One day before Christmas, the Israeli embassy in Ireland posted a message on its Facebook page that said that if Jesus and Mary were alive today in Bethlehem, they would probably be lynched by local Arabs.
The Israeli Right Wing media outlet Arutz 7 described it as “(a) thought for Christmas”, explaining to their readers that “If Jesus and Mother Mary were alive today, they would, as Jews without security, probably end up being lynched in Bethlehem by hostile Palestinians. Just a thought …”
Yet the Israeli diplomats in Ireland must surely know very well that, according to the Christian Gospels, it was actually the Sanhedrin who pushed for the crucifixion of Jesus: though the Gospels plainly depict the Roman Pontius Pilate as the author of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, it clearly suggests in the following verses that Pilate was subject to the incitement of the ‘Jewish’ Sanhedrin — 12: And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto Him Whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13: And they cried out again, Crucify Him. 14: Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath He done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify Him (Mark 15:12-14).
But I guess that the Israeli diplomats in Ireland must have realised that their Hasbara attempt was counterproductive and would likely backfire, for they were very quick to remove the above FB post and apologise.
And yet, one possible explanation for their regretful Facebook post is projection. Psychological projection is commonly defined as a tendency to subconsciously deny one’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to other people.
Tragically enough, excommunication (Herem) and lynching are embedded in every form of Jewish political and cultural thinking, be it Left, Right or Centre. Every too often we detect a Zionist or Jewish ‘progressive’ campaign against those whom ‘some Jews’ regard as the ‘enemy of the tribe’.
Sadly enough, the inclination towards lynching ‘a la Sanhedrin’ is deeply rooted in Jewish political thought: sometimes it is performed by Zionist lobbies such as AIPAC. In the last week, for instance, we followed the American Jewish Lobby’s push for the political annihilation of Chuck Hagel. On other occasions, the exact same exercise is performed by the so-called ‘progressive Jews’ such as HRW, JVP, IJAN and Mondoweiss who also follow the Sanhedrin’s modus operandi, trying to destroy their critics by means of political lynching or by proxy.
And just like the Zionists, the so-called ‘anti’ Zionists will use every trick in the ‘tribal manual’ – they would call for excommunication (herem); they would demand disavowal, and like the Sanhedrin, they would search for their contemporaneous Pontius Pilate, who is stupid enough to agree to go down in history as their Sabbath Goy.
However, I do believe that both Zionists and ‘anti’ Zionists should start to consider very seriously what they are doing: they should grasp that as time goes by, their opponents will gather a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and power.
I myself take some credit for this: my latest book helped many to understand the continuum between Jewishness, Zionism and power. I also managed to dismantle the imaginary distinction between the ‘Zionist’ and the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist, and I guess that by now we are capable of detecting the controlled opposition within our ranks.
Interestingly enough, it took the Israeli Embassy in Ireland just a few hours to realise that they had gone one step too far. Seemingly, The Israeli foreign office was very quick to issue an apology. But our Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists are yet to apologise to Greta Berlin, Prof’ Finkelstein, Prof’ Richard Falk myself and many others for their relentless harassment campaigns against us.
The explanation for it all may be rather simple – in terms of awareness, ideology and consciousness, the Israelis are probably slightly ahead of their ‘anti’ Zionist twins: at least the Israeli diplomats were quick to realise that they were caught projecting their symptoms onto the Palestinian peoples. The Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists though, are failing on that front because they are still saturated with their own sense of ‘progressive righteousness’.
‘Progressiveness’ is a tribal inclinations and should be realised as a secular replacement for ‘chosen-ness’. Being ‘progressive’ implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. Jewish ‘progressiveness’ should be grasped, therefore’ as a ‘kosher secular supremacy’. It stands in total opposition to the idea of equality, human brotherhood and universalism. The so-called Jewish ‘progressive anti Zionist’ is subject to a self-imposed blindness and I believe that he or she have a lot to reflect upon in those regards. Yet, by judging their general reaction to criticism, I am not so sure that this is ever going to happen.