Jeff Blankfort writes:
Hamas rockets didn't kill many civilians and to phrase such a question like that shows that J Street has no backbone. In fact, the poll shows what I have been trying to say: it won't be Jews that are going to lead America out of this morass. It's going to be folks like Freeman, like Mearsheimer and Walt, and people we have yet to hear from who are beginning to say, "we're fed up and not going to take it anymore."
Here's a telling quote from a Guardian editorial:
Let us hope for Israel’s sake that that is indeed the verdict. But before that question arises, there is another more pressing one: can the stranglehold of Israel’s leaders on American policy making be broken? If ever it can be, now is the time.”
That editorial appeared on June 27, 1982, in the old weekly edition which combined the Manchester Guardian, the Washington Post, and the French daily Le Monde.
Weiss: This is why I say, Look what J Street is up against, hardened attitudes inside the Jewish community. Build the bridge between progressive communities, and many Jews will cross it. You can't do this work without Jews. Hey Blankfort, you're Jewish.
{ 38 comments }
Why you apologise for JStreet all the time I don't know, Phil. Your fair weather friends, including MJ Rosenberg, will desert you when it gets down to the final question – is the US going to fight Israel or not?
J Street is AIPAC-lite.
I posted their disappointing email the other day, the one in which they only seem to care about "moderate Palestinians", and then only because "we need them".
I wrote to them requesting that they clarify their intent.
They never got back to me.
Hamas rockets didn't kill many civilians
And whose fault is that?
is the US going to fight Israel or not? Posted by: Rowan | March 25, 2009 at 01:49 AM
I use the term 'fight' because Israel isn't gonna just roll over the comparatively passive way south Africa did. Comparatively — and it took a decade and a half or so…
Why are you always harping on American Jewish attitudes to Israel? The large majority of staunch supporters of Israel in the US are non-Jews. The US has been pro-Zionist since the 1840's (YES, the 19th century), long before Jews were a significant part of the population.
So even if Israel-bashing "J-Street" DID represent the "mainstream" opinion of American Jews (which it doesn't) strong support would come from outside that deceitful organization.
If Jewish people cannot reform the Lobby. Then it is clear Jewish people cannot reform any other aspects of organized Jewry.
It is hierarchical, and the activities often concentrated on questing for hegemony. And identifying as Jewish means being of service to the pyramid.
The US has been pro-Zionist since the 1840's (YES, the 19th century), long before Jews were a significant part of the population.
Wasn't the term 'Zionist' first used in 1891, and the Zionist movement started in 1897? How likely is it that with only three years left in the century, many 19th century Americans would have time to hear about, much less become, Zionist? Please explain.
Hamas rockets were attempted murder. To pander to that thinking is of VERY questionable moral merit.
The reform of the Lobby that is needed is to shift from unconditional animosity to a conditional approach.
How can you tell the players? Difficult. Some Israelis that describe their thinking and policy as conditional, in fact harbor expansionist objectives. Some dissenters that describe their thinking and proposal (if they get that far) as conditional, in fact harbor a willingness to ethnically cleanse Jews from the region.
What is the goal? Cosmopolitan society? (Haifa in Israel, Haifa in Lebanon, Haifa in Syria, Haifa in Ramallah). Multi-cultural society? (Judaic Jerusalem in West Jerusalem, Islamic Jerusalem in East Jerusalem)
What is the goal?
Carrying on from my previous comment: it is impossible to reform organised Jewry;
How many commenters here with their intellects at work, actually realize the sheer skulduggery of actions required of Israelis and Jews to maintain the empire.
Drafted by myth and deception into going against the human spirit, left with a smile as their exploits are rewarded.
Richard, wtf are you waffling about?
The reform of the Lobby that is needed is to shift from unconditional support of Israeli de facto policy to a conditional approach.
Weiss: This is why I say, Look what J Street is up against, hardened attitudes inside the Jewish community.
Absolutely. It felt like that from the start. They have to be really careful and not estrange people. They have to meet people were they are.
Dan, I doubt that J-Street has the resources and staff to answer every inquiry or email. Keep in mind how many they may receive. Add the problems with spam and the not always correct filters. I didn't receive an answer either. But strictly, my question was answered a little later. I was curious about one journalist in the poll presentation. His questions were by far the most interesting. If I am correct even Phil mentioned him at one point. But thanks for the Juan Cole link. That was you right?
