, your sisters in Christ, in your heart.

They are not numbers.
They are not statistics.

Say their names,
Nahida Anton.
Samar Anton.

They are your sisters.

They are witnesses to Christ, or in New Testament Greek, “martyrs”. Their lives testify to the truth.

Are we listening?

God save us from not being shaken.
Save us from the devil’s indifference.
Deliver us from the evil of apathy.
while people are being murdered en masse.

Let all God’s people say,
Amen.

 

Rev. Munther Isaac's English Easter Sermon

I want his message to get out to the world. I want the Christian Zionists in the US, especially those in power, to hear the voice of the oppressed Palestinian Christians. The Christians who are oppressed because Christian Zionists have a misguided interpretation of scripture.

 

Holy Week Saturday Vigil Sermon: “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?’…. This is the cry of feeling abandoned… It is a cry that has resonated for years in this land. It is the cry of every oppressed person hanging in a state of slow death. It is a cry that Jesus shared with us in his pain, torment, and crucifixion. Today, we place the cross on the rubble, remembering that Jesus shared the same fate with us, as he died on the cross as a victim of the colonizers.”

Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac's Easter Message to the World.

 Just in case you missed the numerous posts of his material:

Munther Isaac (PhD, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies) is a Palestinian Christian pastor and theologian. He is the academic dean of Bethlehem Bible College in Palestine, and director of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference. He is also pastor of Christmas Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bethlehem and is the author of "From Land to Lands, from Eden to the Renewed Earth: A Christ-Centered Biblical Theology of the Promised Land" among others.

He is a member of a group called Red Letter Christians, a group that tags themselves as "Taking the words of Jesus seriously". And they do since red letters are found in versions of the Bible where the statements of Jesus are in red letters. I would imagine a certain amount of discomfort if this group were to lobby the Christian Zionists in congress.

Which is why I post Munther's sermons: because even an avowed secular atheist like me can feel his message. I can't imagine someone who truly believes would not be moved.

See also:

Palestinian Christians Make an Easter Call for Relief from War’s Tightening Grasp

A serious question for Christian Zionists.

Are you really following God's will. Or are you presuming too much to the detriment of others?

People have been predicting the "end times" from the days of the early church. Predictions are made for the exact time of a second coming, which never comes.

Wouldn't the Israel of prophecy be one of divine creation, rather than a secular ideology, which is what Zionism happens to be.

Case in point, the Jewish State wants to stop Torah Studies.

In a historical ruling the high court of Israel has ordered funding of Torah students to be halted on April 1st. This means that students of the so called "yeshivas" will be subject to military service.

The Haredi ("ultra orthodox") Jews are anti-Zionist for a variety of reasons. Haredis have been exempt from military service as well. One of the reasons being because they have been in Palestine years before the non-religious Jews started the fight with the Arabs.

Thus they refuse to take part in the Israeli military which they also associate with "secularising" Haredi students after they completed their service.

"We prefer dying to serving in the Israeli army,” said Yona Kruskal, 42, a father of 11 and full-time seminary student, as he blocked traffic in Jerusalem with about 200 others last week in one of the frequent protests against the conscription law.

This is the latest episode that calls into question Israel's self description as the "Jewish" state which should be obvious since there has been a divide the secular and religious since the beginning of the project. The existance of the Israeli state violates several of the ten commandments.

Just remember that the gift of the Holy Land to the Jewish people was not unconditional. They were supposed to be a light to the world. The Zionist state is anything but.

So, whose will are you actually following by supporting the Zionist state: God's or yours?

Palm Sunday in Gaza

“We hope that next year will be a better year, a year of peace for Palestine, in every corner of Palestine.”

Palestinian Christians held palm branches during a Palm Sunday mass at the Holy Family Catholic Church in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighbourhood, while Israeli drones buzzed in the background. 

 

Members of this parish have been taking refuge for months in the parish compound along with other displaced Christians, totalling about 600, who have lost everything in the bombings. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of murdering two women at the Holy Family Catholic Parish in Gaza and firing on a convent in a Dec. 16 statement.

Palestinian Christian Minister on Christian Zionism

I have a thing for the Rev. Munther Isaac, as readers of this blog know.

In this clip, he tells Ashfaaq Carim that it's shocking how distant Christian Zionists are from the way of Jesus. He says the “Bible has been weaponised by the empire” to justify colonialism and our intoxication with power. He also said that if given the opportunity to speak with influential Christian Zionist leaders such as John Haygee, he would call on him to “repent”. 

One thing that keeps getting swept under the rug is that Palestinian Christians are being persecuted by the state of Israel, yet Christian Zionists don't seem to care that they contribute to the persecution of other Christians by their love of "Israel".

Yes, God gave Israel to the "Jews", yet that gift was conditional on the "Jewish" people being a light to the world. The Jews have been expelled twice from the Holy Land because they were not keeping up their end of the bargain. And once again, "Israeli-Jews" are destroying this sacred land.

It is God who needs to create an "Israel", not man.

How did two of the worst candidates ever manage to become president and vice-president?

OK, I know the "Russian Interference" in the 2016 election was BS. Unless the Democratic Party is run by Russia, but there is foreign influence in US elections. No one is going to talk about it...in public. There's a post on how to steal elections in the US without having to stuff ballot boxes (hint--the system is rigged).

OK, maybe no one is talking about the worse foreign influence yet, but it is coming out slowly thanks to Palestine.

Here we have a candidate who pulled out early on because her campaign never caught momentum who somehow got onto the worst ticket ever. This video may demonstrate one of the reasons her campaign never caught on.

 Five Thirty Eight: Why Kamala Harris's campaign failed

Yet another Holocaust survivor who sees the similarities between then and the Gaza Seige

 Please stop saying "Never again" if you are going to support Israel's attack on the Palestinian people.

Israeli hostages held in Gaza being played.

As I keep saying, I would be embarrassed to put up these posters if I actually knew how meaningless they were, yet some people still do. Israel doesn't care about the hostages held in Gaza. The war would be conducted differently if they did. First off, Israel wouldn't be indiscriminately bombing Gaza.

