Monday, January 5, 2009

A little history or are the elites of Israel idiots and what the hell is Hamas anyway


Lets get this shindig started (again).

I feel a need for a long article, so grab a coffee, or a tea, or something stronger, get some snacks (no high fructose corn syrup, please, something healthy) and lets begin.

Right now you have probably seen Israeli bombers using bombs, including white phosphorus (a terrifying weapon which burns and scars victims, possibly leaving its victims to die a truly horrible death, suffering for hours) on a civilian population in populated urban areas in Gaza.

The scorecard is something of "550, including 111 children" for the Palestinians, and "Israel's military casualties, one dead and about three dozen wounded" plus "Palestinian rocket attacks have killed four Israeli civilians in the past 10 days."

So it is a ratio of, if NYTimes can be believed, of 661 dead Arabs to 5 Israeli dead.

Of course from the article there is this nugget, well hidden in a wall of text:
"Eleven members of one family, including five children, were killed in a northern Gaza City neighborhood early Monday morning after Israeli forces ordered them to leave their home, medical officials said."

Apparently, in the US media it is a slaughter of innocent Israelis by the evil, dastardly Islamic terrorists, who hide behind civilians - so that when Israeli (made in USA) bombs kill Arab children (moslem and christian), it is Hamas' fault.

I was watching CNN over my vacation break (I know, shame on me - and I have no excuses, as I was watching the American version, which is such an odious propaganda that it leaves one speechless) state again and again that the "UN Security Council has not reached a consensus for a resolution condemning Israel".

I almost shouted out in frustration, as the story has made it sound as if there were several countries representatives that blocked a resolution condemning Israel.

Of course, there was only one country that voted 'No' - guess which one?

You have one guess; I bet you nail it within 0.5 seconds

Yep - there was only one country which blocked a UN (useless, toothless, ineffective) resolution condemning Israel - namely, our great imperial nation. The CNN drones did not make this fact clear for our American public.

Of course, what can we expect from an American (American? sic) news (news? sic) network.

This is who is reporting the news to America:

Any more questions as to the quality of US news?

Remember - a zionist is a person who places Israeli interests over every other countries, irrespective of which country that person is a citizen of (my definition, simple and without bullshit).

A zionist does not necessarily have to be Jewish - there are American zionists who are not.

There are two kinds of such creatures - one is the clearly insane part of the American population, the religious crazy idiots. They are few in number and represent a very, very small part of the American population and are only trotted out on American news shows (American news? sic, and again, sic) by the propaganda machine to obfuscate and hide people like Wolf Blitzer, or Rahm Emanuel (he whose father was an Irgun terrorist, remember?) who are hard core zionists-Jews.

The second part is our elite, the opportunists, who with the motto "greed is good" happily sell our country to the Israeli lobby (and, indeed, every other lobby which gives them money for our "democratic" - puke, spit, grind teeth - elections).

People like... Mr. Biden, the vice president:

But how did this mess start?

The "experts" on TV would like us to believe that the situation is "complicated", and "hard to understand".

Nothing of the sort.

First, the Jewish-zionist movement was created before World War 1.

In fact, if you want, I would recommend my very own The Quick and Dirty History of Zionism article.

The term "Zionism" was first introduced in 1893 by Nathan Birmbaum, but Theodor Herzl, an Austrian Jew born to a prosperous, emancipated Budapest family, is recognized as the founder of the Zionist ideology when he published his book in 1896, "The Jewish State", where he declared that the cure for anti-semitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the best place to establish this state was in Palestine.

You see that the Israel in Palestine plan first began (officially) in 1893.

That is some long term planning, and I salute the zionist Jews in their perseverance, effectiveness and courage in carrying such a plan (the creation of Israel).

Herzl was the founder of the zionist movement, and what kind of movement it was (and is) is perhaps best illustrated by this quote from Mr. Herzl's diary:

Herzl stated in his diary:

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

But enough about that.