Hamas rockets were attempted murder. To pander to that thinking is of VERY questionable moral merit.
Look, Richard, hadn't we watched Arafat's fate in this context and the huge perception management hammering into our heads that it was all only his fault that the peace process failed, we would much more easily agree with you now.
Plus that there were huge efforts to try to update this vision for the whole West after 911. Israel on the front line, defending European values and survival in the Middle East. This is the main reason many Americans and Europeans took a closer look and started to see the many prevarications.
There is one big story in European history that is much on my mind, since it doesn't get the attention it deserves here. The Russian revolution can't be understood without the Czar and his court fleeing into mysticism and inner immigration confronted with change all around them in Europe, trying to stem the tide of time. Something about Israel feels similar. The Times They Are A-Changing.
Sorry, I somehow keep mixing up Colin and Dan.
No, I didn't. It's in my head only. I once had the impression, I did.
The times should change, by reforms.
People that are unwilling to adopt reform as the mode, risk (more than risk) harming more than they heal.
Its a LAZY approach, indicating a LACK of commitment to cause, to humanity.
it's a lonely journey from PEP to anti-zionist… don't expect a big pot of matzoh ball soup on the other end, but maybe the truth…
To Colin Murray:
I don't know exactly when the term "Zionist" was first used. The event in 1897 you are referring to was Herzl's convening of the First Zionist Congress which was the first organized, official attempt to make political Zionism and organized movement. However, groups of non-Jews, primarily in England and the US were talking about setting up a Jewish state in Eretz Israel as early as the 1830's. In 1840 a special organization was set up in Britain to propagate the idea. President Lincoln openly endorsed it. Among Jews themselves, the first modern attempt to organize settlement by purchasing land and going to agricultural work was made around 1800 by students of the famous Lithuanian Rabbi knows as the "Vilna Gaon". By 1860 groups were organizing on a large scale to expand the area of Jewish settlement in the country and they were getting support for this in the US and Britain, from Jews and non-Jews, although there was no organized, centralized political framework for this. Herzl was the one who accomplished this.
Wasn't the term 'Zionist' first used in 1891, and the Zionist movement started in 1897? How likely is it that with only three years left in the century, many 19th century Americans would have time to hear about, much less become, Zionist? Please explain.
Exactly Colin. The vast majority of Americans in 2009 have no idea what Zionism is, its history, etc. That includes a good portion of American Jews as well.
Americans just "support" Israel (if answering a poll question favorably in regards to Israel is considered "support") because of the lies and propaganda they're fed about it by the mainstream news sources. Most think that Israel is a democracy surrounded by a sea of irrational Arabs and Muslims. They're told of Hamas "rockets", are given no historical or present context, and that's it. Then they go see who won the next American Idol.
Dan, I doubt that J-Street has the resources and staff to answer every inquiry or email. Keep in mind how many they may receive. Add the problems with spam and the not always correct filters. I didn't receive an answer either.
Yes, I've of course taken that into consideration, LeaNder.
The larger point is not that they didn't answer an email, rather that their words indicate a clear bias towards Palestinians, and an overall Zionist mindset, albeit less hawkish.
To someone who has the gall to call himself "Bar Kochba", 1830 must seem like a day or two ago.
bar_kochba132 raises the point that there have been Judeophile Christian "Zionist" groups (whether or not they called themselves that) in the West for a long time.
This is true, but they have historically been extremely fringe. The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have subscribed to the New Covenant belief, or Replacement Theology, that God replaced the Jews with Christians as the people under covenant after the Jews rejected Jesus Christ.
But what I find most interesting is this Zionist attempt to rewrite history now that it hopes to enlist the Christian West in a "Judeo-Christian" war against Islam.
Apparently when it is to their benefit in setting up their Zionist state, Jewish Zionists insist that they will never be accepted in the Christian West, because Christians are forever out to persecute and kill them. But now that they hope to enlist Western support for their expansionism and their desired holocaust against Muslims, suddenly the West has a long tradition of mainstream Judeophile Christian Zionism, suggests bar_kochba132 and other Zionists operatives slinging the Judeo-Christian narrative.
