The Economist has a great package on Israel at 60. It talks plainly about the spiritual crisis the society is in.
[T]alks on a Palestinian state look doomed to failure...a separation from the Palestinians may no longer be possible, forcing Israel to choose between enshrining a form of apartheid and relinquishing its Jewish character. Arab-Israelis are increasingly angry about being treated as second-class citizens.
Many Jews from the diaspora already view Israel as spiritually impoverished and uninviting.... For the first time since 1948, real existential threats to Israel, at least in its Zionist form, are on the horizon.
Bernard Avishai responds in Haaretz that Netanyahu is crazy to believe that Israelis' entrepreneurial boom can survive its treatment of the Palestinians:
Israelis, in other words, can't have an economy like Singapore's and an ethnic war like Serbia's.... By the way, if "genius" is the only thing that matters, then India has more geniuses than the whole Israeli population. And in case of endless war, what is carried "in people's heads" can be carried to other places. Already, over 30,000 Israelis live in the Bay area of California. [emphasis mine]
Thus spake the English and Israeli press. Hush. Don't let the Americans find out!
.
The Economist is half-owned by the Financial Times, now controlled by the Pearson group. Since the other half is owned by anonymous independent shareholders, one doesn't really know who is speaking, or whose interests are being served.
Shamefully, the Economist supported both the Vietnam and Iraq wars. If I had to guess, I'd venture that the undisclosed owners of the Economist are CFR members, promoting the interests of global plutocracy and neoliberalism.
Israel, of course, would be one of the little projects they're committed to — ergo, the Economist's siren calls for U.S. and British intervention in Iraq.
Until the Economist is willing to fully disclose its ownership, it has to be regarded largely as a droll advertorial.
I agree with Jim about the Economist (I think of Encounter whenever I see it, wonder why?), but the tenor was set at the beginning of the piece when they offered the shining hope of a future Israel, vibrant, safe, and home to 2/3 of world Jewry, having forged a peaceable 2 state solution, as opposed to a persistent divided and paranoid Israel faced with a dwindling Jewish population and big-time Brain Drain.
—————
I was astonished this morning to see the editiorial in Haaretz regarding Carter's visit:
"The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."
"Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted."
Wowza! Haaretz recognizes that calling a dog a cat does not make it a cat. Phil, you should be proud.
;)
Interesting, Jim, CFR! Now that's of course a well established scape goat in the larger paranoia universe.;)
Concerning the Economist ownership. I am not sure, if I understand. Isn't it always difficult to trace once shares are involved? Shares make ownership somehow fluid. No? And somehow anonymous?
But beyond the Financial Times Limited we are given the Rothschild, Cadbury, Schroder families among others.
http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html
Concerning the economical context I miss a special very early neoconservative collection site on the net. It had all matter of information, e.g. about an economic institutional triangle US (New York) – GB (London) – Israel (Tel Aviv).
It seemed to be some prelaunch before the debate went mainstream, and it was anonymous. And once it was disgussed everywhere it disappeared. But all other informations like special people and special media outlets turned out well informed later. At least to a nitwit like me.
The only thing that never ever turned up again was the business-institutions-triangle.
Unfortunately there are no traces in web archives. I think, I checked once.
Hi Oarwell, still around? A comment on the Carter by The Magnes Zionist, Jeremiah Haber.
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/yishar-kokhekha-amos-and-god-bless-you.html
Yishar Kokheha, Amos! And God Bless You, Jimmy!
When the Jews and the Palestinians have been liberated from their respective neuroses and nightmares,
When the generation of the Six-Day War has passed,
When the only people in Israel who buy into the volkish myths of political Zionism are the religious zionists, and a few ethnocentrists from the former Soviet Union,
When no serious Israeli intellectual, or progressive intellectual in the world, falls for the Israel-as-victim line,
.