Anyway, this is a highly controversial topic in Israel. That's another reason not to use those posters.

How Israel May Lose Its Military Hegemony in the Middle East

Unlike all my other posts, this one deals specifically with the issue of the militia, which is specifically what the Second Amendment addresses:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's pretty clear and I certainly won't infringe your right to bear arms as a part of the constitutional militia, which is one set up according to Article I, Section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment only guarantees that this system should not be infringed.

Never mind reality has intervened and the United States has a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent.

And while the revisionism would have us believe that parts of the constitution are irrelevant, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), makes it clear that is not the case. And the US Supreme Court can stop acting outside its constitutional mandate if it wants to suggest otherwise since: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."   

In fact, Scalia could have cut his mental mastubation in that piece of shit decision since Marbury pretty much contradicts him, and tells him he has no business doing what he did by declaring a section of the Constitution "mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction."

Damn, Scalia was too "smart" for his own good. And an originalist in the sense that he was very original in his interpretation, which works against him.

So: yes, the founders intended to address the "common defence" of the United States of which A well regulated Militia was consider as being necessary to the security of a free State. To insist otherwise is trash the United States Constitution.

Anyway, this shows why a militia is a good idea for a defensive force, especially for a small country like Switzerland. But not a good idea if one wants to fight wars.

With that, I end with this comment by Justice Joseph Story,  (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) who was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1812 to 1845. He is most remembered for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and United States v. The Amistad:

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91 (1833) § 1890. 

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. 

§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege. 

 The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 10 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html The University of Chicago Press 

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Former Shin Bet director Ami Ayalon says he would ‘fight against Israel’ if he was Palestinian

Pointing out that Palestinians will resist as long as their rights are not respected isn't something that lefties say. Here we have a director of the Israeli Internal security force pointing that out.



« Israel will not emerge with a picture of victory from this war, even if it manages to assassinate Yahya Sinwar, Whoever believes that the Palestinians will surrender does not know the Palestinians, nor Hamas, or the Islamic movements of this century. » ~ Amy Ayalon, former head of the israelli General Security Service (Shin Bet)

Mehdi Hasan Debunks 7 Israeli Myths About UNRWA

I'm not sure why anyone listens to Israel and its apologists. The nice thing is that the truth is coming out.

And lots of people are going to be vey embarrassed.

Meet The Wrong Type of Jew, Israel Doesn't Want You To Know Exists

I know. I know. I'm like a broken record....

Not all Jews are Zionists, and definitely not all zionists are Jews.

Christian Zionists outnumber Jewish ones by about 30 to 1, but trying to conflate Judaism with Zionism is a great way to avoid discussing how bad the zionist ideology happens to be.



After all, how many Jews did the Zionists save during the holocaust????

No BS--This Red Cow Might Destroy the World

Crazy Christian Zionists only support Israel because they want to see the end of the world!

Someone get some bleach on these cows.

Al Jazeera investigation finds Israeli military likely involved in October 7th killing of Israelis

I hope you don't have any illusions that the Israeli Occupation Forces are somehow competent. There is more than enough proof that they have killed more Israelis than the resistance.

Yes, Arabs are Christian!!!

 Mark Hachem is going to teach you some useful Arabic Phrases to celebrate Easter.

Because Jesus didn't look like Errol Flynn.

He was an Arab! 

And while we're at it Easter is basically Passover. In fact, it's called Pâques in French, which is the plural of Pâque (or la Pâque juif).

Passover! 

Jewish opinions on Zionism and Israel

I mentioned that selling stolen Palestinian land was contrary to the Ten Commandments, which is pretty undsiputable. That would mean that selling stolen land is something which shouldn't be done in synagogues.

There's another concept which is missing from Zionism: Tikkun Olam. That's healing the world.

Max Blumenthal is a little more blunt...

 

Criticising illegal sales of Palestinian Property isn't anti-semitic--selling it is.

Ever hear about the ten commandments?  Here's a review since some people want to say that people who condemn these sales are "anti-semitic":

You shall not steal.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Or in Hebrew:

    לֹא תִגְנֹב
    לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶךָ לֹא תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ

From Chabad.org, so you don't say I'm making this up:

The 10 Commandments (or Aseret Hadibrot, “The Ten Statements,” in Hebrew) were communicated by G‑d to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, 50 days after the Exodus from Egypt. The event is known as the Giving of the Torah. G‑d then carved the Ten Commandments onto two tablets of stone, which he gave to Moses. Moses smashed the tablets, and G‑d carved the Ten Commandments onto a second set of tablets, which were subsequently placed in the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ten Commandments are not the entirety of G‑d’s instructions for His people (there are 613 commandments). However, they contain within them the kernel from which the others emerge.

So, you are violating a couple of G-d's commandments, but Zionism isn't religious. Zionism is a political ideology, which is why it's pretty antithetical to Judaism. But that doesn't stop Zionists, who aren't all Jewish, from trotting out the ad hominem of "anti-semitism".

I wasn't going to mention the three oaths since they are from Midrash and have some controversy, but:

The Three Oaths is the popular name for a midrash found in the Talmud, which relates that God adjured three oaths upon the world. Two of the oaths pertain to the Jewish people, and one of the oaths pertains to the other nations of the world. The Jews for their part were sworn not to forcefully reclaim the Land of Israel and not to rebel against the other nations, and the other nations in their turn were sworn not to subjugate the Jews excessively.

Among Orthodox Jews today there are primarily two ways of viewing this midrash. Haredim who are strongly anti-Zionist often view this midrash as legally binding, and therefore the movement to establish the state of Israel and its continued existence would be a violation of Jewish law, whereas Religious Zionists have the view that either the oaths are no longer applicable or that they are indeed binding, but the current movement is not a violation of them. Both buttress their positions by citing historic rabbinic sources in favor of their view.