Hence, we get to yet another in a growing list of reasons why Zionists are so despised: they lie, massage, and manipulate the facts in order to advance their latest agenda and subjugate masses of non-Jews into doing their bidding and shedding their own blood on behalf of Jewish supremacists interests. And they partner with treacherous and craven Judas Christians and gentiles to do this.
Any "Christian" or gentile who would collaborate with a Jewish Zionist is a betrayer of humanity and a snake in the grass, perhaps of an order even lower than the Jewish Zionist himself.
Hence we get reptilian pseudo Christians like John Hagee and Jerry Falwell preaching “dual covenant” theology as a means of subjugating Christians to their Zionist masters. Falwell was once given a Lear jet by the Israeli government, and John Hagee created Christian’s United for Israel with Zionists in order for both to profiteer from Christian Zionist theology and cultivate a climate whereby Christians would happily sacrifice themselves in wars for Israel.
Each has received somewhat more than 30 pieces of silver from their Zionist partners, but their betrayals is the same. With “Christians” like these, who needs Jews?
Thanks for your response, bar_kochba132. I did some digging, and you are certainly correct that Zionism is a term that was labeled to an ongoing process. I could not, however, (and with only minuscule time to devote to it) find any data to quantify the level of support, or its origin, i.e. whether it was rooted in antisemitic desire to encourage Jews to leave America, as it was in European countries before 1945. Then there is the question of how many 19th century American Jews supported it.
I do not think it is valid to interpolate a history of American support from Zionism over 150 years from several datum. It would be like having three hourly-averaged air temperature measurements at different times from different days and trying to estimate the monthly-averaged temperature.
Finally, there is the consideration of relevance. Does it matter whether there was or wasn't some arbitrary level of support for Zionism 150 years ago? It doesn't change current reality at all. As Dan Kelly pointed out, most Americans have no idea what Zionism is beyond a few talking points, and even less idea about what is actually happening in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
I don't have the reference at hand, but I have saved in my archives an article quoting an Israel official assessing American support for Israel as 'widespread but thin'. That is my own assessment as well, based upon my own personal experience and what I observe in others directly or indirectly that learn about this conflict, and it is why Zionists are so worried about American public support.
I'm starting to get sick of this one. Israel was not started, then established, solely by Jews. Remember, there was a supporting cast of great powers on and off the stage, Great Britian, France, Russia, the US, each in their time and place.
And it'll take more than Jews to pressure Israel into any kind of meaningful change.
One thing I never forgot, assuming I didn't make it up, was when I complained to my Dad about anti semitic remarks, and he told me the way to avoid any anti-semitism was to only have Jewish friends, only mix with Jews.
I disagree with Phil…and do believe that…
"it won't be Jews that are going to lead America out of this morass. It's going to be folks like Freeman, like Mearsheimer and Walt, and people we have yet to hear from who are beginning to say, "we're fed up and not going to take it anymore."
And I have been saying that for years. The nature of the Jewish communty,even the doves on Palestine, is such that they are not and will never go "far enough" to really change anything. And there are not enough doves in jewish political scene to have any $$$ clout. And most of the doves won't challenge all the issues we have with Israel like the foreign aid we give them…they still favor continuing the idea of Israel as our 'special' client state…i.e….they are still as dedicated to Israel as AIPAC, just differ in how Israel should behave.
The question for most Americans is the US-Isr "special" relationship "itself" and whether it should be continued and most of us think Not.
That is why it is impossible for even the critical Jews to lead the reform of the US-Isr marriage made in political campaign money hell.
It's going to be the non jewish public, the Carters, the Col. Langs, the W&M's and the growing group of both former and current officials and experts in the foreign policy circles that are now speaking out loud and clear and ignoring and even ridiculing the anti semite slurs of the more rabid zionistas.
This is just fact and how it is going to happen….but at the same time we have to acknowledge the importance of those Jews in the press and bloggers like Phil for helping to open the way and provide cover for the public figure non jews to speak. They can kick the ball, but alone they can't get it to the real goal post…which is that Israel should be treated as any other foreign country we deal with acording to their behavior and true US and universal humanitarian interest.
Watch who your heros are, go beyond children's songs:
@bar_kochba132
Yehoshafat Harkabi ( prominent columnist and former chief of Israeli military intelligence) marked his transition from uncompromising hardliner to supporter of peace with a Palestinian state with a 1978 open letter to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in which he termed Bar Kokhva "an irresponsible adventutrer who brought disaster upon the Jewish People." He drew an explicit contemporary parallel to Israel's holding on to the Occupied Territories, which in Harkabi's view might cause a new such disaster.
