…by Jonas E. Alexis
Economist and former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts implicitly argued a few days ago that whenever Washington is beating the American people over the head with a neoconservative idea through the media and other channels ad nauseam and ad infinitum, you can be sure that a Zionist storm is coming.
Remember Iraq and how they beat the war drum and how they relentlessly used the strategy of fear saying that Saddam had WMDs? Remember Syria and how they blamed Assad when in fact it was the Syrian rebels/terrorists who actually used chemical weapons?
And you remember how Carla del Ponte messed the Zionist project up by saying that “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas”?
Now the Zionist machine is using the same old trick to destabilize Russia. Roberts wrote,
“I am convinced that Washington is behind the destruction of MH-17, because Washington’s propaganda show was already ready and was instantly in performance.
“That Washington is responsible is the reason that Washington will not release its satellite photos of the area during the moment of the airliner’s destruction.
“That Washington is responsible is the reason that Washington replies to Russian hard evidence with lies and propaganda. It is Obama and Obama’s stooges in Kiev that refuse to negotiate, not Russia.”
Roberts also said that “‘intelligent American’ is an oxymoron.”
By “intelligent American,” he means the American political elite, namely the neoconservatives, whose goal is to covertly deceive the American people and to use U.S. tax dollars to pursue Zionist ideology and to further destroy sovereign countries in the name of “democracy.”
Roberts argued quite implicitly that the neocons are after Russia because Russia largely stopped them from invading Syria. He declared,
“Russia hasn’t done anything except get in the way, belatedly, of Washington’s lies that Washington uses to start wars. Russia (and China) went along with Washington’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
“Russia (and China) went along with Washington’s lies that Washington’s 13-year attempted conquest and occupation of Afghanistan had to do with finding Osama bin Laden.
“Russia (and China) fell for Washington’s deception that a UN resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya was for the purpose of preventing Gaddafi’s air force from bombing his own people, only to discover that Washington misused the resolution to send the NATO air force to overthrow the Libyan government.
“When Washington drew a ‘red line’ in the sand with regard to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against the outside forces that Washington had organized and sent into Syria to overthrow the government, all the while pretending that these Islamists mercenaries were the true spokesmen for democracy in Syria, most of the world knew that Washington was about to organize a chemical attack and blame Assad.
“When the Washington orchestrated attack happened on schedule, this time Russia and China did not fall for it. And neither did the British Parliament.
“Washington was unable to produce any evidence for the charges that Washington made and hoped would bring in at least the British to support Washington’s military assault on Syria.
“Russia, however, was able to produce evidence, and the evidence foiled Washington’s plot against Syria. Russia’s intervention angered Washington, as did Russia’s intervention that blocked Washington’s plot to attack Iran.
“Washington, devoid of all evidence and in contradiction to the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspectors on the ground in Iran that there was no diversion of uranium from the legal energy program to a weapons program, had Iran set up for attack.
“Iran was surrounded by about 40 US military bases and two of Washington’s fleets off its coast.”
First of all, I honestly thought twice about plunking down my money to buy the book, since I knew that Glick’s ideology does not allow her to produce a historically coherent and intellectually satisfying argument.
What immediately got my attention was that Glick frequently cited Israeli historian Benny Morris in her own favor but never recounted that Morris himself admitted that genocidal crimes have been committed by the Israelis in 1948 and beyond!
For example, in his book 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, Morris quotes Yitzhak Levy, saying,
“The conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families—women, old people, children—were killed….Some of the prisoners moved to places of detention, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors….
“IZL troops had ‘raped a number of girls and murdered them afterwards…’ The IZL and LHI troopers systematically pillaged the village and stripped the inhabitants of jewelry and money. Altogether, 100-120 villages (including combatants) died that day…Most of the villages either fled or were trucked through West Jerusalem and dumped at Musrara, outside the Old City walls.”
Morris documents on page after page in his books—including the one that Glick has used throughout her own book (Righteous Victims)—that there was a form of ethnic cleansing in 1948. Yet as a Zionist historian, Morris justified it by saying that it was done out of good will. Listen to Morris very carefully here:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
“It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
How does Morris defend this position? Well, you may have to hold your breath: “You have to put things into proportion. These are small crimes.” Morris also said,
“There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes.”
