Abrams and Ross blame Palestinians for failure of peace process– and never say the word ‘settlements’

Israel/Palestine
on 46 Comments

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a thinktank that was spun off from the Israel lobby group AIPAC and that works hard to preserve the special relationship between Israel and the United States. This attitude was on display a week ago, when WINEP presented former policy-makers Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross with awards as scholars and statesmen.

The ensuing discussion with Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute is fascinating for several reasons. There is no pretense of balance in the conversation: all three men are always on Israel’s side and fearful for its security. The Palestinians are blamed over and over as rejectionists; the word settlements is never mentioned. Asked why there is no peace, Ross states that Arafat’s very “identity” was against accepting Israel.

Yes and what about Jewish identity, and Zionist identity? Abrams says his greatest accomplishments in office were acts involving Jews, including asserting the Jewish right to colonize the West Bank. And you will see that Ross and Abrams are both strongly Jewish-identified; they speak of the cultural change inside the Establishment during the 70s and 80s, when Jews began to take policy positions. Ross describes a moment at the Pentagon when he supported Israel during a realist conversation about supplying arms to Israel and everyone looked at him like the scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen is suddenly seen by the gentile family to be wearing “payos” — sidelocks.

Abrams describes a similar moment with George Shultz at State in the 80s, then asserts, amazingly, that Jews are discriminated against in hiring by the FBI and CIA and other government agencies. 

I do not believe, unfortunately, that it [nondiscrimination] has permeated the CIA and FBI. I still find young people who I think are at a disadvantage in getting into those services or in getting promoted or in getting assignments because of their religion and because of, really, quite limited connections with Israel.

My annotations: 

Abrams is asked what his best achievement was in gov’t service. Note that his two bests have to do with Jews, the second asserting the legality of the settlements, which he can’t call settlements.

ABRAMS: I’m going to have to give you two—divide them in half. Working for [Henry] “Scoop” Jackson and Ronald Reagan on what ultimately became a million Russian Jews moving to Israel, which really has changed Israel. [Applause] And then the famous letter: the April 14, 2004, letter of President Bush to Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister Sharon, which for the first time said clearly: Israel is going to keep the major [settlement] blocs, and there is no “right of return.” [Applause]

I like this Iraq bit. No one in the Israel lobby can admit this.

SATLOFF: Was the Iraq war a mistake?

ROSS: Maybe.

ABRAMS: Too soon to tell.

Here is Abrams saying we didn’t go far enough in supporting Israel against Jewhaters in the Arab world.

ABRAMS:I think we have let the Palestinians, for too long, get away with raising, now, two generations of Jewhaters. You know, the word we use is incitement, which is not as nasty a word as it ought to be, because we’re talking about terrible forms of anti-Semitism here. And it goes on year after year after year… public opinion polls throughout the Arab world, but particularly in the West Bank and Gaza, show that five- and ten-year-old kids have horrendous attitudes not just toward Israel but toward Jews. I cannot believe that if, over the last thirty years, the United States made this a central issue, we wouldn’t be in a different position. But we never did.

Here is Dennis Ross talking about Jews gaining positions in the Establishment.

In 1977, the Israelis requested a ten-year arms-supply relationship… I was in the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and I was asked to be one of about twenty people to assess this… And they’re going around the room, and every agency is represented, from the White House, the NSC all the different offices in the State Department, in the Pentagon, and everyone’s going around the room saying, they don’t need it. They can beat any combination of Arabs. So, it gets to me, and I say, well, that’s really not the right measure, is it? And I say, you know, we should be evaluating this in terms of, does it enhance Israeli deterrence—because if it enhances Israeli deterrence, then it reduces the prospect of war, number one. Number two, does it reduce the need for us to have to resupply the Israelis quickly—because the resupply in 1973 contributed to what was a potential confrontation with the Soviet Union. And so, if we don’t have to resupply right away, then that may reduce the prospect of us and the Soviets getting into something. And the third thing I said was, we should be focused on the whole issue of rapid war termination—does this make rapid war termination more likely, because, again, it reduces the prospects of escalation. And, you know, from an American standpoint, this is really in our vital interests. Now, everybody around that table looked at me—how many people here saw the movie Annie Hall? [Laughter] And you know when he’s with her family, and they look at him as wearing payos?  [Laughter] Everybody around that table was looking at me as if I had payos. And they’re going, we didn’t know he was Jewish. You know, in the beginning, I felt this a lot. Over time, after the impact of George Shultz, I felt it much less.