At the time of Bar Kokhva, most Christians were Jewish. Bar Kokhva was proposed as a new messiah, but the Jewish Christian sect already had their messiah, a higher one, they believed. This deepened the split among the orthodox and reformed Jews. A common sense approach would say that Jesus didn't think
worshiping money and circumcision, and keeping Judaism free of goy blood, was in the highest Jewish humanitarian spirit. Those who disagreed left descendants of those Jews, those who today disagree with the concept of Christians as being (a la Ann Coulter) "perfected Jews."
Anyway, at least a half-million Jews were crushed by the Romans during this period–if you believe the Talmud, three million. Who's right, Jupiter or G-D?
I don't understand how Jews can keep Gentiles out of any attempt to reform the lobby. By its own definition and literature, AIPAC describes itself as simultaneously American and Israeli. I understand AIPAC has kept the Gentiles out, the latest example being Chas Freeman, but isn't it in any Americans interests, Jewish or not, to look into USA foreign policy? And isn't this especially so considering the welfare doles to Israel in relation to our bankruptcy and Uncle Sam's vetoes in the the UN?
Can anyone here help me understand what is going on?
The larger point is not that they didn't answer an email, rather that their words indicate a clear bias towards Palestinians, and an overall Zionist mindset, albeit less hawkish.
I still believe, they have to be careful. Actually Jeremy Ben-Ami's exchange with Rabbi Steve Gutow (link) supports this. Ben-Ami mentions he is never invited to events. I think Gutow somehow expresses surprise or at least denies any awareness of it. I wonder if that was quite honest.
The event in 1897 you are referring to was Herzl's convening of the First Zionist Congress which was the first organized, official attempt to make political Zionism and organized movement.
Where also the "World Zionist Organization" was founded. And when Chaim Weizmann was elected president in 1921, the headquarters were moved from Berlin to London. Correct?
Now I really have to leave.
The bar_kochba132 's are so ignorant it would be almost laughable except for the fact that they evidenlty belive their own crap. They really, really need an education and they should start here.
http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/titledetails.asp?tid=124
ORDER
ENQUIRY FORM
Near & Middle East Titles:
Zionist Movement And The Foundation Of Israel 1839–1972, The
Resumé
——————————————————————————–
These ten volumes draw together documents found in the British National Archives to trace the origins and development of the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, with specific reference to the idea, and eventually the goal, of establishing a Jewish homeland. Material is relatively sparse in the 19th century and volume 1 is rather an historical volume covering the rise of Zionism, including the work of Theodor Herzl and the first Zionist Congress at Basle, ending in 1916 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The bulk of the material, volumes 2 to 8, relates to the years 1916-1948 when the Zionist debate raged, the movement became factionalised, split, and eventually, partly because of events surrounding World War II, achieved its goal of the creation of Israel. Volume 10, like volume 1 ranges over a greater number of years in less detail, covering the period after the creation of Israel in 1948 to the most recent releases by the British government from 1972, when the main question for Zionism, perhaps, was whether it still had a role to play beyond the inception of the State.
Back to top
Arrangement of volumes
——————————————————————————–
Volume 1: 1839-1916
Volume 2: 1917-1918
Volume 3: 1919-1928
Volume 4: 1928-1934
Volume 5: 1935-1937
Volume 6: 1937-1940
Volume 7: 1941-1945
Volume 8: 1945-1946
Volume 9: 1946-1948
Volume 10: 1948-1972
Back to top
Key documents
——————————————————————————–
The following list summarises, from the collection, documents of particular importance in considering the development of Zionism. Volume and section references are given.
