…And If You Resist, You Are an Anti-Semite and a Bigot
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Last Sunday, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Goods still can’t flow from Gaza to the West Bank for security reasons…”
Keep mind that goods are not chemical weapons or technological devices for terrorist activity. Goods are just survival tools that every decent family needs. Netanyahu told Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte,
“We want to make sure that goods that go from Gaza do not contain weapons or explosives that can reach the Palestinian Authority areas; that would undermine not just us, but the PA. I do not want to give an open channel to Hamas and Islamic Jihad [to send weapons] into the PA, that is not a good idea,”
He’s got to be kidding. The Israeli regime can monitor virtually the entire world through the NSA but the same regime does not have the technological tools to detect necessary goods that flow in and out of Gaza. How silly can that be?
What Netanyahu ended up saying is that if Gaza has to starve, oh well. There is more. Last Friday,
“The Gaza government’s Disaster Response Committee announced late Friday that Israeli authorities had opened up dams just east of the Gaza Strip, flooding numerous residential areas in nearby villages within the coastal territory.”
The New York Times and other media outlets put the blame on torrential rain. The point is that Gaza, in the words of Ron Paul, has been a “concentration camp” for years.
And if you say something about this madness, somehow you are an anti-Semitic alien from another planet. The Jewish Daily Forward for example was surprised to know that many critics of Israel are well educated people.
Larry Summers—former Jewish usurer at the World Bank and at the International Affairs of the United States Department of Treasure under Clinton, former president of Harvard University, and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve—also realized that “serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”
But the same Jewish Daily Forward and Summers could not grasp why those “thoughtful people” are still frustrated because Summers and the Jewish Daily Forward are still not prepared to reevaluate their cherished belief.
Jewish professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel of the Technical University, Berlin, writing for the Jewish Daily Forward, declared recently,
“We found that there is hardly any difference in the semantics of highly educated anti-Semites and vulgar extremists and neo-Nazis. The difference lies only in style and formal rhetoric, but the concepts are the same.”
Schwarz-Friesel is a professor of linguistics, but she indirectly and precipitously moves to the historically and intellectually worthless position that this “anti-Semitism” has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish or Israeli behavior and has everything to do with people just hating Israel or Jews.
According to Schwarz-Friesel’s essentially Talmudic reasoning, those rabid anti-Semites need someone or something to hate. As Daniel Jonah Goldhagen would put it, it is “the devil that never dies,” the virus that can never be rooted out of the Goyim’s DNA—even after years of education, reeducation, and brainwashing and programming. After all, Tomer Orni, CEO of the European Jewish Union, declared last year that “Anti-Semitism is part of Europe’s DNA.”
According to this unconvincing principle, this “anti-Semitism” gives the Jews no chance and has chased them throughout the centuries, culminating into Nazi Germany and moving on to the twenty-first century with the “global Jihad.”
According to the Zionist worldview, this “anti-Semitism” is an “an ineradicable disease that cannot be corrected merely through education, reason, or enlightenment, let alone assimilation.” “Anti-Semitism,” we are also told over and over, has taken different shapes and forms over the centuries, but the end result is always the same: people just want to hate Jews because they are jealous.
Whether she likes it or not, Schwarz-Friesel is a product of that same Zionist worldview. She writes,
“One of the research pair’s other main findings was that hatred for Israel has become the main vehicle for German anti-Semitism. More than 80% of the 14,000 emails focused on Israel as their central theme.”
Scharz-Friesel does not want to see that the conflict is not about hating precious people but about an implicitly Talmudic ideology which has serious political and ideological consequences. Israel itself defines the conflict in those ideological terms. Listen to this:
“In 1962 Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, known as ‘Brother Daniel,’ petitioned the High Court of Justice (the Supreme Court) to instruct the state [of Israel] to recognize him as a Jew by nationality. Rufeisen was born to a Jewish family in Poland in 1922, and as a teenager joined a Zionist youth movement.