Lets fast forward to modernity, circa 1945-1948.

After World War 2, zionists did everything in their power to cajole, persuade and perhaps even kidnap Jews from wherever they were into Palestine.

Many Jews responded - and who can blame them, when they have just (barely) survived the insane nazi campaign to kill them off.

They saw a need to realize the zionist dream - a country for Jews only, where Jews can find a refuge.

This was a time of high romantic adventure a la 'Exodus' (google that name for a superb movie about the birth of Israel, with a healthy dose of propaganda) and low, decidedly un-romantic Jewish terrorism (google King David bombing, google Irgun).

The Arabs, who have lived in the land called Palestine for generations, from before 1000 AD, felt threatened by these vibrant, aggressive newcomers.

When the British gave up on the mess and moved out, the Arabs were dismayed to find out that a European commission decided to give the Jews lands that belonged to them (imagine if a European commission decided to give Mexican immigrants to the USA Washington and its surrounding areas - bet there would be some reaction from the 'natives'?).

There was a war, with atrocities committed by both sides - with the Jews being more successful (and perhaps more cruel than the Arabs) in ethnically cleansing for themselves a new country (google Deir Yasin, google Nakba). Israeli fighters, with Irgun killing men, women and children and Haganah troopers expelling whole Arab villages, prodding them to walk faster with bayonets and warning shots (the usual nazi method of "you have 1 minute to grab whatever you need and to get the hell out or we will kill you", done to countless poles, russians, ukrainians and others), were successful.

Israel was born.

There was no illusion then of what exactly took place, no propaganda masking the truth.

Just listen in to Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the father of Israel (from my article):
We must expel Arabs and take their places.
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.

-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Now, of course, we hear the bleating of paid propaganda TV "experts" who tell us that Israel did not steal any land, and that there was no one living there - "a land without people, for a people without land" (hard to imagine any place without people in XX Century - hell, there are people living in the Congo. The fucking Congo, of all places).

So far so good - a Jewish state was born, by Jews for Jews.

It is only later that Israeli leaders became idiots.

They became greedy.

The word to use here, I think, the one that fits is - hubris.

Israel was very successful in its wars versus its Arab enemies, and has acquired more territory to add to it.

All well and good - but Israel, alongside the territory, has acquired an Arab population.

This was a big strategic mistake (I am sure any Pentagon analyst, any Mossad analyst, hell, any Israeli or American zionist will say that I am right in saying this).

Suddenly, in acquiring the Gaza strip and other territory Israel gained an Arab population.

A hostile Arab population.

A group of Arabs once wrote the great Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, saying: “You are the only one among the Zionists who has no intention of fooling us and who understands that the Arab is a patriot and not a prostitute who can be bought.”

The Arabs (like many proud nationalities before them) will not give up.

Did the Poles give up on their country?

In case you didn't know, Poland officially did not exist from 1795–1918 - over 120 years. But the poles, despite being taught in schools which only taught german or russian language, despite being evicted from their houses and villages to make room for russian and german settlers, schemed, plotted, terrorised, stolen and murdered until the country was reborn in 1918.

Many others did the same?

Hell yes!

Did the Greeks stop fighting the Turks when they were under the Ottoman Empire occupation?

Hell no!

Find a nation in a world today, and chances are it was born in blood, in combat, in terror, struggling against a stronger power (or powers) that were trying to keep it down.

So it was with Israel.

So it will be with Palestine.

The strategic mistake that the idiotic Israeli elites made with "winning" the 1967 war was the inclusion of this hostile, anti Israeli populace in their midst.

And while the Israeli fighters of 1948 had no qualms in ethnically cleansing whole villages and cities from Arabs - indeed, had no qualms in shooting pregnant women in the stomach, killing both a baby and the mother (google yasin massacre americangoy), this kind of shit was simply impossible to do in the 1960's and onward.

Welcome to the age of mass communication.

You simply could not terrorize and expel a whole people from their homes - not anymore.