[1: 86] Herzl´s view is that the Jews are partly accused of living off host nations and he raises the argument for a Jewish Homeland from The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (c.1896)l [1:1]
l 1916, Lucien Wolf, respected journalist and leading member of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of British Jews, writing to James de Rothschild, argues against Zionism which sees "Jews as aliens in foreign lands" as being similar to anti-Semitism in insisting that Jews will never be integrated into other cultures
[2.12] April 1917, Sir Mark Sykes, under instructions from the Prime Minister and Mr Balfour has been assisting Nahum Sokolov in looking for a solution to the Jewish problem and invites Mr Weizmann, another prominent Zionist to join them
[2.65] August 1917, E.S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, circulating a memorandum criticising "The Anti-Semitism of the Present [British]Government" explaining that by suggesting a Jewish National Home they will increase anti-Semitism in every country where Jews presently reside
[2.114] March 1918, Lord Curzon forwarding a copy of the programme which Suleiman Bey Nassif and the Arabs are going to present to the Zionist Commission as a basis for mutual understanding between Palestinians and Zionists, particularly that land sales should be suspended lest due to the general impoverishment caused by the war they become exploitative
[2.116] April 1918, Dr Weizmann to Louis Brandeis, reporting the reaction to the Balfour Agreement in Palestine itself among the population. He states that the British Army who know little of the politics are informing the people that they have come to liberate the country from the Turks and hand it over to the Jews
[2.118] April 1918, Military Governor of Jerusalem reporting on a dinner party at which Dr Weizmann and the Grand Mufti were present, Weizmann is reported as explaining Zionist aims to dispel misconceptions and the Mufti as looking forward to a spirit of co-operation
[2.135] June 1918, Brigadier Clayton to the Political Officer of the Zionist Commission regarding excisions required from the notes of the 17th Meeting of the Zionist Commission before they can be passed by the British government for public view
[3.33] April 1919, letter from Lord Balfour to Dr Weizmann, regarding the future of Zionism and current anti-Zionist propaganda in Palestine
[3.93] November 1921, leaflet published by the British Committee of the Palestine Arab Delegation
[3.106] January 1927, comments respecting Zionism, by the Polish Press, during a visit by Sir W. Deedes, such as "Zionism is a reactionary movement supported by the Jewish bourgeoisie and British Imperialism"
[3.120] February 1928, evidence of 3 major individual Zionist donors: Warburg, Rosenwats, and Rockfeler, promising some $10,000,000 to the Russian Government in return for assurances in respect of Jewish colonies to be set up in Siberia
[4.66] Arabs bitterly opposed the Balfour declaration and land sales to Jews. Arab violence broke out in 1922 and 1929, Arabs found themselves in conflict with the Mandatory government
l February 1933, Cabinet paper expressing disquiet at the growth of a new class of poverty-stricken Arabs, caused by the sale, by Arab landowners, of land they had previously cultivated as tenant farmers
[4.87] March 1934, Extract from the Jewish Chronicle, reporting the reception of Dr Weizmann by Mussolini
[4.92] October 1934, Jewish Telegraphic Agency Bulletin, expressing opposition to the formation of a Legislative Council under current circumstances given that the present circumstances would condemn the Jews to be a minority population
[5.13] August 1935, 19th World Zionist Congress: David Ben Gurion draws a comparison between the treatment of Jews in Germany and conditions under the Spanish Inquisition; the Misrachi Orthodox wing of the movement announces a refusal to participate in the conference because of their view that there is irreligion in Palestine; Dr Weizmann, who had resigned as President of the World Zionist Organisation in 1931, was elected President of this 19th Congress
[5.30] January 1936, private meeting between David Ben Gurion, Dr Weizmann, Mr Shertok and Sir A. Wauchope, High Commissioner of Palestine: this meeting is in reaction to the British Government proposal to setting up a subsistence area for small owners, a measure to allay Arab fears over the extent of Jewish land purchases. Dr Weizmann sees it as "his life´s work ruined"
[5.43] April 1936, Presidency of the New Zionist Organization to the Colonial Secretary voicing concerns about the recent murder of Jewish settlers, and further to that stating that the underlying cause of the murders is the misconception in Arab minds that settlement growth should be subject to Arab agreement. The offer by the British Government of a Legislative Council to run the country, in their view, only adds to this misconception
[5.44] April 1936, V. Jabotinsky, New Zionist Organization, to Sir Josiah Wedgwood thanking him for his concern to reunite the split Zionist organisation but repeating the reasons for the rift as being of supreme importance, for example the Zionist Organisation supported the mass sale of German goods in Palestine
[6.10] April 1939, Report from German Embassy, Washington on Aryanisation in Germany. Deliberate removal of Jewish businesses and property into German hands. Document presenting it as a lawful exchange