“He fought as a partisan against the Nazi occupation and saved the lives of many Jews. At some point he hid in a monastery, where he converted to Christianity. After the war he studied for the priesthood, and in order to go to Israel he became a Carmelite monk.
“In 1958 he went to Israel because he wished to take part in the Jewish destiny and still saw himself as a Zionist. Having given up his Polish citizenship, he applied to become an Israeli citizen on the basis of the Law of Return, arguing that although he was a Catholic by religion, he was still a Jew by ‘nationality.’ When his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, he petitioned the High Court of Justice.
“By a four-to-one decision, the court rejected his petition to be given Israeli citizenship on the basis of the Law of Return. He was, however, granted an Israeli identity card, which stated, ‘Nationality: Not clear.’”
Israeli historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University, who provides serious historical depth to the almost two thousand-year old conflict (though I would disagree with him on some issues), comments:
“Ultimately, Brother Daniel’s betrayal of Judaism by joining the religion of the Nazarene overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges understood this national-historical necessity very well.”
But that is not the end of the story. It gets even more interesting:
“In 1968 Major Binyamin Shalit petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the minister of the interior to register his two sons as Jews. Unlike Brother Daniel, the mother of these boys was not a born Jew but a Scottish gentile.
“Shalit, a well-regarded officer in Israel’s victorious army, argued that his sons were growing up as Jews and wished to be considered full citizens in the state of the Jewish people.
“By what seemed a miracle, five of the nine judges who heard the petition decided that the boys were Jewish by nationality, if not by religion. But this exceptional decision shook the entire political structure.”
The plot thickens: Israeli officials and geneticists, according to Sand, cannot use DNA to prove that they are the descendants of Moses. As we saw in a previous article, serious geneticists working in the field disprove the claim. Sand continues,
“Nurit Kirsh, who in recent years completed her doctoral dissertation at Tel Aviv University, has investigated the early stages of genetics research in Israel. Her conclusion is unambiguous: genetics, just like archaeology at the time, was a tendentious science subordinated to the national historical concept, which sught at all costs to discover a biological homogeneity among the Jews in the world.
“The geneticists internalized the Zionist myth and, consciously or not, attempted to adapt their findings to it…
“The Zionist idea of the Jewish nation-race materialized as a solid life science, and a new discipline was born: ‘Jewish genetics.’ What could be more convincing than publication in respected journals in the Anglo-Saxon world?
“The gates of Western canonical science—mainly in the United States—opened to the industrious Israeli researchers, who regularly blended historical mythologies and sociological assumptions with dubious and scanty genetic findings. Despite the limited resources available in Israel for academic research, it became a world leader in the ‘investigation of the origins of populations.’”
The doctrine of Jewish genetics dominated Israel and much of the West for years, but by 2000, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz messed things up by declaring that “the genetic resemblance between the Jews and the Palestinians, discovered by previous research, did not exist.
“The scientists admitted that their earlier experiment had not been sufficiently grounded and detailed, and that its conclusions had been hasty. In fact, the Jews—or, at any rate, the male ones—were related not to the neighboring Palestinians but rather to the distant Kurds.
“The new paper, published first by the American Society of Human Genetics, showed that the sly Y-chromosome had fooled its inexperienced investigators…
“A new scientific study that investigated the mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited only from the mother) in nine Jewish communities discovered that the origin of the supposedly kosher Jewish women did not lie in the Near East at all.”
“Like the field of physical anthropology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which released dubious scientific discoveries to the race-hungry public, the science of molecular genetics at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first century feeds fragmentary findings and half-truths to the identity-seeking media.
“Yet so far, no research had found unique and unifying characteristics of Jewish heredity based on a random sampling of genetic material whose ethnic origin is not known in advance…
“Moreover, the hasty findings are all too often constructed and supported by historical rhetoric unconnected to the research laboratories. The bottom line is that, all the costly ‘scientific’ endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever.