"Concerning the Economist ownership. I am not sure, if I understand. Isn't it always difficult to trace once shares are involved? Shares make ownership somehow fluid. No? And somehow anonymous? But beyond the Financial Times Limited we are given the Rothschild, Cadbury, Schroder families among others." — nitwit
There's a distinction between publicly-traded and privately-held shares. Anyone who holds more than 5% of New York Times stock, for instance, would have to file an SEC form disclosing it. Not so, for privately-held Economist shares.
I was unaware that the Economist had disclosed the names (if not ownership percentages) of some of the ruling families. Hey, there's the Rothschilds! — speaking of "a well-established scapegoat in the larger paranoia universe." Bingo! There's your CFR connection. ;-)
"Hey, there's the Rothschilds! — speaking of "a well-established scapegoat in the larger paranoia universe." Bingo! There's your CFR connection. ;-)"
Hmmm? Bingo??
I can't really say that Rense com and the people who publish there are my favorites. This is of course straight from the Illuminati-Bloodlines-Secret-
Societies-Jesuit/Black-Pope-Evil-Money universe I forgot the most important part: Socialists! (for perspective and confusion)
I vaguely remember the context:
http://www.rense.com/general77/POWERS.HTM
"The Rothschilds are prominent in the Bilderbergers too. The Rothschilds were closely related to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Although many people today would not view the CFR as a secret society it was originally set up as part of a secret society and it was kept secret for many years, in spite of its awesome power. Carroll Quigley, professor of International Relations at the Jesuit Georgetown University, exposed the Round Table Group with his book Tragedy and Hope.(34) The Rothschilds supported Rhodes to form De Beers. (35) Later, Rhodes made seven wills which established a secret society modelled after the Jesuits and Masons to help bring in a One-World- Government centered upon Britain, and the Rhodes Scholarships.36
The inner group was established in Mar. 1891 and consisted of Rhodes, Stead, Lord Esher (Brett), and 33* Mason Alfred Milner.(33bb) A secondary circle of "potential members of the Circle of Initiates" consisted of the Jew Lord Balfour, Sir Harry Johnson, Lord Rothschild, Lord Grey and others. Initially, Lord Rothschild was part of the inner group of Rhode's secret society, but was replaced by his son-in-law Lord Rosebury who wasn't as conspicuous.37 The Fabian Socialists dominated the staff at Oxford when the Rhodes Scholars began arriving. These scholars then received indoctrination and preparation to become part of an international socialist New World Order.(38) The Round Table Group developed from the inner executive circle of Rhode's secret society. The outer circle was established after the start of the 20th century. The Round Table Group was extended after W.W. I by organizing a front organization the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council of Foreign Relations was the American part of this front. The inner circle continues to direct the outer circle and its two front organizations RIIA and CFR. The CER in turn set up a number of fronts including the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR)"
bibi is crazy alright!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html
top THAT gaffe obama!
I don't suppose anyone here has ever studied any of the social sciences, but I do recommend them. Thye help to immunise against the ridulous antisemitic conspiracy theories that liberals are so prone to, since liberals have no theory of social organisation of their own, and obviously society is organised in some way, so they go off into this bloodlines rubbish, with the sabbatians and the fifth-dimensional flesh-eating lizards.
Incidentally, those lizards, they may not be nice, but they're dead sexy, which may explain why they seem to own the media.
I would always stand in front of the Pratt House on 68th and say "it doesn't exist–only part of a larger, paranoid universe."
Nitwit, here's a nice article from the paranoid universe magazine, 'Foreign Affairs,' (more readable than 'Trialog,' the publication of the Trilateral Commish), dealing with a fantasy (dream-state, as per Richard Witty) of theirs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86308-p0/benn-steil/the-end-of-national-currency.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/yssnry
for you fans of minimalist URLs.
Their "blog" can be found at www.cfr.org. Cameos by Max "More Casualties, Please" Boot! Dan Kurtzer! Rampant establishmentarianism! Machievellian machinations!
Enjoy.
Thanks, Oarwell, good I came back here. Interesting subject.