[6.55] September 1939, V. Jabotinsky, President of the New Zionist Organization to Prime Minister N. Chamberlain, openly stating the aspirations of the New Zionist Organization, "the most uncompromising conception of State" and suggesting the reformation of the Jewish Legion as a recruitment drive to Jews worldwide to get behind the allies
[6.56] September 1939, reaction of V. Jabotinsky to the 1939 White Paper: he suggests that on the eve of war and in the face of the situation for Jews in Europe, that the British Government should either ignore illegal immigration or increase the immigration quota
[6.64] March 1940, the question of an alternative Jewish Homeland, perhaps in British Guiana is raised but the British Government decides "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come"
[7.1] June 1941, Antony Eden Foreign Secretary admitting that "the situation in the Middle East has now passed the point when a conciliatory move by the Jews…would have any chance of success"
[7.3] October 1941, secret despatch from the High Commissioner for Palestine to the Colonial Secretary concerning terrorist activities of the Irgun Zvaei Leumi
[7.19]August 1942, Foreign Office admitting the removal of documents from the luggage of David Ben Gurion on his recent trip to the USA. According to notes in the documents, Zionism now has two objectives: a Jewish Army and a Jewish State, with a Jewish Army being the main means of achieving a Jewish State
[7.24] June 1942, Special Operations Executive has been working in Palestine and judges that the Jewish population would work with the allied forces to deny an invading force but that they would also be working to further their "parochial nationalist aspirations". Nonetheless, the High Commissioner of Palestine accepts this duality in the face of occupation by axis powers
[7.30] April 1943, King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia speaking out against the opportunistic propaganda activities of American Zionists and claiming that even were there no Arabs in Palestine there would not be room enough for the Jews of the world
[7.108] December 1944, after the murder of Lord Moyne, Lord Halifax, British Ambassador in Washington sends a telegram with extracts from the US Jewish press, for example: "What is it that leads to a despair so bitter and hopeless, that it leads even so small a minority as the Palestinian [sic] terrorists to the extremity of taking human life, knowing that their own life almost certainly will be forfeit too?”
[7.139] August 1945, World Zionist Conference, Dr Weizmann reserves particular criticism for the 1939 White Paper that restricted immigration of Jews into Palestine and saved too few from the holocaust in Europe. He warns that while the war was on the Zionists fought with the British but now the rift caused by the policies in the 1939 White Paper threatens to open again
[8.8] September 1945, Chargé in Iraq writes expressing the concern among Arabs at the pressure being exerted by the USA upon the British government "…President Truman is urging the British Government to open Palestine to Zionist immigration, thereby promoting the interests of Zionists and the realisation of their ambitions."
[8.44] January 1946, British Consul, New York reporting a mass demonstration for Jewish freedom put on by the New Zionist Organization of America. "It was constantly patrolled by the Betarim, the new Jewish Youth Army, attired in a Hebrew version of the old Nazi Bund uniform." "Great Britain was public enemy no. 1 of the Jewish people, more dangerous and shrewder than the Nazis…"
[8.65] February 1946, formation of B´rith Trumpeldor of America or Betar, affiliated with the NZO. "there is noticeable similarity in the organisation´s character, structure and aims to those of the Hitler Youth…", reported by British Embassy, Washington
[8.76] March 1946, British Foreign Office memorandum on the situation in Palestine: "The belief that the fundamental cause of the Jewish tragedy is Jewish homelessness gains a widening currency… and banishes historical perspective. The Jewish State is the panacea…"
[8.103] April 1946, Outline Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry. Expected hostile reactions from both the Jewish and Arab sides
[9.26] January 1947, one of a series of at least 5 meetings between representatives of the Jewish Agency and the British Cabinet, Foreign and Colonial Offices. Those present included, on the British side: the Foreign Secretary, Colonial Secretary, Prime Minister, the Cabinet Minister; and those present for the Jewish Agency included: David Ben Gurion, Moshe Shertok, Professor Brodetsky, Nahum Goldman and Mr Neumann
[10.48] January 1949, Mr Bevin, British Foreign Secretary, considering the present need to recognise the Government of Israel, and diplomatic moves to get the USA to recognise Transjordan
Your understaning of America history is even more ignorant.
Your comments evidently come from the zionist writers who are constantly trying to put forth, as they all do, that American founding and founders were somehow interwined with the zionist ideology and jews. The same way they try to promote that Israel and the US are alike and by using terms like the US is a "Judeo"- Christian Nation.Nothing could be further from the truth.