Ari Shavit, the interviewer, declared that 1948 was indeed ethnic cleansing. Morris, in response, said,
“[t]here are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide — the annihilation of your people — I prefer ethnic cleansing.”
Here and elsewhere Morris was being historically and morally honest.
The sad thing is that Glick never mentioned this historical fact in her book, presumably because she does not believe that Israel committed ethnic cleansing. To her, Israel cannot commit acts of terrorism, despite the fact that the scholarly evidence for this has now become common knowledge.
Growing up in Chicago, she went to Columbia University and then to Harvard. Glick never went to the U.S. army but served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
“for five and a half years…In 1997 and 1998 I served as assistant foreign policy advisor Binyamin Netayahu during his first stint as Prime Minister.”
Netanyahu seems to be her savior who would bring about vast social changes in the world. Glick wrote back in 2006,
“Today there is only one Israeli leader capable of rebuilding Israel’s standing in the international community generally and in American society particularly.
“We have only one leader who is capable of bringing about a renewed delegitimization of views like those expressed in Walt and Mearsheimer’s essay. His name is Binyamin Netanyahu.”
In a similar vein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and wife of neoconservative and Harvard historian Niall Ferguson (who happened to be a former advisor to both John McCain and Mitt Romney), declared,
“I really admire Benjamin Netanyahu. [H]e is under so much pressure, from so many sources, and yet he does what is best for the people of Israel, he does his duty.”
Ali let the cat out of the bag when she said that Netanyahu should be “given a Nobel Prize.”
What kind of medicine has this lady been taking? Here is a man who has relentlessly lied to the West from time immemorial (most particularly with respect to Iran’s nuclear program), who is responsible for the murder and killing of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives, who has relentlessly asked one president after another to release an Israeli spy who was guilty of passing classified information to Israel, and now he should receive a Nobel Prize?
If Ali wants to be intellectually and morally serious, why doesn’t she address the fact that Israel deliberately “gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent”? Some of the women were even
“forced or coerced to take the drug while in transit camps in Ethiopia. The drug in question is thought to be Depo-Provera, which is injected every three months and is considered to be a highly effective, long-lasting contraceptive.”
Forbes magazine declared,
“That Israel should allegedly engage in this activity is particularly shocking, considering the practice was widely used by the Germans throughout the Shoah.
“While the scale and effects of these operations cannot be compared, Israel’s implicit intent to limit ‘burdensome’ (read: undesirable) portions of the population recalls the dark eugenics experiments of World War II….
“From a sociological perspective, this incident shows the strain between Israel’s religious heritage and its modern political agenda.”
Last April, Seth J. Frantzman of the Jewish Daily Forward wrote in his article “Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering: Believers in Eugenics Helped Birth Jewish State,”
“In mid-March, during Purim, 15 students from the suburban community of Mevaseret Zion dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and three of their friends wore blackface.
“A principal of the school defended the actions, according to a report; ‘the costume was designed to create interesting and important discussions…. This act essentially created a platform where discussion can exist.’
“What we see in Israel when it comes to issues of stereotyping in society is generally a collective shrug of the shoulders. Discriminatory actions are regarded primarily as a problem of the victims, who are deemed ‘incensed’ but not taken seriously.
“And not as a societywide issue. Deeply offensive actions, such as dressing up like the KKK in a community where there are numerous Ethiopians, is poked fun at, with one paper calling it an ‘epic fail.’
“A little noticed 2011 book by academic Etan Bloom revealed that the father of Israeli sociology and a leading Zionist of the British Mandate named Arthur Ruppin, was a believer in eugenics.
“In 1919 he argued that the Jewish race should be ‘purified’ and that it was ‘desirable that only the racially pure come to the land.’
“As head of the Palestine Office of the Zionist Executive (later the Jewish Agency for Israel), he put his purity schemes into practice, arguing that Ethiopian Jews should not be permitted to immigrate, because ‘they have no blood connection,” and arguing that Yemenite Jews should be brought only for menial labor.’”
This racist ideology has been going on since Israel’s inception, when they literally uprooted at least 700,000 Palestinians and liquidated many of them.
Moreover, the Jewish Daily Forward even acknowledged that “everyday racism” is the norm in Israel, and “American Jews turn a blind eye to it.”