“This is not to preclude the potential contribution of genetic anthropology in uncovering important aspects of human history, and importantly in the fight against disease. Most probably, the investigation of DNA, a relatively young science, has a brilliant future.
“But in a state in which the law prevents marriage between a ‘Jew’ and a ‘non-Jew,’ we should be very wary about research that seeks genetic markers common to the ‘chosen people.
“Like similar investigations carried out by Macedonian racists, Lebanese Phalangiste, Lapps in northern Scandinavia, and so on, such Jewish-Israeli research cannot be entirely free from crude and dangerous racism.”
As we have already seen, Israeli officials themselves prove that the issue is not whether your Jewish parents died in concentration camps, but whether you abide by the essentially Talmudic definition of what it means to be a Jew. As Sand puts it, “Jewishness is a religion and not a people.”
It is that “Jewishness” we are confronting here and throughout our writing. We are not attacking people who are part of the human race—people who can be generous, kind, lovely, articulate, and people who need redemption as everyone else.
Furthermore, we have no interest in even remotely espousing hatred for another precious human life. Life is sacred, and everyone has a redeeming value.
However, we are interested in examining a wicked ideology which has kept Jewish revolutionaries in spiritual and intellectual bondage for centuries and which has produced aesthetic terrorism throughout much of the world.
Put simply, the essence of being “Jewish” entails anti-Logos, a definition that the Church has used for almost two thousand years. Moreover, to be “Jewish” means to be living in blatant contradiction and irrationality.
For example, Netanyahu can preach that Iran has to destroy all its nuclear program, but Netanyahu will not even allow the international community to inspect Israel’s nuclear warheads (and they have hundreds of them).
Jewish “atheist” Sam Harris can scold Christendom for allegedly torturing infidels, but Sam Harris approves torturing individuals to get so-called information. If father Bob gets caught with their pants down with young boys, Harris would say that we need to set up a special court for those priests. He writes,
“Imagine this occurring to tens of thousands of children in our own time—and to children beyond reckoning for over a thousand years. The spectacle of faith so utterly misplaced, and so fully betrayed, is simply too depressing to think about.”
All right. Let us take Harris seriously here. Let us bring all those friars to judgment. Let us bring all the sodomites at Abu Ghraib as well. Let us specifically bring the officer who was
“fu$king a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass. I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures.”
Harris concludes that “I have been awakened from my unconscionable slumber on this issue by recent press reports and especially by the eloquence of my colleagues Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.” But listen very carefully to Richard Dawkins here:
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”
Ladies and gentlemen, Richard Dawkins wrote a 464-page book condemning what he thinks had happened in the past.
Jewish psychologist Steven Pinker can blame all Christendom for burning heretics at the stake, but Pinker does not even have the intellectual courage to say that Abu Ghraib, which was essentially a Jewish project, was practically sodomy in plain sight.
Since being “Jewish” also entails the idea of intellectual bondage, listen to Pinker’s view on music in his best-selling book How the Mind Works:
“As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world.
“Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged.”
Here Pinker, who has been called one of the most 100 influential thinkers in the world in 2004 and one of the most 100 public intellectuals in 2005, finds himself squaring off with the Western intellectual tradition. If Pinker is right, then Plato is wrong in saying that
“Through foolishness [the people] deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong way in music, that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. By their works and their theories they infected the masses with the presumption to think themselves adequate judges.
“So our theatres, once silent, grew vocal, and aristocracy of music gave way to a pernicious theocracy…the criterion was not music, but a reputation for promiscuous cleverness and a spirit of law-breaking.”
Aristotle himself believed that music not only has the power to form character and that the right kind of music “conduces to virtue,” but it is “a moral discipline and a rational enjoyment.”
Mathematicians and philosophers—from Pythagoras and all the way to the eighteenth century and beyond—tried their entire life to rigorously construct a mathematical structure of music. By the end of the twentieth century, the neuro-scientific, philosophical and mathematical foundations for good and bad music were fully established.