So, we reached an impasse - the Arab palestinians could not be shifted, while Israelis would not give up their "gains".

Palestinian Liberation Organization was born.

This was, in the beginning, a terrorist organization, trained by Soviet (and other, including East Germans, Bulgarians, etc) specialists in terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

It was not a political organization - purely a creation of the KGB to inflict terror and seed chaos in its NATO enemies.

But even Arafat, the corrupt little troll, after a few (ok - many) years of the PLO "fighters" murdering American (Jewish) citizens in wheelchairs, after shooting up an Italian air terminal full of passengers, after the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, even that odious character decided (rightly) that there must be an end goal to all of this, otherwise the circle of violence will go on forever.

And hence, the PLO (slowly and with much in-fighting) turned itself into a (somewhat) respectable political organization, or at least one with which Israel could (at least pretend) to negotiate.

But before then, Israel, being in effect a colonial territory, a la a British presence in India, or the South African Apartheid system in (well, duh) South Africa, used the old (and effective) policy of divide and rule, practiced by all imperial, colonial regimes, all the way down in history to Roman Empire.

This is an excerpt from Juston Raimondo's piece, quoting a UPI article (; Raimondo is always worth a read, and so is for that matter):

according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."

At the time that the USA was fomenting a great Moslem jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Israel was doing the same in its little corner of the world - with the goal of splitting up of the Palestinians.

Yes, it was a great alliance between Israel/America and Islamic fundamentalists.

Amazing, ain't it?

And this is when the Israeli elites became truly the idiots we all know by today.

Whereas people like Ben-Gurion had no qualms about mass murder and ethnic cleansing, they were working for a long term Israeli security and interests.

Beginning in 1960's, the progressively dumber (and dumber) Israeli leadership only looked at the short term, pre election political gain.

And so they supported the radical Islamist jihadis over the (clearly more rational and secular) Yaser Arafat PLO.

Again, Raimondo:

In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a "humanitarian" organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.

Re-read this and believe your eyes.

Israel was working hand in hand with Muslim Brotherhood, banned in Egypt (and almost every other Arab country) as being too radical.

The same Muslim Brotherhood which created al-Kaida ("the toilet" in arabic - the fault of CIA operatives, no doubt - whose elite members were Egyptian, with other assorted riff raff thrown in to blow themselves up, and with Osama being reduced to be a string puppet to dance for the world media on TV and being "Mr. money man", despite American "experts" on TV telling us otherwise).

Divide and rule - worked for the Romans, worked for the British, so how about Israel?

But the British and the Romans knew what they were doing - Israelis, not so much.

Blinded by one upping the PLO, with a goal of dividing the Palestinian cause, they have created an organization that is uncorruptible, fanatical and much, much, much worse an enemy to themselves than the PLO ever was.

I wonder if the Mossad and Shin Bet officers who were giving Sheikh Yassin bags of money for his religious foundation were given medals - after all, their creation, their "baby", grew very well into the Hamas Israel wanted?

The short sighted Israeli policy continued.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq was an implacable enemy of Israel.

He had a very powerful army, he had short and medium range missiles which could (and did) reach Israel and he did have biological weapons of mass destruction.

He had to be taken out.

Or did he?

He was secular - he only became an Islamist before the 2nd Gulf War, when the USA occupied the whole of Iraq to free it... get its oil... well, whatever version the American media spews these days - hard to keep up.

The thing is, Saddam was a Sunni.

And he kept in check Iran, as well as a restless Shia (remember - Iran is Shia, virtually the rest of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia is Sunni) in his own country.

The obvious thing to do would be to practice realpolitik, Bismark or Brzezinski style - meet with Saddam in secret, get assurances from Saddam that he will never attack Israel and us, the USA (in that order of importance, of course - in American politics Israeli interests are vastly more important than American ones), give him some weapons and sic him (if possible) on Iranians.

But Israel decided that was too soft of an approach.