But the real kicker is that stealing property was an aspect of the holocaust, from the Intercept's How Israel Quietly Crushed Early American Dissent on Palestine:

In one story, Zukerman reported about a Holocaust survivor who had recently resettled in Israel, in the former home of an Arab family. The survivor became “openly obsessed” about her morality, Zukerman wrote, after her children found some of the evicted family’s possessions. “The mother was suddenly struck by the thought that her children were playing with the toys of Arab children who were now exiled and homeless,” Zukerman continued. “Is she not doing to the Arabs what the Nazis did to her and her family?”

Yes, stealing Jewish homes was an aspect of the holocaust.

Who are you calling anti-semitic????

You need to read the literature of the Zionists before you go around calling people anti-semitic.

After all, how many Jews did the Zionists save during the holocaust? I mean the movement had been around for at least 50 years when it really got up and running. For that matter, it was forming when the other nationalist ideologies were.

 

Let's make Zionism the aberration it was before 1947 again. Zionism is not Judaism--never was, never will be.

And you have serious problems if you need a goy to tell you that!

The answer to the Palestinian problem isn't "complicated".

I give the podium to Miko Peled to do some Jewsplainin'. Miko was born in Jerusalem in 1961. He grew up in Motza Illit to a prominent Zionist family; his grandfather, Avraham Katznelson, for whom he was named after, signed Israel's Declaration of Independence. His father, Mattityahu Peled, fought in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and served as a general in the Six-Day War of 1967; later, after the Israeli cabinet ignored his investigation of a 1967 alleged Israeli war crime, he became an advocate for an Israeli dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). He condemned the Israeli military for seizing the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights, calling the war a "cynical campaign of territorial expansion". Palestinian activist Susan Abulhawa has described Peled's father, who died in 1995, as "a man that many of us Palestinians could not figure out whether to love or hate" and whom "many notable Palestinians" nicknamed "Abu Salam" (Father of Peace).

If that doesn't give him credibility, I don't know what would!

OK. Maybe that he's the General's Son!

ISRAEL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE HOSTAGES!!!!

 From Middle East Monitor.

Audio recording shows Israeli hostages’ calls for help before being shot by Israeli soldiers
Israeli state-owned channel Kan 11 releases audio recordings of hostages, Alon Shamriz, Yotam Haim, and Samer Talalka, who were killed by the Israeli military in December.

On 15 December 2023, Israeli soldiers in Shuja’iyya in Gaza shot dead three Israeli hostages who were trying to be rescued and were visibly unarmed and shirtless and waving a makeshift white flag when they were killed.

You're right, I'm wrong to pull down those posters since they turn people off of the Zionist cause.

Whose side are the people who put the posters up on? Do they understand what they support? Do they understand they are being played big time?

Why does the Green Party in the U.S. support Palestinians’ Right of Return?

As I keep saying, my voting Green is not a protest vote--I am voting for the Party which comes closest to representing my values. This position is a case in point. While not totally in line with my political view, the Green Party comes the closest to what I believe.

I wish that US media would get more voices from third parties out there. That is the only way that the US will see any change in its political system.

A Response From The International Committee Green Party Of The United States

Thank you for taking the time to think about the Green Party’s platform on US Middle East policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We welcome constructive discussion on all our positions, but especially on this issue as it significantly impacts peace and security for Americans as well as for all the peoples of that region.

For your information, our platform on this subject has evolved over the past four years and will continue to do so. It represents discussion and input from local members of state Green parties across the country, and particularly state representative members of the USGP International and Platform Committees where the work on this platform was drafted and proposed before being approved by the Green Party as a whole at our national presidential nominating convention in June. These Committee members represent their own state parties and come from a variety of backgrounds, education and experience including scholars of the Middle East and Arab, Muslim and Jewish-Americans.

We realize that no modern conflict has been more intractable and challenging than that between Israelis and Palestinians. We view this as a struggle pitting values of cultural diversity, heterogeneity and equality of different peoples, against values of tribalism, cultural homogeneity and exclusivity. It throws into high relief pressing contemporary questions that reverberate in ethnic conflicts worldwide—in the Balkans, Cyprus, India, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and South Africa: How can different peoples live together in peace and security with equal access to legal rights and resources, without living in ghettoes? How can civic and governmental institutions support the challenging but enlivening tension that comes from the coexistence of multiple voices and historical narratives in a society, as opposed to promoting the illusory stability of one dominant voice, one historical narrative in any society? From this perspective, we believe that this conflict tragically continues to be fueled by the obsolete view that Palestinian-Israeli relations are a zero-sum game.

Palestine and Greens’ Ten Key Values

Our platform on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is primarily informed by our ten key values, especially social justice, respect for diversity, grass roots democracy, ecological sustainability, and non-violence. We have aimed to be faithful to each of these values, including their expression in international and humanitarian law, as we considered each of the following aspects of this conflict:

1. Historical background that includes both the Nazi holocaust in Europe and the expulsion of nearly 80% of the native Arab inhabitants of historic Palestine at Israel’s creation;

2. Human rights including native rights, refugee rights, and the right to self-determination;

3. Natural resources (especially water) and sustainable economies;

4. Security for all;

5. Israel’s military occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank since 1967 and its consequences;

6. Validity of religious claims to the land;

7. Demographics;

8. The question of “two-state” vs. “one-state” solutions;

9. Eventual reconciliation.

We have approached the formation of a Green US policy on this conflict holistically, evaluating each component of our platform mindful of whether in the short and long-terms, it supports or opposes an enduring peace, which we regard as more than the absence of violence. While the Green Party recognizes the political status quo as expressed in both the Republican and Democratic Party positions, our values require us to look beyond the status quo and to consider the “imbalance” of power that exists between Israelis and Palestinians and which is supported by our government despite its disingenuous claim to be an “honest broker”.

Concerns of Jewish-American Greens

In that regard, some Jewish-American opposition to our positions has included: an insistence that we condemn all terrorism; that we affirm Israel’s right to exist; that implementing the Palestinian right of return should privilege Israel’s security and Jewishness; that we not take sides (suggesting that we are “pro-Palestinian”); and that ultimate support among Jewish communities for the Green Party and all its other platform planks—especially admired environmental positions—is jeopardized or withdrawn because of our platform on Palestine-Israel.