All of that is dismissed in one sentence by Pinker with not a shred of evidence. In the Jewish Century, it seems to be that Jewish intellectuals like Pinker can posit an axiom and expect everyone else to accept it without evidence. No doubt that musicologists were simply amazed at Pinker’s invalid and unnecessary simplification.
The story gets even more interesting because Pinker, like the Pharisees during the time of Christ, basically believes that he has super DNA. When he was asked in the Jewish Quarterly about his views on Judaism and what it means to be Jewish, Pinker responded,
“Yes, this was a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of our [he and his wife] compatibility at every level, from the genetic (we are carriers of a Tay-Sachslike gene found only in Ashkenazim)—to the occupational (authors)—to the philosophical (pro-science, pro-reason)—to the religious (secular humanists with an affection for Jewish culture and history).
“I admire Judaism’s millennia-long tradition of ethical disputation and debate. I am not a Zionist in the sense of endorsing a mystical connection between a people and a territory, and am uncomfortable with any religious or ethnic definition of a state, together with many of Israel’s policies.
“Yet I admire many things about the country, and object to the myopic denunciations and illiberal persecution (not least by certain British academics) of Israel and its citizens.
“I am an atheist who personally finds many Jewish religious observances to be a bit tedious, yet I am glad that others carry on the traditions, and feel solidarity with Jewish humor, culture, and history. Complicated, perhaps even contradictory—but what could be more Jewish than that?”
In other words, Pinker is following the traditions of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud when he writes as an atheist but is aware that his “Jewishness” means super DNA or that Christianity is not a viable option.
Karl Marx did not like the Talmud any more than Pinker, but as Jewish writer Bernard Lazare pointed out, Marx ended up having a Talmudic mind, whether he liked it or not.
It is the same thing with Freud, who raised his six children as Jewish but attacked Christianity as an atheist. But at one point, Freud put the cart before the horse when he declared:
“I have often felt as though I inherited all the obstinacy and all the passions of our [Jewish] ancestors when they defended their temple [destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70], as though I could throw away my life with joy for a great moment.”
We will come back to Freud when we examine psychoanalysis. In short, anti-Logos ideology has always tried to destroy the West by subterfuge. As Civilta Cattolica put it in 1890:
“Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything; gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointments in political administrations, in the army and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending on them.”
If Logos as articulated in the Gospels made the West possible, then anti-Logos will implicitly and explicitly seek to destroy it. If Noam Chomsky is right by saying that “Gospels are radical – it’s a radical text – that’s a basically radical pacifism with its preferential option for the poor,” then anti-Logos will seek to suppress the poor with usury at an exorbitant rate, which the Jewish bankers have used for centuries.
More Jewish storm is on the way, for we know that the Federal Reserve continues to nominate one Jewish usurer after another. What is even more interesting is that Stanley Fischer, who worked for the Bank of Israel for years, has been nominated as the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
If Logos gave us Michelangelo who produced the Sistine Chapel, Leonardo da Vinci who meticulously crafted The Last Supper, and Raphael whose paintings such as The School of Athens have been enjoyed by this writer, anti-Logos gave us “piss Christ” and Caroleen Schneemann who produced “I saw the Vagina” and other sexually grotesque “work of art.”
For Schneemann, sexual liberation gave her a messianic vision:
“I suppose that not internalizing [sexual] prohibitions gave me some messianic sense that I was going to have to confront or go against erotic denial, fragmentations.”
Schneemann continues to say that back in the mid-sixties, she thought about
“eroticizing my guilty culture…My work was dependent on my sexuality—its satisfaction, integrity…An erotic sensibility is inevitably going to experience conflicting messages in a masculist culture that is basically divisive, sex-negative, that traditionally controls female expressiveness—our imaginative domain, our creative will, our desire.”