Now how about Ali’s man, Benjamin Netanyahu? Take it from the Jewish Daily Forward:
“Nor was there any blowback whatsoever after Bibi Netanyahu bragged in 2007 that the cuts he’d made to child subsidies had brought a ‘positive’ result, which he identified as ‘the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birth rate.’
“Imagine the scandal if an American political leader boasted publicly that his cuts to child subsidies had reduced the ‘non-Christian’ birth rate. Imagine the ADL’s reaction. But in Israel, in 2007, from the mouth of a once-and-future prime minister — nothing.
“These are just a few of the more appalling examples of the kind of racist remarks that Israeli politicians, rabbis and celebrities feel free to make. I haven’t even mentioned Avigdor Lieberman and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. As a rule the words are directed at Arabs, now and then against blacks: either Ethiopian Jews, African refugees or athletes.”
In the same year, Likud lawmaker Miri Regev called Sudanese refugees “a cancer on our body.” Right after he made this pronouncement to a crowd, they all “went on a window-smashing mini-pogrom against the Africans in the neighborhood.”
Does Ali, a self-proclaimed atheist who on the surface appears to be fighting for women’s rights, mean to tell us that she did not know about this? If she did know, where is her moral fiber and why doesn’t she write about it?
If she refuses to address this issue, then she certainly needs to get her head examined.
I was going to buy some of Ali’s books to see if she could string two moral arguments together, but I declined after I realized that she was elevating Netanyahu as the apotheosis of bravery and courage.
In 2012 I accidently stumbled upon Glick’s writing because I wanted to know what the other side was saying about John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two Jewish scholars who wrote a formidable challenge to the U.S. foreign policy with a special focus on Israel.
I honestly was hoping that Glick would produce enough evidence for readers to completely reject Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument. Sadly, after reading her response, I was really disappointed.
Glick says that Walt was her former professor at Harvard who “co-wrote the updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with his friend from my childhood hometown – University of Chicago’s John Mearshimer.”
It was all the more laughable that Glick declared Mearsheimer “has become one of the most high-profile anti-Semites in America.” Glick again and again equates The Israel Lobby with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
Glick reproduced this nonsense in David Horowitz’s neoconservative magazine FrontPage, declaring that Mearsheimer and Walt opened the door for anti-Semites
“to discriminate against the Jewish people and side either actively or passively with those like the Iranian regime and the Sunni jihadists from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood who openly call for the annihilation of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.”
Classicist Bruce Thornton of the same magazine agrees. Not only is Mearsheimer and Walt’s book another version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Thornton sanctimoniously argues, but Harvard has been indirectly promoting another final solution of the Jews!
I certainly didn’t see that coming precisely because I didn’t expect a Harvard graduate like Glick and a noted classicist like Thornton would make such a sweeping and—quite frankly, dumb—accusation. My first reaction was,
“Is logic still a requirement at Columbia and Harvard? If so, how did this lady pass her classes? Was she following Alan Dershowitz’s ‘scholarship’? Has the academic and scholarly world sunk that low? Why can’t people like Glick put two coherent thoughts together to produce a decent argument? Is it that difficult? Why do they have to appeal to ad hominem attack and red herring in order to make a point?”
I soon discovered that this was a pattern among many Jewish academics and intellectuals. I began to read the works of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Deborah Lipstadt, David I. Kertzer, Walter Laqueur, etc., and quickly realized that these people are experts on inventing incredibly fatuous assertions and then lay those assertions upon their Jewish ideological canvas. Listen to how Dershowitz responded to Mearsheimer and Walt:
“They are no longer realists; they are hatemongers who have given up on scholarly debate and the democratic process in order to become rock-star heroes of anti-Israel extremists.”
Mearsheimer and Walt, Dershowitz continued, are “behind a façade of erudition that purports to reject anti-Semitism but copies its classic archetype.”
Dershowitz has learned over the years that the anti-Semitic tactic has been good for him, particularly when he has struggled mightily to construct a coherent argument.
If you think this is a joke, listen again to how Dershowitz responded to Norman Finkelstein, just a few years after Dershowitz made a fool of himself in a heated debate with Finkelstein:
“Norman Finkelstein is a sick and deeply disturbed, self-hating Jew, who in his autobiography implied that his own mother was a kappo. He constantly compares Israel to the Nazis (though he seems to admire the Nazis and to despise Israel).