Regarding terrorism, we have stated repeatedly in press releases and in the opening of the platform plank in question that we are committed to non-violent conflict resolution and oppose all violence in this situation, which means Israeli state-sponsored terrorism and Palestinian terrorism/suicide bombings.

We also acknowledge that the Palestinian right of resistance to occupation is sanctioned by international law primarily as an expression of the right to self-determination, and that it must be understood as a response to Israel’s illegal occupation.

[For example, see Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus at Princeton, “Azmi Bishara, The Right of Resistance, and the Palestinian Ordeal,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 2002]

As former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami put it in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, November 28, 2000, “Accusations made by a well-established society about how a people it is oppressing is breaking the rules to attain its rights do not have much credence.”

Non-Violent Resistance

Nevertheless, we reiterate that the Green Party supports non-violent resistance, a position stated eloquently by former USGP Political Director Dean Myerson in the Party’s October 23, 2000 press release:

“We acknowledge that Israel’s continued military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem constitutes a clear violation of Palestinian human rights under international law and numerous UN resolutions. However, we urge Palestinians–especially in response to provocations like those by Ariel Sharon and Israeli settlers–to refrain from violence and to protest their injustice by mass non-violent civil disobedience and non-cooperation, as well as by empowering leaders who support such non-violent acts of liberation. In doing so, Palestinians set a moral example and higher standard than their occupiers, which will engender the respect and unequivocal support of the international community.”

Still, the facts are that non-violent resistance by Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists has routinely been met with violence by Israeli occupation forces and that thousands of Israeli and Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured since the start of the second Palestinian uprising (intifada). In response, the Green Party has frequently joined the consensus at the United Nations (including the Security Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights), Amnesty International and other human rights and peace groups in calling for a civilian monitoring and peacekeeping force in the Occupied Territories. Unfortunately, these calls have consistently been opposed by Israel with the support of the US government.

For example, see these Green Party press releases:
Greens Demand That Israel Cease Its Hypocritical ‘War on Terrorism’ Against Palestinian People (12.12.01)
Greens Call for an International Peacekeeping Body to Enforce a Middle East Ceasefire (04.03.02)
U.S. Greens Support Peacemakers in Israel and Occupied Palestine (04.09.02)
Israeli Forces are Targeting Nonviolent Palestinian, Israeli, and International Peace Workers (08.14.02)

Recognizing the Historical Context

In turning now to the other concerns about our platform on this issue, we emphasize that our platform position evolved from a close reading of the historical context from which this conflict continues to emerge. We consider attention to this historical context, essential to the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Specifically, we view the persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as epitomizing the ongoing, difficult transition in political consciousness that has been taking place since the late 19th century. In the past 100 years, presumptions of empire and colonialism, of the military acquisition of territory and settlement of disputes by war, have been challenged and some changes have occurred. We have seen the formal breakup of colonial empires and the rise of nationalism, the ascendance of international law in conflict resolution and the juridical recognition of universal human rights, including the right of self-determination of peoples. We believe that it is in the context of this continuing progressive struggle in world consciousness that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must be viewed and for which it provides a central touchstone.

Thus, contrary to those despairing descriptions of this conflict as ancient or perennial, we view the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians as neither thousands of years old–it is over a century old–nor as a religious conflict, though religion has often been politicized. Instead, we see this as a struggle between native claims to land and self-determination versus theologically-justified colonial claims to the same land. This struggle began slowly in the mid-1800’s when British imperial interests in the region initiated the Jewish colonization of Palestine. [e.g., Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Sharing the Land of Canaan, 2004]. It was then kindled for more than a half century through a culture of pervasive European imperialism and anti-Semitism. Although the rise of Palestinian and Jewish nationalism (Zionism) in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were predictable responses to this oppressive atmosphere, they also contributed to intensifying the conflict.

Though disavowed by the Israeli government today, the historical record clearly affirms the colonial nature of Zionism vis-à-vis the non-Jewish inhabitants of historic Palestine. Tragically, this imperial stance continues today not only in the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, but also within Israel where laws that clearly discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens make an oxymoron of Israel’s self-identification as a “Jewish democracy”.

As stated explicitly in our platform, the Green Party acknowledges and deplores the Jewish experience of European persecution that culminated in the horror of the Nazi holocaust. We understand that such persecution of Jews also contributed to a longing for freedom and the human right of self-determination that, in part, fueled Jewish nationalism (Zionism).

However, this aim has been pursued in violence and accomplished at another people’s expense. Consequently, an unavoidable tension has been created between European Jewish settler-colonial control and the concomitant dispossession of an already inhabited land, and self-determination by the native, non-Jewish majority. This tension is the defining dynamic i.e., the problem–in the relations between Palestinians and Jewish immigrants. It was so before Israel was created, and remains so between Palestinians and the Zionist Israeli governments that have defined Israel to this day.

Tragically, this crucial historical dynamic “the heart of the problem that will not go away” is denied by the Israeli government and its main supporter, the United States.

Yet, mindful of this dynamic, we suggest that the central question then and now, is less whether there should have been Jewish immigrants to Palestine and more about how they were there then, and how they live there now given an unavoidable fact: the continuing presence of a native, non-Jewish population who has aspired to liberate themselves (from Ottoman and European colonialism) and form a secular, multicultural and democratic Palestine.

Global implications and Green policy

It is relevant to underscore here that as Greens working for world peace, our philosophy and values compel us to locate this conflict, as any, in a larger socioeconomic and environmental context. Thus, in our view, the extent to which Israel’s imperial-colonial stance toward Palestinians continues and is supported by the US, there will be significant and unsettling reverberations in the entire developing world. As we are already seeing in Iraq, the credibility of the western values of “equality among peoples”,the right of self-determination, and the rule of law, is deeply questioned. Thus, the policy positions taken by American Greens in this particular ethnic conflict set an important standard, and send a message extending well beyond Israel-Palestine to influence the resolution of other ethnic conflicts and pro-democracy movements worldwide.