How did Shneeman come to this unbridled eroticism? You guessed it:
“In the early sixties my personal relationships were sustaining, as well as the writings of [Wilhelm] Reich, [Antonin] Artaud, [Simon] de Beauvoir.”
After Schneemann produced Meat Joy, she was quickly recognized as a “seductress” and “was instantly and internally recognized as a cultural leader of the 1960s sexual revolution.”
As we have seen in previous articles, sexual liberation comes with a huge price—a price that people like Foucault was willing to pay.
“The celebration of sexual liberation that came to a crashing end with the widely perceived failure of ‘the sixties’ in the mid-1970s, followed by the advent of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, occurred precisely during the period when Schneeman’s art began to be widely known and respected for its pioneering feminism.
“But that sexuality would also then be associated with the ‘mess’ of the 1960s, the embarrassment of the ‘hippie’ sensual expressivity, and the residual relationship of such eroticism to the epidemic contagion of AIDS, all of which reached a peak in the so-called culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s…”
If art is supposed to uplift the spirit toward what is good, noble, lovely, and true, anti-Logos, which Schneeman, Lucien Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud) and others represent, will pervert it and change it to Jewish eroticism. As the Jewish revolutionary Willi Munzenberg himself put it,
“We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stinks! Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Going back to Schwarz-Friesel, she does not want to talk about how the Israel Lobby “humiliated” Zionist William Hague just because he wanted to pursue the Iran deal.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to discuss how neo-Bolsheviks such as Norman Podhoretz want the United States to bomb Iran right now. Schwarz-Friesel does not want to mention that Podhoretz in particular has been preaching that message since 2007.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to discuss the systematic killing of Yemenis and Pakistanis by U.S. drones. Schwarz-Friesel does not want to mention how many rabid rabbis denigrate non-Jews. For example, Rabbi Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman, one of the leaders of the Lithuanian branch of haredi Judaism, declared last year,
“There are eight billion people in the world. And what are they? Murderers, thieves, brainless people… But who is the essence of this world? Has God created the world for these murderers? For these evil-doers?”
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to discuss how Israel has precipitously become a literal ethnic cleanser. Schwarz-Friesel does not want to discuss that this ideology continues to this very day.
“The Jericho-based journalist Jonathan Cook describes [the plan to relocate the Bedouin] as—and quotes Israeli leaders as saying the same thing—in effect a continuation of ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1948 war for Israeli independence.
“The plan to ‘concentrate,’ in [Israeli Minister Benny] Begin’s words, the Bedouin would clear land for the construction of new towns open only to Jews. Cook notes that the new Jewish towns would be ‘dispersed as widely as possible in contravention of Israel’s own national master plan, which requires denser building inside existing communities to protect scarce land resources.’”
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to even mention that the international community, which significantly came from Europe, opposes this plan.
Schwarz-Friesel does not have enough guts to say that “In a controversial move decried by human rights organizations, Israel’s parliament passed a bill allowing migrants to be jailed without trial for a year.”
Sara Robinson of Amnesty International Israel declared that passing the new law “reflects poorly on Israel’s human rights records.”
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to talk about how the Jewish neocons deliberately and irresponsibly cooked up the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community told the Bush administration that Saddam was not a threat to the United States.
Now after a decade of war in Afghanistan, the Washington Post reports that “ordinary Afghan’s anxiety about future grows as security deal with U.S. remains a limbo.”
Schwarz-Friesel does not address the issue of how America and Israel’s allies such as Saudi Arabia have committed mass murder in the Middle East for the past thirty years.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to allude to the fact that Israel fabricated evidence against Syria for months so that America would invade the country. Then, after months of media gyration and complete lies, Israeli officials turn around and say that they prefer Assad over the Syrian rebels/terrorists!