“He constantly invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes of the kind that were found in Der Stutterer. He is beneath contempt and deserves no further comment. He should be relegated to the dustbin of history and ignored.”
Finkelstein took the issue to Elena Kagan, who was the dean of Harvard Law School. He told her,
“Professor Dershowitz has that on the Harvard school website, which is to say it has your imprimatur on it. Don’t you think he should take it down? That is not violation of free speech. He has his own website.”
Kagan refused to do so. Finkelstein proceeded to ask, “Do you think there is evidence for that claim of his? [And] do you have any limits on your websites about what can and can’t be posted?” To which Kagan answered, “We have broad limits [at Harvard].”
“‘Broad limits’ does mean no limits. For example, if a Harvard professor posted on the website that Kagan’s mother was a whore, would you have him take it down?”
End of conversation. Kagan, who is also Jewish, sided with Dershowitz and dumped Finkelstein. In fact, Finkelstein lost his academic career precisely because he stood against the powers that be.
Dershowitz also claims that Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments “share the same themes as the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion…They echo the accusations made by Nazi publications and the America First propaganda of the 1930s and early 1940s, as well as the official anti-Semitism of the Soviet Union under Stalin.”
I have been reading Jewish ideology for some years now, and only on a few occasions have I met a person whose scholarly achievements and ability to respond to rational dialogue have sunk that low.
Can you imagine a Harvard professor using a high school syllabus as a serious source? Finkelstein writes,
“In September 1970 King Hussein brutally suppressed a Palestinian insurgency. The range Dershowitz cites for Palestinian death during the Black September is accurate.
“Oddly, however, his first source is the publicity website for a 1999 movie called One Day in September, while the second is a chronology appended to a high school syllabus.
“When this writer publically noted the anomaly of a chair at Harvard Law School using such references, Dershowitz explained to the Boston Globe: ‘I’m happy that I don’t have to cite inaccessible sources.’”
This is the kind of scholarship that is being produced by people like Dershowitz, and he is far from alone. We have written over the past few months that this has been a consistent pattern in the writings of people like Golhagen, Lipstadt, Kertzer, Stanley Fish, etc.
These people have become intellectual Talmudists, which is to say that Goyim have to either go along with the Jewish ideology in the academic landscape or be sent to the academic gulag, as in the case of Finkelstein. Some Goyim have been more than happy to sell their intellectual souls for a temporary Jewish and highly lucrative heaven on earth.
Some of those people include Niall Ferguson of Harvard, Richard Evans of Cambridge, Bruce Thornton of the Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution, Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution, popular noisemaker Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza (who was once affiliated with the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation), voice of thunder Rush Limbaugh, pinhead Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, etc.
Then things went from bad to worse. Instead of producing evidence for her accusation, Glick quoted Alan Dershowitz—of all people!—saying that Mearsheimer and Walt’s claims “are found in neo-Nazi websites.”
Mearsheimer and Walt’s analysis, Glick continued,
“is filled with obviously false assertions, ridiculous statements and idiotic, tendentious and absurd claims that no professional science professor would dare to publically express in any article about any other political lobby or foreign country.”
The evidence for this assertion? Well, here it is:
“Every semi-sentient person with even an incidental knowledge of American politics knows that there is no area of human endeavor that is not represented by a lobby in the US. Walt and Mearsheimer’s asinine assertion means is that every American interest group – from the elderly to the insurance industry, from the Muslims to gun owners to organic food lovers – stands opposed to the American national interest simply by existing. Any professor who made a similar assertion about any other interest group would be imperiling his career.”
I have so many responses to this poor argument. Let us produce just a few here.
I would like Glick to name one lobby that has been able to persuade the American people to produce palpable lies in order to invade a foreign nation. No lobby has the power that the Israel Lobby has on the American consciousness.
And if Glick does not like that, she needs to take issues with Dershowitz himself, who wrote right after Obama was reelected that it was Jews like himself who had helped put him in power. Dershowitz even bragged that Jews
“must now realize that our support for the president will be good for Israel over the next four years…Jews vote for both parties. Nobody is ignoring us. Every rational candidate knows that they and their party must earn our votes in every election.”