Israel's elite (sic, sic, sic) thinkers (who happened to be American citizens, led by Perle et al - par for the course) decided that Iraq, Iran and Syria would need to be taken out, literally, by military force.

Google "Clean Break" if you don't believe me:
In 1996, Perle and others influenced by Lewis will write a paper for right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break” that advocates the “Lebanonization” of countries like Iraq and Syria.

The Clean break, again to state the obvious, advocated throwing all the main enemies of Israel - Iraq, Iran and Syria - into chaos, the old divide and rule. PLO and Hamas, chaos, mad max style country, not just in Gaza, but in the whole region.

Of course, such a monumental undertaking was beyond Israeli power - but the 'Clean Break' paper never advised exactly who would be the agent destruction, the Icebreaker (to borrow Suvorov's/Rezun's word - The real history of WW2).

There is a country led by an even more venal, corrupt and frankly dumb elite than Israel - namely, us.

The USA.

We have been the perfect patsy, the idiots, the dupes who have done Israel's bidding.

And of course, if you have been paying attention, Iraq was to be the first. The whole neocon (read - zionist) plan for the Middle East region was to remake it into some sort of an American style democracy.

Which is abject nonsense, of course, and only people who have never traveled to any other country (going to Mexico and getting drunk while catching a veneral disease does not count - sorry) could buy such bullshit.

Whatever the reason de jour - bringing freedom, liberation, oil, WMD - the real underlying reason was to complete the grand plan of "lebanonization" of the region, of turning the whole Middle East into chaos, so that the Arabs would fight themselves (Shia and Sunni again - catch the news lately?) and ignore Israel.

Worse comes to worse, the anger of the Arabs would be deflected from Israel and turned into the idiot patsies - again, us, Americans.

I have written extensively on this grand plan, you can read more in The plan all along... article.

But remember that word - hubris?

Just because you can do it does not mean that you should.

Think before you shoot and all that.

So what if no Israeli died to turn Iraq into chaos?

Yes, Saddam, that scum, that mass murderer with WMD (at least in the 1980's... because we, the USA and Israel, supplied him with them against Iran) was deposed and killed.

Trouble is, he was secular, his posturing in his final months notwithstanding.

He was a pragmatist.

He was evil, but he kept the region in check, was de-fanged after Gulf War 1 (Kuweit) and was no danger to Israel, America or his neighbors.

That was the moment to strike the deal.

But, the Israeli "thinkers" (who, again, happened to have American citizenship - Perle and his company of idiots) thought short term, blinded by hubris.

We can realize 'Clean Break', we can dupe the morons (us, Americans) into putting it into motion, starting with Iraq - 9/11 gave us war fever, and bush, manipulated from the shadows, the drunk, cocaine snorting moron, the perfect idiot to lead this thing.

With the American media being compliant (re-watch Wolf Blitzer fanatical defense of Israel at the beginning of this article), there was a golden opportunity to "Lebanonize" the region.

It had to be done fast, before (sane, not retarded) people like Brzezinski and others could get close to power and push away the neocon shadow cabinet.

That is why Bolton and other traitors were bleating, screaming live on American TV, to bomb Iran because, get this, they have... the bomb.

Hey, we are dealing with morons here (us... Americans) and if it worked once, hell... why not?

The only reason why Iran was not hit (yet) was because Iraq was a handful all of its own.

In Patrick Buchanan's words on McLaughlin group on PBS (something which has stayed with me, paraphrasing) "The Israelis cannot deal with a Gaza strip, a small slice of territory - what makes us think that we (Americans - AG) will be more successful in a territory a thousand times the size?".

Of course he was shouted down the by "expert" panel.

Whatever name Buchanan is called - racist, bigot, anti-semite - there is one which should be used more often, the old fashioned word - patriot (Disclaimer here - I am somewhat left wing and disagree with probably 80% of Buchanan's views).

So, the secular, pragmatist, conniving and willing to do anything to save his own skin Saddam out and in his place... ?