Just a few days ago, right before the Time declared that “The top Western-backed rebel commander in Syria has fled the country amid growing infighting with Islamist rebels,” the Obama administration turned the Assad/rebel conflict on its head:
“For the past two and a half years, as the civil war in Syria has descended into brutal bloodletting and spilled over its borders, Obama administration officials have consistently decried the growing presence of Islamist extremists in the conflict.
“But on Wednesday, Deputy National Security Advisor Antony Blinken turned that logic on its head: The growing role of extremist groups may actually be a good thing for bringing the conflict to a close, he said.
“Speaking at Transformational Trends, a conference co-hosted by Foreign Policy and the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. State Department, Blinken said that the radicalization of the conflict may create a shared interest among world powers to bring the war to an end.”
Obviously the administration and much of the West seem to be turning their back on the rebels/terrorists because it is quite apparent that those terrorists do not care about what the West thinks anymore. The Telegraph reported at the end of last month that
“in northern Syria, the FSA has now become a largely criminal enterprise, with commanders more concerned about profits from corruption, kidnapping and theft than fighting the regime…”
Listen to Ahmad al-Knaitry, a rebel leader himself in the Jebel az-Zawiya area, south-west of Idlib city.
“There are many leaders in the revolution that don’t want to make the regime fall because they are loving the conflict. They have become princes of war; they spend millions of dollars, live in castles and have fancy cars.”
My fellow Americans, under “born again neocon” Obama, our tax dollars have supported this madness for at least two years! This madness was also advocated by neo-Bolshevik Daniel Pipe and the “three amigos”—Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman. Less than three months ago, both Graham and McCain were proposing the same thing. In August 2012, the Associated Press reported that
“President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government… Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence ‘finding,’ broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.”
The administration never ceased to support the terrorists. By December of 2012, the Wall Street Journal itself reported that the “U.S. formally recognizes Syria’s main rebel group.” U.S. foreign policy, as Bahrain’s rulers put it, is “Schizophrenic.”
Since things have gotten really bad lately—so bad that at least one family took all his children, including a 13-year old boy, to join the Syrian rebels—the U.S. and Britain realized that they needed to suspend some weapons to the rebels/terrorists.
Yet since the Obama administration is like a squirrel that cannot really make up its mind about whether to go right or left or straight, the administration
“is willing to consider supporting an expanded Syrian rebel coalition that would include Islamist groups, provided the groups are not allied with al-Qaeda and agree to support upcoming peace talks in Geneva…
“In addition, the official said, the Americans would like the Islamic Front groups to return U.S. vehicles, communications gear and other non-lethal equipment they seized last weekend from warehouses at the Syria-Turkey border.”
But the rebels/terrorists have recently made the Obama administration a laughing stock by capturing 120 Kurdish civilians “from a village near the Turkish border in Aleppo province…”
After all, the small community of Christians in Syria does not fear Assad; they fear the rebels/terrorists.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to tell her readers that both Israeli officials (particularly the Mossad) and Saudi Arabi were even planning to attack Iran last month.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to talk about how Israeli officials are ridiculously blaming Iran for using its own embassies for spreading terrorism without a shred of evidence. She does not want to tell her readers that Israeli officials are making a fool of themselves by postulating that Iran wants to use diplomatic mail and drugs to attack the United States.
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to talk about the fact that at least 100 million Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East and other places largely because of the perpetual war, which the neo-Bolshevik regime has unleashed upon the West. Schwarz-Friesel does not want to mention that the Royal Bank of Scotland in particular will pay $100 million because it had made transactions with countries such as Iran.
Schwarz-Friesel lacks the courage to say, as Jewish historian Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer would put it, that “Zionism was born out of violence…”
Schwarz-Friesel would not want to discuss how CIA agent Robert Levinson went to Iran in 2007 in disguise in order to spy on the country. For years, the United States and the media maintained that Levinson was just a U.S. citizen traveling to Iran on private business. Both the New York Times and ABC News lied about the story.