I would also like Glick to name one lobby in the U.S. that is persuading the American people to give a foreign nation at least three billion dollars every year, even though that particular nation has deceptively been involved in covert activities against the U.S and has violated international of laws. More recently, Jeff Stein of Newsweek has reported,
“Israel was singled out in 2007 as a top espionage threat against the U.S. government, including its intelligence services, in a newly published National Security Agency (NSA) document obtained by fugitive leaker Edward Snowden…
“In this new document, Israel was identified by the NSA as a security threat in several areas, including ‘the threat of development of weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘delivery methods (particularly ballistic and nuclear-capable cruise missiles).’ The NSA also flagged Israel’s ‘WMD and missile proliferation activities’ and ‘cruise missiles’ as threats.
“Countering Foreign Intelligence Threats,’ Israel was listed as a leading perpetrator of ‘espionage/intelligence collection operations and manipulation/influence operations…against U.S. government, military, science & technology and Intelligence Community’ organs.
“Israel has similar company in threats against U.S. infrastructure, according to the NSA document. Under a section headed ‘Mastering Cyberspace and Preventing an Attack on U.S. Critical Information Systems,’ Israel, India, North Korea and Cuba are identified as ‘FIS [financial/banking system] threats.’
“Israel also appears on the list of countries believed by the NSA to be ‘enabling’ electronic warfare ‘producers/proliferators.’”
Third, I would love Glick to explain why the U.S. and the Israeli regime have continued to work with terrorist groups such as the Syrian rebels.
Fourth, I would like Glick to explain why Israel has continued to spy on Americans. Glenn Greenwald has recently reported that
“the Americans and Israelis work together to gain access to ‘geographic targets [that] include the countries of North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and the Islamic republics of the former Soviet Union.’
“It also includes ‘a dedicated communications line between NSA and ISNU [that] supports the exchange of raw material, as well as daily analytic and technical correspondence.’
“The relationship has provided Israel with ample support for both intelligence and surveillance:
“‘The Israeli side enjoys the benefits of expanded geographic access to world-class NSA cryptanalytic and SIGINT engineering expertise, and also gains controlled access to advanced U.S. technology and equipment via accommodation buys and foreign military sales.’ Among Israel’s priorities for the cooperation are what the NSA calls ‘Palestinian terrorism.’
“The cooperation between the NSA and ISNU began decades ago. A top secret agreement between the two agencies from July 1999 recounts that the first formal intelligence-sharing agreement was entered into in 1968 between U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, and informally began in the 1950s. But the relationship has grown rapidly in the last decade.
“In 2003 and 2004, the Israelis were pressuring the NSA to agree to a massively expanded intelligence-sharing relationship called ‘Gladiator.’ As part of that process, Israel wanted the Americans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Israeli activities.
“The specific proposed ‘Gladiator’ agreement appears never to have been consummated, derailed by Israeli demands that the U.S. bear the full cost, but documents in the Snowden archive pertaining to those negotiations contain what appear to be two receipts for one or more payments of $500,000 in cash to Israeli officials for unspecified purposes…
“The surveillance-sharing relationship with Israel has expanded to include the NSA’s British and Canadian counterparts, GCHQ and CSEC, both of which actively participate in feeding the Israelis selected communications data they have collected.
“Several documents from early 2009, at the height of the Israeli attack on Gaza called ‘Cast Lead’ that left more than 1,000 people dead, detail some of this cooperation.”
It has been reported by Spiegel that Israel even spied on John Kerry last year during his Middle East peace negotiations.
Lastly, I would like Glick to address the following issues: why does Israel continue to slaughter innocent civilians and then call it “self-defense”?
Why does the regime continue to lie to the American people saying that they do want to make peace with the Palestinians when in fact they know too well that they are lying? For example, Dov Weissglass declared in 2004:
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process … And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.
“Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with … a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress …
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
And Weissglass meant it when he said again in 2006:
“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
More recently, “Likud MK Moshe Feiglin called for Israel to reconquer the Gaza Strip and for the military to set up tent encampments for Gaza civilians near the Sinai border, “until relevant emigration destinations are determined.”
Feiglin puts it quite bluntly when he said that there are “no two states for two people; there is only one state for one nation.” Once Gaza has been fully taken, Feiglin declared, “The city of Gaza and its suburbs will be rebuilt as Israeli touristic and commercial sites.”