Ah, this is the ultimate irony - Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, and, once the USA inevitably leaves, will be overwhelmed by the majority (pro Iran) Shia, despite Americans actively supporting Sunni militias and fighters (Iran thanks brave American soldiers).

Do you think I am making this up?

I mean, first Israel creating Hamas and helping out the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in every Arab country for it's radicalism and terrorism).

And now, America effectively doing a similar thing in Iraq?

Iran thanks the brave American soldiers! Part 2:

While public attention has been focused on Shiite-vs.-Shiite fighting in Basra and Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are taking a cold second look at the future intentions of the roughly 90,000 "Sons of Iraq" -- the locally recruited and primarily Sunni security forces that are armed and supported by the United States at $300 per person each month.

We are still paying and arming 'Sons of Iraq', Sunni (possibly ex al-Kaida) fighters, militia and terrorists (in American eyes), who a few years ago were killing American soldiers.

But it is too late - Maliki is an Iranian stooge, in effect almost (in fact, possible) an Iranian agent of influence, and has pro Iranian policies in place.

Iran has told the cleric Muktada al-Sadr to shut the fuck up and stay quiet, preserving his army for the inevitable ethnic cleansing of Sunnis to come, this time not just from Baghdad but from Iraq, proper.

So, instead of the pragmatic, secular, somewhat sane in a "preserve my own life and power at all cost" Saddam we get... Iranian, or at least pro-Iranian mullahs in Iraq.

And Iranian missiles that much closer to Israel.

But of course, this "success" was supposed to be one of many.

Syria is led by a secular, fascist dictatorship.

Imagine if the neocon/zionists had succeeded, and American troops bombed Syria (with a possible invasion), and turned that country into chaos.

What would happen - "Lebanonization", yes, but also radicalization of the populace, and Muslim Brotherhood taking over, a la Iranian revolution.

So, in effect, the plan to make Israel safer - 'Clean Break' - is making Israel less safe.

As an American, I can only laugh at this irony, while lamenting the stupid, deluded, duped American men and women who come back from Iraq without a leg, an arm, an eye, in a coffin...

Bonus Material, or lets make this a
article even longer

And how come Israel, whose think tank "thinkers" and "planners" were such idiots as Perle, was so successful in manipulating the great USA?

Because we are led by idiots, even bigger morons than the Israeli leadership, that's why.

We all know by now that bush is a completely clueless, dry drunk, ex cocaine addict.

But he is not alone.

Classic example: lets pick a democrat.

Silvestre Reyes, Democrat, House Intelligence Committee hopeful (Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda):

Now the five-term Texas Democrat, 62, is facing similar unpleasant surprises about the enemy, this time as the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

That’s because, like a number of his colleagues and top counterterrorism officials that I’ve interviewed over the past several months, Reyes can’t answer some fundamental questions about the powerful forces arrayed against us in the Middle East.

For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

Oh god.

I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.

To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

And you dare to call bush a moron?

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,” I said—a little.

“Poquito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh....”

Oh, god.

Our elite in action.

Bonus Material 2, or lets make this article longer yet

I was born in Poland, as some of you who have corresponded with me by email or read my blog diligently have inferred. I am however very much an American patriot (with some inevitable good will towards Poland, just like every immigrant group towards their old country, Italians, Russians, Jews towards Israel, Irish, Mexicans etc etc).

I have written before that Poland ceased to exist between 1795–1918, but I did not write of the cause.

You see, the cause was democracy, this shitty system of governance.

The polish elite of the time, the schlachta, or nobles, were, just like ancient Greeks, voting.

They voted for a new king to lead the nation.

Trouble was, Russia, Prussia (Germany), Austria-Hungary send in their agents of influence to bribe the nobility to vote for their favored candidates.

In time, that practice got too expensive, and so the big powers - all Poland's neighbors - got together and picked on the carcass of the "democratic" Poland.