But it turned out that Levinson was working for the CIA. But the Associated Press had to defend Levinson somehow: he was “unapproved” by the CIA when he went to Iran. (Keep in mind that it was in 2007 that Podhoretz was chanting “bomb Iran.”).
Yet the Washington Post tells a different story:
“But months after Levinson’s abduction, e-mails and other documents surfaced that suggested he had gone to Iran at the direction of certain CIA analysts who had no authority to run operations overseas. That revelation prompted a major internal investigation that had wide-ranging repercussions, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity…
“Levinson was supposed to provide academic reports but was operating more like a spy, gathering intelligence for the CIA and producing numerous well-
received reports, officials said. While working for the CIA, he passed on details about the Colombian rebels, then-President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Iran’s nuclear program.
“Levinson hopscotched the globe. He went to Turkey and Canada, among other countries, to interview potential sources, sometimes using a fake name. But CIA station chiefs in those countries were never notified of Levinson’s activities overseas even though the agency reimbursed him for his travel, a violation of the rules.”
Schwarz-Friesel does not want to know critiques of Israel come from fairly modest organizations as well. Even Bill Van Esveld, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, declared,
“Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel came to power in 2009, construction has begun on 8,575 settlement homes. Israeli demolitions during the same period left more than 4,000 Palestinians homeless.
“Both trends are accelerating. There were 1,708 settlement housing starts in the first half of 2013, up by 70 percent over the same period in 2012, and demolitions have left 933 Palestinians homeless so far this year, up from 886 in all of 2012…
“Israel, the US, and other countries have justified their calls for Palestine not to use its new UN status to pursue ICC jurisdiction by claiming it would undermine peace negotiations.
“But during 20 years of on-and-off negotiations, impunity for rights abuses and laws-of-war violations has fueled animosity and made negotiators’ jobs more difficult. The absence of credible accountability mechanisms has hardly proven an advantage in bringing the conflict to an end. ”
In the same vein, noted British journalist Robert Fisk has documented over and over that Israel has literally massacred and tortured people in places like Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1996, and even in 2006. In that context, Israel has committed “serious international crimes” against the Palestinians.
It is no accident that Israel has been viewed as one of the most corrupt states in the developed world. But no serious Western politician, including Rutte, has enough courage to challenge Netanyahu.
It gets even worse: “Rutte assured Netanyahu that the Netherlands understood his security concerns.” Rutte himself declared,
“We, as the Netherlands, are fully aware of the security concerns of Israel. We will always be.”
If Rutte and much of the Western world want to remain ignorant, Israeli scholar Yoram Dinstein does not.
Dinstein—former president of Tel Aviv University and former professor of international law at major universities, including the Max Planck Institute of International Law, Germany, and New York University, University of Toronto—writes in his study The International Law of Belligerent Occupation that no country on earth would support the kind of “belligerent occupation” Israel is forcing upon the precious people in Gaza.
Moreover, this “belligerent occupation” is illegal under international law. Dinstein is far from alone:
“Women and girls are disproportionately and sometimes uniquely burdened – particularly in the Gaza Strip. The population of the Gaza Strip has been severely affected by the Israeli violations and attacks.
“Hundreds of people have been killed and thousands injured, many with permanent disabilities, which have led to a high level of tension and deep social division. National, social and human cohesion have deteriorated, leading to fragmentation, distrust, low morale, deceased productivity, and so forth. Young people are particularly alienated.
“As the rates of poverty, deprivation and stress rise, coping strategies are being overwhelmed and the social cohesion of families and communities is being eroded.
“An assessment conducted by the Euromid Observer for Human Rights among 1,100 Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip indicates that the Israeli siege has affected every aspect of their lives. The majority of the women expressed that the impact of the blockade has direct consequences on their family’s income, expenses and health; their children’s education (which in turn causes stress for their entire family); and their own social status.”
Once again, Nazi Germany is wrong, but concentration camps in Gaza are not only plausible but acceptable in the Jewish Century.