In a similar vein,
“Retired Israeli Major General Giora Eiland wrote in an op-ed that there is no such thing as an innocent civilian in Gaza.
“Late Monday, the former head of the National Security Council published an article on Ynet News arguing that the citizens of Gaza were as responsible for the recent violence as Hamas. He even made a comparison between the Gaza under Hamas and Nazi Germany.”
Eiland said, “[T]hey are to blame for this situation just like Germany’s residents were to blame for electing Hitler as their leader and paid a heavy price for that, and rightfully so.”
Since everyone is basically a terrorist, Eiland moved on to describe how the conflict should be solved:
“The moment it begins, the right thing to do is to shut down the crossings, prevent the entry of any goods, including food, and definitely prevent the supply of gas and electricity.”
If you think that Eilan was not serious, listen to this report by Human Rights Watch:
“Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes.”
The Israeli regime has repeatedly said that Hamas has used tunnels for their covert activity, but the BBC itself has acknowledged that “Before 2010, millions of dollars worth of food products were being smuggled into Gaza through tunnels every year.”
By 2000, Gaza has completely become a concentration camp, and Israel could care less about what the West thought:
“The screws were turned tighter during the 2000-5 uprising, and in 2007 the Gaza Strip was effectively sealed shut. All exports were banned, and just 131 truckloads of foodstuffs and other essential products were permitted entry per day.
“Israel also strictly controlled which products could and could not be imported. Prohibited items have included A4 paper, chocolate, coriander, crayons, jam, pasta, shampoo, shoes and wheelchairs.
“In 2010, commenting on this premeditated and systematic degradation of the humanity of an entire population, David Cameron characterised the Gaza Strip as a ‘prison camp’ and – for once – did not neuter this assessment by subordinating his criticism to proclamations about the jailers’ right of self-defence against their inmates.”
“Would you say that a person who criticizes the U.S. government is by definition anti-American?”
She quickly responded by saying, “No.” I proceeded to say, “How is it that Mearsheimer and Walt are by definition anti-Semites simply because they criticize Israel’s policy”?
Glick never responded. But I quickly realized that she was intellectually and morally deteriorating at an alarming rate.
This was illustrated in the summer of 2012 when European doctors began to question circumcision. Glick declared that these doctors had succumbed to a “European fetish” and were “keeping company with anti-Semites.”
But the sad part is that these people are acting like toddlers. They keep wining about anti-Jewish reactions as if they have nothing to do with it! Roger Cohen of the New York Times lamented a few days ago,
“For a growing number of Europeans, not having a negative opinion of Israel is tantamount to not having a conscience.”
Lynne Rabinoff writes an article in FrontPage entitled, “Jew-Hatred Flying Like Hamas’ Missiles.”
Israeli Jewish Congress president Vladimir Sloutsker has recently declared that
“We are potentially looking at the beginning of another Holocaust now. These events will only grow in scale across Europe.”
Natan Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency, declared, “The way things are developing in Europe, Jews will increasingly start to feel there is no future there.”
In other words, the recent Holocaust in Gaza is not that important, but everyone ought to be worrying about so-called future Holocaust! Who would be responsible for that?
And if Israeli officials are going to blame Hamas for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza, shouldn’t we turn the table around by blaming Jewish revolutionaries for the deaths of innocent Jews in Nazi Germany as well?
Finally, are Glick, Sloutsker, Sharansky and others seriously trying to tell us that they do not know where anti-Jewish reactions come from? Are they really going to say that Israel is actually the victim and not the perpetrator, as Robert Spencer has ridiculously propounded?
Did not Charles Murray tell us that “Jewish genius” is genetic—and yet they cannot figure out the most perennial issue throughout history?
Will Glick and others be stupid enough to say that Ban Ki-moon is also an anti-Semite for saying that Israel has certainly committed a “criminal act” for bombing a school in the city of Rafah in the south of Gaza?
The inquiring mind would certainly like to know.
 See Seymour M. Hersh, “Whose Sarin?,” London Review of Books, Vol. 35, No. 24, December 19, 2013.
 See for example Damien McElroy, “UN Accuses Syrian Rebels of Chemical Weapons Use,” The Telegraph, May 6, 2013; see also “UN’s Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels ‘used sarin,’” BBC, May 6, 2013.
 Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 127.
 Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest?: Interview with Benny Morris,” Counter Punch, January 16, 2004.
 See for example Ami Pedahzur and Arie perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 Scott Peterson, “Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline of Warnings Since 1979,” Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011.
 Alistair Dawber, “Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent,” Belfast Telegraph, January 28, 2013; Elise Knutsen, “Israel Forcibly Injected African Immigrants with Birth Control, Report Claims,” Forbes, January 28, 2013; Talila Nesher, “Israel admits Ethiopian women were given birth control shots,” Haaretz, January 27, 2013.
 Elise Knutsen, “Israel Forcibly Injected African Immigrants with Birth Control, Report Claims,” Forbes, January 28, 2013.
 Seth J. Frantzman, “Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering: Believers in Eugenics Helped Birth Jewish State,” Jewish Daily Forward, April 2, 2014.
 For historical studies on this and other related issues, see Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2007); Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); Baylis Thomas, The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel’s Quest for Security through Dominance (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009); Neve Gordon, Israel’s Occupation (Berkley: The University of California Press, 2008); Arno J. Mayer, Plowshares into Swords: From Zionism to Israel (New York: Verso, 2008); Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).
 Larry Derfner, “Israel’s Everyday Racism — and How American Jews Turn a Blind Eye to It,” Jewish Daily Forward, August 12, 2013.
 Caroline B. Glick, “Mainstream Anti-Semitism,” Jerusalem Post, January 19, 2012.
 Caroline Glick, “Harvard, Jew Haters,
Motherhood and Israel,” FrontPageMag. com, February 21, 2012.
 Bruce Thornton, “Harvard Promotes the Palestinians’ Slow-Motion ‘Final Solution,’” FrontPageMag.com, February 8, 2012.
 Dershowitz, Case Against Israel’s Enemies, 79.
 Jamie Glazov, “Diagnosing the Gaza War,” FrontPageMag.com, February 5, 2009.
 Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkley: University of California Press, 2008), 357.
 For a recent essay, see Stephen M. Walt, “AIPAC Is the Only Explanation for America’s Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy,” CommonDream.org, July 23, 2014.
 Alan M. Dershowitz, “Analysis: Jewish Backing for Obama Good for Israel,” Jerusalem Post, November 9, 2012
 See for example Grant F. Smith, Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal (WA: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., 2007).
 For a study on this topic, see Yoram Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); For recent developments, see Glenn Greenwald, “Cash, Weapons and Surveillance: the U.S. is a Key Party to Every Israeli Attack,” The Intercept, August 4, 2014; Ali Jarbawi, “Israel’s Colonialism Must End,” NY Times, August 4, 2014.
 Jeff Stein, “Israel Flagged as Top Spy Threat to U.S. in New Snowden/NSA Document,” Newsweek, August 4, 2014.
 “Wiretapped: Israel Eavesdropped on John Kerry in Mideast Talks,” Spiegel, August 3, 2014.
 Quoted in Mouin Rabbani, “Israel Mows the Lawn,” London Review of Books, Vol. 36, No. 15, July 31, 2014.
 Rabbani, “Israel Mows the Lawn,” London Review of Books, Vol. 36, No. 15, July 31, 2014.
 Caroline C. Glick, “Israel Faces a Cynical World,” Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2012.
 Roger Cohen, “Why Americans See Israel the Way They Do,” NY Times, August 2, 2014.
 Lynne Rabinoff, “Jew-Hatred Flying Like Hamas’ Missiles,” FrontPage.com, august 4, 2014.
 Quoted in Sam Sokol, “We Are Looking at the Beginnings of a Holocaust,” Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2014.
 Quoted in Jessica Elgot, “Anti-Semitism Means The Future Of Europe’s Jews Is Under Threat, Says Natan Sharansky,” Huffington Post, July 31, 2014.
 Robert Spencer, “The Media’s Silence to Hamas’ Genocidal Venom,” FrontPagemag.com, August 6, 2014.
 Charles Murray, “Jewish Genius,” Commentary, April 7, 2007.
 Jason Burke, “Gaza School Attack Denounced as ‘Criminal Act’ by UN Chief,” Guardian, August 3, 2014.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.