For example, as media and scholarly reports of the current Palestinian uprising readily attest, there is a close identification and empathy of millions of citizens of every formerly colonized country in South America, Africa and Asia—including the Middle East—with the Palestinian struggle, an empathy that is far beyond the reach of even the most repressive governments in these regions. Attempts to reduce such identification and empathy to expressions of anti-Semitism deflect attention from the aforementioned political and psycho-cultural factors that sustain this conflict. Moreover, accusations of anti-Semitism heighten and perpetuate regressive elements on both sides for political gain, trivialize the historic prejudice against Jews, and inhibit the expression of genuine sympathy such peoples do have for Jewish suffering, especially the Nazi holocaust.

In this regard, a close reading of the history of a self-identified Zionist Israel reveals a stance that is a central and continuing obstacle to peace. Zionist Israel continues to locate itself not where it is–in an historically colonized Middle East–but in an imperial Europe or the US. That is, by speaking throughout its history primarily from the voice of a people identified not with the suffering of the indigenous people (Palestinians) in a joint struggle for liberation and self-determination, but as a nation identified with conquest and the subjugation of that same people (including its non-Jewish citizens), a Zionist Israel continues to identify with, and be identified by, imperial economic and military policies among those in the developing world.

At this moment in history, these facts remain: that Israel-Palestine — the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan — is, and always has been, a multicultural land; and that Israelis and Palestinians are inextricably linked by their history and mutual attachment to the same place they all call home. Separation has not and will not work because, as history and ethnic conflict resolution research demonstrate, some aspects of human experience, like attachment to land and home, are simply not divisible.

By recognizing these facts, the problem then becomes one of creating a political structure that gives maximum equality and freedom to all the people of this land.

Growing Support for the ‘One-State Solution’

Unfortunately, not one of the various peace plans formally proposed by the US, Europe or Israel — the Rogers or Allon Plans; Camp David I, Oslo, Camp David II, the Saudi Plan, Roadmap as well as the Geneva Accords — recognizes these facts. Yet, there are growing numbers of Israelis and Palestinians who do acknowledge these realities and support sharing the land. One recent example is the “Haifa Initiative” formally proposed by Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel in Haifa in March 2004.

Indeed, as Israeli historians like Ilan Pappe and Tom Segev document, the Haifa Initiative revives earlier Jewish and Palestinian voices like those of Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and the pre-state peace groups Ihud (‘Unity”) and Brit Shalom (“Covenant of peace”), voices which supported sharing the land. [See Prof. Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, 2004]

Also, the PLO adopted the stated goal of a single, secular democratic state as early as 1968, although this goal was downgraded to the two-state solution in the ensuing years under continual military and political pressure. Nevertheless, as Israel has continued to expand settlements and seize more Palestinian land within the Green Line and the occupied territories (including via its illegal separation wall), a majority of Palestinian Israelis and growing numbers of Palestinians in the occupied territories/diaspora, as well as Israeli Jews, have revived support for establishing one secular and democratic state as the only just solution.

See, from Haaretz: “One-State Awakening” and “Cry, the beloved two-state solution”, from the BBC: “Palestinian PM’s one-state call” and from the Jewish Media and Communications Center “Poll Results on Palestinian Attitudes”

Moreover, however much Palestinians have wavered from the one-state solution in response to increasingly dire circumstances, Palestinian refugees have consistently supported implementing their legal and human right to return to their homes in Israel/occupied territories.
See “Palestinian Refugees and the Peace Process: An analysis of Public Opinion Surveys in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” and “Survey of Palestinians finds no support for compromise on right of return”

Thus, the two-state solution is fundamentally challenged by these realities: the powerful attachment of a native people (Palestinian refugees) to their land in Israel/the Occupied Territories, whatever the “territory’ is labeled; and by the fact that Israel within the “Green Line” is not even now a “Jewish” state given that more than 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish.

The Role of U.S. Greens

To conclude, as our platform states, our main role is to influence US policy in this conflict in a way that is consistent with our values and recognizes the facts without prescribing which model the people involved should follow. In fact, our platform also states, ‘We reaffirm the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis, which precludes the self-determination of one at the expense of the other.” Our call for a serious reconsideration of the one, democratic and secular state solution aims to open a conversation in the US and abroad about the only political structure we can envision that conforms to our ten key values and international law, that fully recognizes the historic and present realities, and that gives maximum equality and freedom, including mutual self-determination, to all the people of that land.

We invite you to join us in furthering this conversation.

In peace,

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE
Green Party of the United States

Why do people who claim to be "pro-Israel" still keep rabbiting on about the hostages?

 Wow! it's the most problematic topic in Israeli politics and these clowns can't shut up!

Let's start with the basics that most people are turned off by this if they have any idea of the war crimes being perpetrated by Israel. This is one of the most recent where At least 104 Palestinians were killed after the Israeli army targeted crowds waiting for aid deliveries early Thursday morning near al-Rashid Street, south of Gaza City. There were separate unconfirmed reports that the death toll might be as high as 150. I've heard there were at least 700 wounded as well.

And they were taken to al-shifa hospital...

Of course, the Israelis have destroyed the medical infrastructure as well.

But some people blissfully pretend that the war crimes aren't in people's faces.

Sorry, it's hard to feel sympathy that your "family is broken" when whole families are being wiped out.

And even the Israelis are divided on this.

First off, the reason that the resistance took the hostages was to have a hostage swap. THE RESISTANCE WANTS TO FREE THE HOSTAGES!!! Secondly, the hostages were well treated by the resistance. 

On the other hand, Israel has made it clear that it doesn't care about its own citizens having killed a good portion of them on 7 October in accordance with the Hannibal Doctrine. And the worst thing to do if you are serious about saving your citizens is to bomb the shit out of the area where you believe they are held. Israel has killed at least 50 of the hostages through its military actions.

And that doesn't count the three who managed to escape, yet were shot by IOF despite being shirtless, speaking Hebrew, and waving a white flag! And they gassed at least one in a tunnel.

There's a reason the hostages aren't talking: at least in the media outside Israel.

The following clip isn't comprehensive, but it gives you enough to do more research.

I would be embarassed to be associated with propaganda as bad as these posters.

And obvious.

I Visited the Best* City in North America

Notjustbikes visits Montreal (mon rayal). Definitely not my pick of the two large cities in Quebec since it is way too American. I prefer the Eastern part: especially since I can kind of imagine I am actually in France.

That is until they open their mouths. You hope their accent isn't too thick since Québécois sounds like a thick, nasal Southern US accent.

 

And you had a hard time finding moules-frites, which is weird since the moules in Europe come from this part of the world. Poutine doesn't cut it for me.

How the US Propaganda System Works

This is one of the best articles on propaganda I've seen. It's too bad it's better publicised. I'm not sure it's even available on the net.

Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America.
 
by Paul Weber
Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having discussions with people who came to America from countries known for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite incompetently. If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably, the best in the world.

"How can that be?" I asked, honestly puzzled.

Propaganda in those countries was too obvious, they told me. As soon as you read the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of propaganda, so you didn’t even bother to read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in the first few words that it was propaganda, and you tuned it out.

"But," I then queried, "How do you know when it’s just propaganda?"

The expatriates explained that bad propaganda uses obvious terminology that anyone can see through. Anyone hearing the phrase "capitalist running dogs", knows he’s listening to incompetent propaganda and tunes it out. Lousy propaganda, these knowledgeable but jaded individuals would tell me, appeals to an abstract theory, to a rational thesis that can be disproved. Even though communists had total control of the press, the people just tuned it out (except for those who were the most mentally defective). Most people, they assured me, just went about their lives as best they could, paid lip service to the state, and just tried to keep out of the way of the secret police. But hardly anyone really believed the stuff. The result, after many decades of suffering, was the eventual collapse of the old order once The Great Leader expired, whether his name was Brezhnev, Mao, or Tito.

American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to.

American propaganda had its birth, so far as I can tell, in the advertising industry. The pioneers of advertising—a truly loathsome bunch—learned early on that people would respond to purely emotional appeals. Abstract theory and logical argument do nothing to spur sales. However, appeals to sexiness, to pride of ownership, to fear of falling behind the neighbors are the stock in trade of advertising executives. A man walking down the street with beautiful women hanging on his arms is not a logical argument, but it sure sells after-shave. A woman in a business suit with a briefcase, strolling along with swaying hips, assuring us she can "bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, but never let you forget you’re a man" really sells the perfume.

Let’s take a moment and analyze the particular emotions that this execrable ad appealed to. If you guessed fear, you win the prize. Women often have a fear of inadequacy, particularly in this confused age when they are expected to raise brilliant kids, run a successful business, and be unfailingly sexy, all the time. That silly goal—foisted upon us by feminists and popular culture—is impossible to reach. But maybe there’s hope if you buy the right perfume! Arguments from intimidation and appeals to fear are powerful propaganda tools.

American advertising and propaganda has been refined over the years into a malevolent science, based on the assumption that most people react, not to ideas, but to naked emotion. When I worked at an ad agency many years ago, I learned that the successful agencies know how to appeal to emotions: the stronger and baser, the better. The seven deadly sins, ad agency wags often say, are the key to selling products. Fear, envy, greed, hatred, and lust: these are the basic tools for good propaganda and effective advertising. By far, the most powerful motivating emotion—the top, most-sought-after copy writers will tell you, in an unguarded moment—is fear, followed closely by greed.

Good propaganda appeals to neither logic nor morality. Morality and ethics are the death of sales. This is why communist propaganda actually hastened the collapse of communism: the creatures running the Commie Empire thought they should appeal to morality by calling for people to engage in sacrifice for the greater good. They gave endless, droning speeches about the inevitably of communist triumph, based on the Hegelian dialectic. Not only were they wrong: their approach to selling their (virtually unsellable) theory was not clever enough. American propagandists (we can be jingoistically proud to say) would have been able to maintain the absurd social experiment called communism a little longer. They would have scrapped all the theory and focused on appealing images. Though the Commies tried to do this through huge, flag-waving rallies, the disparity between their alleged ideals and the reality they created was just too great.

One tyrant who did take American propaganda to heart was Adolph Hitler. Hitler learned to admire American propaganda through a young American expatriate who described to him, in glowing detail, how Americans enjoyed the atmosphere at football games. This American expatriate, with the memorable name of Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstängl, told the Führer how Americans could be whipped up into a frenzy through blaring music, group cheers, and chants against the enemy. Hitler, genius of evil as he was, immediately saw the value in this form of propaganda and incorporated it into his own rise to power. Prior to Hitler, German political rhetoric was dry, intellectual, and uninspiring. Hitler learned the value of spectacle in whipping up the emotions; the famed Nuremberg rallies were really little more than glorified football halftime shows. Rejecting boring, intellectual rhetoric, Hitler learned to appeal to deeply emotional but meaningless phrases, like the appeal to "blood and soil." The German people bought it wholesale. Hitler also called for blind loyalty to the "Fatherland," which eerily echoes our own new cabinet level post of "Homeland" Security.

If you study Nazi propaganda, you will be struck by how well it appeals to gut-level emotions and images—but not thought. You will see pictures of elderly German women hugging fresh-faced young babies, with captions about the bright future the Führer has brought to German. In fact, German propaganda borrowed the American technique of relying, not so much on words, but on images alone: pictures of handsome German soldiers, sturdy peasants in native costume, and the like. Take a look at any American car commercial featuring rugged farmers tossing bales of hay into the backs of their pickups, and you’ve seen the source from which the Nazis borrowed their propaganda techniques.
The Germans have a well-deserved reputation for producing a lot of really smart people, but this did not prevent them from being completely vulnerable to American-style propaganda. Amazingly, a nation raised on the greatest classical music, the profoundest scientists, the greatest poets, actually fell for propaganda that led them into a hopeless, two-front war against most of the world. Being smart is, in itself, no defense against skilled American propaganda, unless you know and understand the techniques, so you can resist them.

American politicians learned, early in the twentieth century, that using emotional sales techniques won elections. Furthermore, they learned that emotional appeals got them what they wanted as they advanced towards their long-term goal of becoming Masters of the Universe. From this, we get our modern lexicon of political speech, carefully crafted to appeal to powerful emotions, with either no appeal to reason, or (better yet) a vague appeal to something that sounds foggily reasonable, but is so obscure that no one will bother to dissect it.

Franklin Roosevelt understood this, which is why he called for Social Security. Security is an emotional appeal: no one is against security, are they? Roosevelt backed up his campaign with a masterful appeal to emotions: images of happy, elderly grandparents smiling while hugging their grandchildren, with everything in the world going right because of Social Security. All kinds of government programs were sold on the basis of appealing images and phrases. Roosevelt even appealed to America’s traditional love of freedom, spinning that term by multiplying it into the new Four Freedoms, including Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. Well, what heartless human being could possibly be against that? The Four Freedoms were promoted with images of parents tucking their children cozily into bed, and a happy family gathered around a Thanksgiving dinner, obviously free from want. The campaign was also based on that most powerful of all selling emotions: fear. If you don’t support Social Security, the ads suggested, you will live your last years in utter destitution.

Putzi Hanfstängl, viewing Roosevelt’s evil brilliance from Nazi Germany, was probably jealous.

American advertising executives learned the value of presenting a single image or slogan, and repeating it over and over again until it became ingrained in the public’s consciousness. Thus we are all aware that Ivory Soap is so pure that it floats: a point that has been repeated for the better part of a century. I’m not sure why I should be impressed that a bar of soap floats, but on the other hand, it’s not intended that I think that far. Politicians now sell their programs the way the advertising creeps sell soap: they dream up a slogan and repeat it over and over again. Thus we get empty slogans like The New Frontier, The New World Order (that one was poorly chosen; it sounds too much like an actual idea), or Reinventing Government (an idea that everyone should favor, except that the idea behind it really means Keeping Government the Same, only no one is supposed to think that far). Empty grandeur sells political products.

Both German and American politicians carried the use of banners to new heights. Flags are impressive emotional symbols, particularly when waved by thousands of enthusiastic people: it’s a rare individual who can resist the collective enthusiasm of thousands of his fellow human beings, cheering about their collective greatness. Putzi Hanfstängl understood this, advising Hitler to fill his public spectacles with not just a few, but countless thousands of swastika flags. The swastika, too, was a brilliant stroke of advertising and propaganda: it has become, in the public consciousness, the official emblem of Nazism, even though it had nothing to do with Germany. In fact, swastikas were used by ancient Hindus and American tribes, but I’m not aware of it being used by anyone in Germany prior to Hitler.

Now observe how Americans in the current crisis have taken to displaying huge flags on their cars. Flags are not rational arguments; they are instruments for whipping up the Madness of Crowds. Observe how many Americans have, with a straight face, called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag desecration, oblivious to the obvious contradictions such an amendment would have with the rest of the Constitution. But again, if you learn nothing else about propaganda, learn that it must not appeal to rationality.

Politicians don’t just use warm, fuzzy images to sell us on the road to tyranny. They also need emotional appeals to intimidate their enemies. Thus the small percentage of the population that really does use thought and reason more than emotion must be demonized. Roosevelt managed this with some masterful propaganda strokes. Those who opposed him were Isolationists, and Malefactors of Great Wealth! (The gut-level emotion appealed to here is envy.) Roosevelt thus showed himself to be an early master of what former California Governor Jerry Brown called "buzz words"; that is, words intended to silence counter-argument by appealing to unassailable emotional images. No one is for Isolation, and almost everyone reacts to an appeal to hate anyone who has a lot of money. The latter appeal, of course, had great power during the Great Depression, which Roosevelt managed to maintain for the entire length of his presidency, all the while blaming others for its evils. Was this guy an evil genius, or what?

The propaganda cleverness used in successfully branding anti-war people as Isolationists is breathtaking. After all, a rational person (ah, keep in mind, that’s not a common individual) realizes that those who oppose war are the exact opposite of isolationists. The Old Right at the time called for peaceful, commercial relations with all nations, based on neutrality in foreign affairs. If anything, those who oppose war and meddling in other countries’ affairs are the opposite of Isolationists as they really stand for open, profitable relationships with other countries. The people who stand for such ideas do not "sell" them by means of strictly emotional appeals, so they tend to lose the propaganda wars. When Roosevelt succeeded in whipping the country up into a war-frenzy after steering us into the Pearl Harbor fiasco, the Old Right realized their opposition to the war was hopeless.

The role of the government propaganda camps known as public schools cannot be discounted in all this. Schools are not so much centers of learning as they are behavior conditioning camps in which children are taught to be unquestioningly obedient to authority. Since reason and morality are the death of propaganda, schools busy themselves with systematically stunting students’ ability to reason and think in moral terms. Because the government owns the propaganda camps, it’s not surprising that the beneficiary of the propaganda is almost always the government. Americans accept obvious absurdities because they were drilled into their heads, year after year, in the government propaganda camps until they became true and unquestionable. Thus, everyone knows Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression, even though the worst depression years were precisely those in which he and his party controlled every branch of government. Everyone knows Lincoln was a great president because he saved "government by the people" and freed the slaves, even though he became a war tyrant and only freed the slaves when it was politically convenient to do so. Wilson, everyone knows, made the world "safe for democracy", evidently by instituting a draft and getting America involved in a European war that was fought for reasons no one to this day can fathom. When minds are young and pliable—government experts understand this principle—you can fill them with nonsense that is practically impossible to root out. Laughable falsehoods in effect become true because everyone knows them to be true.

Advertising executives learned, early on, that companies could not be too obvious in using their propaganda. If their agenda could be clearly seen, then it could also be rejected. The answer to this problem was the American propaganda technique of the "independent expert" and the "guy on the street." One of these appeals to our timidity before authority, and the other to our smugness when dealing with someone at or below our perceived social level. Of course, these two techniques are really just two sides of the same coin. In product advertising, sports heroes and celebrities are used to sell corn flakes because no one would listen to the president of Kellogg telling us why corn flakes are so good. In selling detergent, plain-looking housewives are preferable to sexy models because they look just like us. In political propaganda, "experts" are often trotted out to tell us, in convoluted, circular reasoning, why minimum wage laws are really good for us, why a little bit of inflation is good, or why we just can’t rely on the free market for something so crucially important as education. Or, using the "guy on the street" approach, we are told to support idiotic wars because the common soldiers ("our boys"), cannot function unless they know we stand united behind them. If the rare sensible person tries to argue against war, he is accused of making things harder for "our boys."