Abrams speaks of the same cultural shift:

a Sandinista mob, at one point, set fire to the doors of a synagogue during a Sabbath service. Set fire to the doors, people were inside the synagogue. And there was a cable from the U.S. embassy in Managua saying, you know, this is an unfortunate incident, it’s a matter of concern, we shouldn’t go overboard on it—doesn’t really depict . . . It was an unbelievable cable, and I took it to Secretary Shultz and I said to him: for the first time, I understand what the State Department was like in the 1930s, when Jews were trying to get visas. And I wasn’t sure what his reaction was going to be, and his reaction was—he said, tomorrow morning at our senior staff meeting, I’m calling on you. So we all go to the senior staff meeting the next morning [and] he says, “Elliott has an interesting cable he needs to tell us about.” And he asked me to repeat the story, so that the message was crystal clear throughout the building, you know, and at all levels, what his view was. Now, I have to say, I think that view has permeated the State Department; I agree with Dennis. I do not believe, unfortunately, that it has permeated the CIA and FBI. I still find young people who I think are at a disadvantage in getting into those services or in getting promoted or in getting assignments because of their religion and because of, really, quite limited connections with Israel. So, I think, thanks to George Shultz and some others, we’ve done it at State; we have not done it throughout the U.S. government entirely.

46 Responses

  1. MLE
    December 15, 2012, 11:45 am

    Can I ask why when anyone interviews some talking head from WINEP they never mention the connection to AIPAC or that this pundit may not be the most impartial source? It drives me nuts.

  2. Krauss
    December 15, 2012, 11:49 am

    Get these guys talking for a few dozens hours without knowing they’re being recorded and you end up with material that makes the Protocols Elders of Zion look like a kid’s story.

  3. Citizen
    December 15, 2012, 11:52 am

    And now, the political realists in the entire world look at the entire American State Department as wearing payos. Many cannot even distinguish Old Glory from the Israeli Flag and those flags are often depicted in hybrid fashion. So, there’s still a little Israel First work to do at lower and middle levels at CIA and FBI, and maybe even at HMS?

    • Krauss
      December 15, 2012, 12:03 pm

      Yup, everyone who isn’t A) Jewish(and it has to be the ‘right wing kind’ of Jewish) or B) Adelson’s goyish clown, is going to get creamed – at least if these two guys would get what they wanted.

      Thankfully, we’re about to enter 2013, not 2003.
      The times have changed – for the better – for America which inevitably means that it has also changed for the worse for people like them, trusted insiders of the lobby.

      Also, notice this Freudian slip, from Abrams:

      We’ve done it at State; we have not done it throughout the U.S. government entirely.”

      Who are ‘we’? And the way he talks about it makes it come off as a deliberate plan, or at least part of one.

      Revealing stuff. And they say the Israel Lobby is a dark, conspiratorial fantasy. Actually, it’s staring you in the face, even gloating loudly.

      • American
        December 15, 2012, 1:25 pm

        The brain wiring in these people really is messed up….first Abrams says this:

        “I do not believe, unfortunately, that it [nondiscrimination] has permeated the CIA and FBI. I still find young people who I think are at a disadvantage in getting into those services or in getting promoted or in getting assignments because of their religion and because of, really, quite limited connections with Israel.”

        Then he says this:

        “We’ve done it at State; we have not done it throughout the U.S. government entirely.”

        As If——- there is no connection. He’s complaining that other US agencies have resisted being infiltrated by Israeli agents…lol, gawd.