A country with this kind of "democracy" - in effect, a republic, as the schlachta effectively represented their peasants who worked for them - has no right to exist.

Do you see similarities to the current USA?

Think on that.

We elect representatives, who in theory represent us, the people who voted for them, from the Senator all the way up to the president.

In reality, they are beholden to so called special interests, who give them money for their election campaigns and once they are retired give them exorbitant fees for speaking engagements (say, $10,000 or more per speech) or put them in an "advisory" role in the corporations that the politicians supported during their tenure.

This is pure corruption, oh, sorry, it is called "lobbying" in this country, and with both internal lobbies (NRA, medical insurance, various business) and foreign lobbies (Israeli lobby, of course, but also Saudi Arabian, others) is nothing more or less than the old polish schlachta, the old polish "democracy", in a (slightly) new guise.

A country like that has no right to exist and will, inevitably, fall.


Anonymous said...

I got through the first third or so of your post and felt as though I'd run a marathon.

Maybe I'll take another stab at it later - it seems like you know your stuff.

Anonymous said...

Zionism brings shame to Judaism and American government brings shame to us.
We'll have to pay for their mistakes.

Pozdrawiam rodaka :)Amerykansko-Polskiego Goja.


AmericanGoy said...

Mr. Payne...

I warned you that this was a long article, even by my standards.

Sorry, but if you want soundbites, CNN and FOX are a click of a button away.

"it seems like you know your stuff." - well, research this for yourself. Google is a wonderful tool and so easy to use. Do not trust me or any mass media - do the research for yourself.

I believe that the written word, especially on the internet with the ability to embed other media, such as TV reports, is superior to the "for idiots, by idiots" "news" shows on American TV.

Michael, if you did not do it yet, check out Mr. Phillip Weiss' blog and also Mr. Silverstein's blog (a righteous zionist guy if there ever was one), two of my heroes of the internet.

AmericanGoy said...

Hi gojka,

Witam na moim blogu / welcome to my blog.

kozeol said...

С Новым Годом!|Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...

I would have loved to have seen someone ask Wolf(ie) Blitzer if there should be a white homeland anywhere on earth, no matter how remote (think the furthest Siberia).

That Blitzer footage was really eye-opening, but since Les Moonves is Golda Meir's grand-nephew, these things shouldn't be suprising.

There is not going to be an end to the fighting over there in our lifetime. We will be "involved" in this dispute at the loss of treasure and blood and peace for the next 100 years for certain.

Anonymous said...

hi, man. first time reading your blog. I'm going to be very critical only because I think you're open to criticism and will consider what i'm going to say.

Most of your quotes are invalid, fabricated, or out of context. You're thus distorting the entire conflict in the eyes of your misguided readers:
*You claim that Ben Gurion said "We must expel Arabs and take their places." This quote was originally reported by the Historian Benny Morris, and later corrected. The actual quote was: We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.

*"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." According to Mersheimer and Walt this was said by Moshe Dayan. Who said your quote, then? (I'm not sure what their source for this quote is, by the way.. I'm interested though.. as I remember this one being misquoted elsewhere the same way.)

*"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." I read fateful triangle and I saw this quote also. I actually emailed Chomsky myself and he pointed me to a pro-palestinian source who provided the quote. No one except this pro-palestinian source has witnessed the primary source document which they're talking about. So I doubt this quote was ever said, or ever said in the way it was.

*The Herzl quote I can only find with ellipsis, and only on anti-zionist sites and messageboards. Have you read his diary? What is your secondary source?

"(imagine if a European commission decided to give Mexican immigrants to the USA Washington and its surrounding areas - bet there would be some reaction from the 'natives'?)."

This is not a valid comparison. Israel is an ancestral homeland to the Jews, Washington DC is not an ancestral homeland to the Mexicans.

Anonymous said...

Yep, as I guessed, the Dayan quote is also invalid. Here is what he said, from a 1969 transcript in Ha'Aretz:

" We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement."