Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Israel and the Zionist Regime Sponsor Terrorism
Israel and the Zionist Regime Sponsor Terrorism
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
“It is a quite pedestrian occurrence for stupid people to fall for stupid ideas. More interesting, and of greater harm to society, is the phenomenon of smart people falling for stupid ideas. Ph.D.s, high IQs, and intellectual honors are not antidotes to thickheadness…Ideologues forgo independent judgment in favor of having their views handed to them. To succumb to ideology is to put your brain on autopilot. Ideology preordains your reaction to issues, ideas, and people, your views of politics, philosophy, economics, and history.”
“Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak, they are intellectual weaklings—joiners—who defer to systems of belief and charismatic gurus for their ideas….For an intellectual, this is the unforgivable sin. Intellectuals think…When intellectuals let their ideology do their thinking, we can’t with any justification continue to label them intellectuals.” …Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons
Terrorism (American Heritage Dictionary): “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
“Terrorism is the illegal use of extreme force and violence for the purpose of coercing a governmental entity or population to modify its philosophy and direction.”…William E. Dyson,Terrorism: An Investigator’s Handbook
… by Jonas E. Alexis
Jonathan S. Tobin
Jonathan S. Tobin of the neoconservative magazine Commentarydeclared at the beginning of last month that “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a leading figure in a tyrannical regime that has murdered untold numbers of his own people and which funds international terrorism that has claimed the lives of many Americans, including our soldiers in Iraq.”
More than thirty years ago, the late Carl Sagan declared that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Although Sagan did not live up to his skeptical standard on many issues, I partially agree with him on this point. He wrote,
“If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful.
If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.”
Sagan indeed had a skeptical mind, but when Sagan began to use illegal drugs such as Marijuana, the skeptical Sagan started describing things that had absolutely nothing to do with scientific enquiry. The scientific community has been largely quiet about Sagan’s drugs use. We will discuss this issue at another time.
When a person moves to accuse a president of a country of funding international terrorism, the burden of proof is on him. He has the responsibility to provide extraordinary evidence. For example, I am accusing Israel and the Zionist regime of sponsoring terrorism, and the evidence will be provided.
Tobin gave us no evidence for his claim. And this is not the first time that this extraordinary claim has been made by leading neoconservatives around the country. Before the neoconservative gave us the war in Iraq, it was repeated over and over that Iraq not only had WMDs, but Saddam was funding international terrorism on a large scale. All of these were forgeries.
Now we are told that Iran is also funding international terrorism, and Americans have to take Tobin seriously because we learned nothing from the past.
Let us turn the table around and ask simple questions. Did Iran support the terrorist organization named the MEK like the Zionist regime in Israel and in the United States did? Did Iran train the MEK in Nevada like former president Bush did? Did Iran bomb Iranian scientists like Israel did?
MEK – Terrorists have killed 17,000 in Iran
Did Iran support terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which have killed more than 80 people in Pakistan like the Zionist regime did? Did Iran violate the laws of war during the massacre in Gaza in November 2012?
Does Iran have a monopoly on the West Bank, which has been considered “the biggest single threat to the two-state solution”?
Did Iranian officials pronounce that their government wants to work with Sunni terrorists like Israeli ex-intelligence Amos Yadlin has recently declared?Did Iran work with Saudi Arabia’s terrorist groups such as the Sunnis in order to undermine Iran and Syria like the United States and Israel have done?
Seymour Hersh has noted that “in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites.”) Has Iran supported the Syrian rebels, whose members are largely terrorists? Does Iran have an office in Washington and New York like the Syrian rebels do?
Has Iran been able to finance “a large purchase of infantry weapons from Croatia and quietly funneled them” to the rebels in order to oust Assad, as Saudi Arabia has been doing? Did Iran slaughter hundreds of civilians during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982?
Did Iran uproot thousands upon thousands of Palestinians from their homes and left them desolate in 1948?Did Ahmadinejad say that he wanted to “expropriate” the Palestinians “gently,” as Theodor Herzl declared from the inception of Zionism?
After the Palestinians were expulsed from their homes, did Ahmadinejad declare “We must do everything in our power to ensure that they never return,” as the first Prime Minister of Israel David Ben Gurion said?
Jewish historian Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht estimated that there were about 900,000 Arabs in Palestine during that time; when the dust got settled, 750,000 of those Arabs fled or were largely expelled from the land.Does Iran have the political and economic leverage to commit such ethnic cleansing in its literal and geopolitical sense?
David Ben Gurion
The answer is no. Ben Gurion continued to say, “We will expel the Arabs and take their places…with the forces at our disposal.”Feuerlicht goes on to say,
“An Israeli censorship board prohibited former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin from including in his memoirs an account of how 50,000 Palestinian civilians were forcibly expelled from two towns near Tel Aviv during the War of Independence in 1948. Rabin said the decision was Ben Gurion’s. Many elderly Arabs and Arab children died of the heat during a forced march to Arab lines.”
The late Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan noted that, “We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here…Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages…There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
Vladimer (also known as Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, a luminary in the founding of right-wing Zionism, introduced the concept of “The Iron Wall” in 1923, which had for its premise that, “all colonization must continue in defiance of the veil of the native population.
Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer, ‘absolutely untrue.’ This is our ethic. There is no other ethic.”
After the war, several branches of Zionism began to blossom in new waves such as socialism and communism. A brand new Zionist movement that had its roots in the 1967 Six-Day War was Messianic Zionism, which espoused views such as the Arabs are the Amalekites who must be expunged.
We see the same sort of ethnic cleansing through the years. Even the IDF confessed in the Gaza invasion that “the lives of Palestinians, let’s say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers…You see people more or less running their life routine, taking a walk, stuff like that. Definitely not terrorists.
I hear from other crews that they fired at people there. Tried to kill them… People didn’t seem to be too upset about taking human lives…We were allowed to do anything we wanted. Who’s to tell us not to?…You are allowed to do anything you want…for no reason other than it’s cool.”
If you think that this is not congruent with the neoconservative ideology, think again. Listen to writer and talk show host Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew and one of the youngest neoconservatives around the block:
“If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum.
For anyone who lived through the Holocaust, or who has relatives who died in it, being called a Nazi is unspeakably terrible. That is the secret weapon of the Arabs. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism.”
So, was Hitler wise in advocating mass expulsion of the Jews from Germany and Europe? Was Europe wise in expelling the Jews in 1492? If Shapiro maintains that Hitler was wrong (and I’m sure he does), by what logical inference is he allowed to say that expelling the Palestinians from their homes is “wise”?
Is Shapiro, then, a Jewish Nazi with proper attire in the twenty-first century? Was Newt Gingrich a neo-Nazi by saying that the Palestinians are “an invented people”?
“The Jews don’t realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. There are no gas chambers here. It’s not genocide; it’s transfer. It’s not Hitler; it’s Churchill… It’s time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn’t a solution.”
So, since there are no gas chambers, expelling the Palestinians from their homes is wise. In other words, with no gas chambers, we can do some pretty marvelous things. If we follow Shapiro’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, King Edward I was right in expelling the Jews from England in 1290. Spain was right in expelling the Jews in 1492. Portugal was right in expelling the Jews in 1497. If Shapiro maintains that those policies were wrong, he needs to tell us forthrightly what he is up to. He surely has a lot of mental gymnastics to do.
Moreover, Why don’t we adopt Shapiro’s policy in America as well? Why are we still fighting against former Klansmen all across the country? Why do we have thought-police organizations such as the ADL? Why don’t we send the Asians, the Mexicans, and the blacks somewhere else?
I’m sure Shapiro would repudiate the Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement that were rampant in the late nineteenth century and in the early part of the twentieth century in much of the Western world and even in Asian countries such as China (the Chinese government did not start to take actions against this until 1995!), but Social Darwinism is all right when it is applied to the Palestinians? The logic doesn’t add up.
Shapiro is a lawyer and is smart enough to recognize a moral problem, but the neoconservative worldview does not allow that possibility. As Daniel J. Flynn writes in Intellectual Morons, “When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination.”
A wicked ideology—and this includes the Zionist movement—is a one-way ticket to moral and intellectual perversity. Expelling the Palestinians from their homes, as we shall see in a later article, is a manifestation of Talmudic ideology. But that manifestation would not have enough political power in America if Christian Zionism was not propagating the same mantra. (We will discuss the inception of that movement in the summer.)
Alan Hart just recently wrote an article(an open letter to Secretary of State John Kerry) in which he declares that he has a Jewish friend named Hajo Meyer who survived Auschwitz and Meyer places Zionism and Nazism on equal footing when it comes to ideology. We are going to let Meyer quarrel with Shapiro. I have recently written to Shapiro and am looking forward to reading his reply.
Richard Goldstone Vs. the Zionist Regime
When the reputable Jewish judge and member of the Human Rights Council Richard Goldstone condemned Israel’s violent actions in the Gaza war, he was immediately labeled a sell-out and a self-hating Jew, even though he had said publicly that there were victims on both sides and that his deep love for Israel forced him to investigate the issue honestly and concisely.
Goldstone is South-African, and the Jewish organization there threatened to disrupt his grandson’s bar mitzvah in Johannesburg if he showed up.
Alan Dershowitz called Goldtone a “despicable human being,” “an evil, evil man,” “a traitor to the Jewish people,” and the United Nation’s “token court Jew.”
Benjamin Netanyahu likewise declared, “We face three major strategic challenges: the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.” Goldstone was suddenly removed from the Hebrew University’s Board of Governors, although the university denied that it had nothing to do with his report on Israel.
Goldstone could not handle the Zionist fire. He recanted from his documented report and declared that “if I had known then what I know now,” he would not have condemned the Israelis for their acts. As John Dugard of the University of Pretoria has shown, Goldstone recanted not because there was verifiable evidence, but because he later relied on the IDF and non-existent sources.
The Jewish publication Forward declared that Goldstone was completely shaken after a meeting with leading Jewish organizations in South Africa, and that had a huge impact on his previous report.
“Debating face to face with the [Jewish] community really shook him,” wrote David Sacks, associate director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. The Jewish leaders of course pronounced their anger against Golstone, and that indeed played a pivotal role in his new position. Sacks continued to say that the Jewish organizations “went in very hard against him.”
After one particular meeting with a Jewish group, “There were no smiling handshakes afterwards. Avrom [Krengel]’s opening statement was pretty merciless.” Several members of the United Nations also accused Goldstone of yielding to outside forces and pressure.
It is generally viewed that “several friends cited what they viewed as the cumulative toll of a stream of calumny hurled at the famously unemotional jurist.” Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a friend of Goldstone, declared, “It has been like watching an innocent man whipped at the stake. His dedication to Israel is so strong and rooted. He suffered at the thought that his work was being used to delegitimize Israel. It truly wounded and pained him.”
“According to these friends, Goldstone didn’t fully understand how politically charged any criticism of Israel could be, and was blindsided by the anger and emotion the report engendered.” Indeed he did not understand. As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency tells us, many Jewish lawyers sued Goldstone, charging that “The Goldstone Report is nothing less than a modern version of the infamous blood libels against the Jewish people.”
In a nutshell, no small force can stop the Zionist/neoconservative/Talmudic machine, not even Jews who cherish Israel. But as Alexander Solzhenitsyn rightly pointed out,
“An ordinary brave man is not to participate in lies, not to support false actions! His rule: Let that come into the world, let it even reign supreme—only not through me. But it is within the powers of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lies! For in the struggle with lies art has always triumphed and shall always triumph! Visibly, irrefutably for all!
Lies can prevail against much in this world, but never against art…We should not seek to justify our unwillingness by our lack of weapons, nor should we give ourselves up to a life of comfort. We must come and join the battle! One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.”
We are indeed a small voice in the midst of a Zionist fire that seems to be perpetual and non-stoppable. The Zionist fire rises almost every day and seems to have no boundary. Believe it or not, just about everyone is affected by it in one way or another.
But truth, as Solzhenitsyn points out, will triumph in the end. What is quite amazing about Christianity is that it doesn’t need an army to defeat an enemy. All it needs is the truth.
(I was supposed to talk about the issue of slavery, but this topic was more urgent. The issue will certainly be discussed this month.)