First if you educate about the real begining of zionism you will find it didn't pentrate the US until well into the last of the 19 century and mostly only the begining of the 20 century and didn't even really take hold until WWII.
Jews in the US had until then referred to themselves and were referrd to by everyone else as "Israelities". were organized as "Israelities" around their "religion", not zionism or idea of creating the state of Israel. Even in the early day of America, jews were organized to themselves, seperate from the rest of the population in all matters of common interest and concentrated on themselves or their "sect" as evidenced by their request even back then for specific benefits to jews alone ..but then it was motivated purely by "tribal religious elements" not the idea of a Jewish nation in Palestine.
All the recent propaganda about early founders supporting an Israel state or even the idea of one is just that….pure propaganda. There is nothing and no evidence in US history of this that is why the zionist who try to portray America as related to zionist ideology can cite nothing to prove it but twist instead the founders quit clear stands on "religious freedom" and try to use that to somehow link it to America as supporting zionism even before zionism existed.
If you studied real history of Lincoln you would know that the only connection between Lincoln and the jews was Lincoln's stand against religious discrimination and minorities which was part of parcel of his own fight against slavery. The jews were "only incidential applications" to Lincoln's core beliefs about slavery and his following of the earlier founders edicts of religious freedom..
For example when Grant banned jewish carpet baggers from Union occupied areas of the South and Lincoln recended the order he specified that the "specific jews" who were a problem could be banned but the ban couldn't be applied to all jews as a "class" or else it would be a "religious infringment" …once again showing his broad ideas abouyt religion and minorities but not any "specific affinity" for jews alone above any other religious or minority.
Here's Lincoln's exact reply to Grant expelling the jews delivered by Gen. Halleck to Grant…..
"The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers which I suppose was the object of your order.” “But as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, the President deems it necessary to revoke it ."
I have never seen anything quite like the effort of the Jews to "revise" and make up history…particulary when it is so easy to disprove and debunk. I have seen zionist writers try to claim Lincoln was jewish, Geo Washington was jewish…they get more and more wild and absurd with nary a scrap of evidence to back up any of their claims. They must think no one in America ever studied American or World history.
"Judeo-Christian" values–trying to weld together two historical opposites. American politicians actually get away with this! You can't go wrong underestimating the ignorance of the masses–and their lack of intellectual curiosity (any masses). Yeah, the jews were ripping off the Union troops, defying Lincoln's
monetary and fiscal rules right and left. But Lincoln slapped Grant, who should have known not to
blanket all Jews with his order–Grant was too pre-occupied with the daily grind of actually winning the war in the field. Israel should take a lesson from this episode in USA history. Where is Israel's Lincoln?
"but at the same time we have to acknowledge the importance of those Jews in the press and bloggers like Phil for helping to open the way and provide cover for the public figure non jews to speak."
Maybe Phil will get the Nobel Peace Prize.
If Phil leads America out of it's troubles, wouldn't that mean the Jews were leading us? Don't want that. Maybe Phil should resign and give his blog over to Freeman. I'm sure the Saudis would be happy to finance it.
Julian's comment shows just how much Jews like him/her spit at normal Americans, those who have given
diaspora jews everything anyone could ever imagine. Seems time for normal Americans to NOT turn the other cheek. Let All Americans get downright Jewish about the situation. Where do you think Julian will end up? A blessing, right?
"Judeo-Christian" values–trying to weld together two historical opposites… Posted by: America Asks | March 25, 2009 at 04:59 PM
How old is this expression "Judeo-Christian", anyway? it can't be more than a few decades. It only makes sense as a rhetorical, coded way of saying "anti-Muslim".
Nothing like equating two totally different POVs & value systems by the use of a hyphen. The term came into popular use in the USA (pushed by guess who) as a propaganda effort during WW2 to suggest to goys that they were not simply fighting a war for the jews. Here's the history:
http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_JC.htm
oh, I see: it was aimed against supposed Nazi 'paganism', not against Islam. Thank you.
Yep. You're welcome. The connection is of obvious importance since the Hitler-Chamberlin (sic?) model is constantly brought up in the USA whenever anyone asks about Israeli activities and the USA's funding of same and endlessly repeating Likud narrative.
Comments on this entry are closed.