This brings us to the latest iteration of masterful American Propaganda: the War on Terrorism. Any attempt to explain why the terrorists (crazed as they obviously were) felt motivated to attack the World Trade Center is looked on as "siding with the terrorists." Indeed, Ashcroft and Bush have said, in so many words, that if you don’t support them in everything they do, you stand with the terrorists. Ashcroft and Bush have evidently studied their propaganda lessons from World War II, when Roosevelt silenced all opposition by accusing anyone who stood against him of undermining the war effort. Anyone who suggests we should not risk World War III by invading the Middle East is alternately accused of siding with the terrorists, of slandering the memory of those who died, or (of course) of not "standing by our boys" in times of great need. It’s easy to feel alienated in a nation of flag-wavers singing patriotic hymns. The fact that they are marching lockstep to a world in which the government will monitor their e-mail, snoop into their bank accounts, and eventually throw them in jail for voicing opposition doesn’t seem to bother them one bit.

Now, most libertarians or otherwise thoughtful people will react with dismay when told that most of their fellow human beings react so unthinkingly to sock-you-in-the-gut emotional propaganda. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of really thinking things out. Most people really do buy perfume because of the emotional imagery. Most people really do believe the "independent expert", whether in politics or buying a car. Most people want to go with the crowd, or follow the leader. To do otherwise requires independent thought and the willingness to be ostracized, which is an unbearable psychological burden for many.

If you want to take heart, remember that the Vietnam War ended because a few people just continued to speak against it, despite the overwhelming government propaganda for it. The fact that a lot of the anti-war protesters were motivated by the wrong reasons (support of commies), doesn’t matter in light of the fact they were able to turn the tide. They were right, even if for the wrong reasons. If advocates of freedom continue to speak against the creeping tyranny that our masters justify on the phony grounds of the War on Terrorism, we might just be able to prevent the transition from Republic to Empire. The thing about propaganda is that, once it is exposed for what it is, no one listens anymore. People tune it out, just as the slaves in Russia and China learned to tune out their official propaganda.

Paul Weber’s novel, Transfiguration, is available at http://www.xlibris.com/Transfiguration.html.

Zionism’s Antisemitism EXPOSED By Jewish Antizionist Historian

I bet you never would have thought it, but the anti-semitic smear is basically projection.Anyway, a little "jewsplainin'" for you.

Don't forget the Palestinian Christians

 I keep getting this feeling that people outside of Palestine are unaware that this land is holy to at least four religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baháʼí Faith. The Israeli Occupation Forces have destroyed ancient and historic churches in Gaza killing parishioners.

The Muslims have not waged wars on other religions. On the other hand, think of all the places of worship which have been destroyed by the Israeli Occupation forces.

Your Sunday Sermon from Rev. Munther Isaac

I hope people like Brian Mast, Andy Ogles, and other Christian Zionists see this. Do they know that their actions have led to the destruction of Ancient Christian Churches and the deaths of Christians in Gaza? Christians are being repressed in the Occupied territories?

Even more salient to the issue: Rep. Ogle claims to support the Second Amendment right to self-defence. I would assume this would extend to tyrannical government. Doesn't a genocidal occupation deserve armed resistance?

Don't like “From the river to the sea”?

Many Western politicians demonise pro-Palestinians who chant “From the river to the sea”.

But they keep silent when Zionist Israelis use the slogan, which is at the heart of the ideology of Israel’s ruling Likud party.

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
—Likud Party Platform, 1977

Source: 'It’s Time to Confront Israel’s Version of “From the River to the Sea”' by Rashid Khalidi in The Nation

The Faster Way to Move House in Amsterdam

I make no bones that I like Europe more than the Western Hemisphere: and one of the things I like is how much easier it is to move in Europe. This is especially true in smaller houses. And these lifts are the best! they have them in France.

ru

A Lesson for Israel from the Algerian War for Independence

A heavy handed reaction to a revolt by the indigenous population will always backfire. And the Zionists need to admit that they are not truly native to Palestine. Additionally, early Zionists knew there would be a problem with the native population, which is why Israel has become an apartheid state. This was a situation doomed to failure. From Algerian Independence, 1954–1962: Case Outcome: COIN Loss Paths to Victory: Detailed Insurgency Case Studies, 2013, pp. 75-93 (19 pages)

The French-Algerian conflict, which has been described as the “last,
the greatest and the most dramatic of colonial war,” was launched in
1954 with a series of uncoordinated bombing attacks by 300 members
of the National Liberation Front (FLN) guerrilla movement.  Initially
dismissed as “traditional banditry,” the FLN attacks drew an increas-
ingly forceful response from the French army as the insurgency gained
strength and began targeting civilians in the French settler commu-
nity, known as colons, or colonists. In response, the French military
increased its presence in the region and imposed brutal COIN tactics
against Algeria’s native Muslim population and FLN leaders.

The basic gist, which everyone has been pointing out is that a brutal counterinsurgency will only breed a stronger resistance. Toss in that the occupier needs a military victory, which is impossible.

The defender only needs to survive.

Popular support for Israel dries up day by day as people have to admit that there is a genocide. Even worse, the genocide is being perpetrated by victims of another genocide who have the nerve to keep chanting "never again". The Zionists who do this fail to understand that they lose credibility by being hypocrites: one cannot denounce genocide and go on to ethnically cleanse another population.

Toss in that 75 plus years of ethnic cleansing has not led to any form of "security". The American spokespeople who make this claim show a massive amount of ignorance of this situation.

The reality is that this is a very simple situation where the Palestinians' right of return guaranteed by multiple UN Resolutions is implemented. Of course, this will require the invaders to return to their respective homes if they cannot live in peace with their neighbours.