  4. Ramzi Jaber
    December 15, 2012, 11:56 am

    Thanks Phil for this. It’s quite despicable that these two supposedlyAmericans tout their achievements for a foreign state, and a criminal rogue state at that. Anyways, I’m very tired of their/winep/aipac/evangelists blabbing in support of the criminal zionist regime.

    I’d like to share three sad thoughts as 2012 draws to an end…

    1) The 2SS is no longer possible.
    Why? Quite simply because the jews of israel do not want it. They believe their missile shields and the wall are protecting them from making any concession for peace.

    2) israel will never withdraw to the 67 line.
    Why? Never in history did an occupying power relinquish occupied territory without force. Since the time that Egypt signed a “peace” treaty with the colonial israel regime, the threat of Arab military force was removed from the table. Even with the MB, Egypt will never be able to put a credible military threat to israel on the table for a very simple reason: the Egyptian military depends totally on the US and the US only provides 3-5 days worth of ammunition to the Egyptians (enough to control the Egyptian people though). A colonialist occupier can only change its ways when the pain of the occupation becomes greater than the pain of withdrawal. Without a military option, this pain equation will not change.

    3) Obama is a colossal disappointment.
    Why? The UNGA vote on Nov 29 presented a great opportunity for the US to abstain at a minimum. This would have been a true game changer. O buckled again even though he has no more a re-election constraints.

    So, where does this leave us? Well, looking back at the history of the (un)Holy Land, we can easily see that war was the norm, interspersed with periods of “calm”, not peace.

    So we are doomed to continued war (and an upcoming third intifida that may have just gotten ignited in Al Khalil) until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 or so. Palestinians, if anything, are a very patient people!!!!!!!!

    • chinese box
      December 15, 2012, 5:54 pm

      @Ramzi

      I agree with all your points, but I wonder if a third intifada is possible at this point, and if so what form it would take. In terms of rock throwing, etc., the Palestinians are physically isolated from the Israelis by the wall and outsourced PA “security” at this point and Israel seems to have gradually replaced Palestinian labor with guest workers from Thailand and other places, so a general strike doesn’t seem viable. I’m assuming non-violent resistance would be the answer, but would the Israelis even care at this point? That leaves the rockets. While I understand why they are using the rockets, I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea or strategy for a number of reasons.

  5. Les
    December 15, 2012, 11:59 am

    They also never mention ethnic cleansing.

    fyi

    Haaretz headline

    “why almost 40 percent of Israelis are thinking of emigrating”

    link to haaretz.com

    • Misterioso
      December 15, 2012, 6:30 pm

      Les

      I was just about to post the same link.
      Here’s another one that is related to yours:

      link to haaretz.com

      Ha’aretz | Dec.11, 2012

      “Growing economic disparity puts Israel at top end of inequality scale”

      “Contrary to conventional wisdom, the problem doesn’t stem from erosion of the middle class.”

      By Zvi Zrahiya

      “The growing economic disparity among Israel’s income groups places the country, along with the United States, at the top end of the inequality scale. But contrary to conventional wisdom, the problem doesn’t stem from erosion of the middle class.

      “Rather, says economist Momi Dahan, the widening gaps are the result of ballooning wealth among the rich and the declining earning power of the poor.

      ” ‘Israel’s problem isn’t about the middle class, rather the condtions of the weakest population,’ he says. ‘The most dramatic change of the last decade was the break out higher of the top decile and collapse downward of the bottom fifth.’

      “The Gini coefficient, a measure used to gauage inequality, stands at 0.38 for Israel on a scale of zero to one. That is the same level of inequality as in the U.S. By comparison income-equakty leaders Sweden and Finland have a Gini Coefficient is 0.23.

      “In Israel, the growing inequality reflects the increasing large slice of the national pie since 1979 going to the wealthiest 10% and a drastic drop in that of the lowest 20%, says Dahan, head of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Federmann School of Public Policy and Government and a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.

      “According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development figures, more than 20% of Israeli families are poor, while the average for OECD countries is less than 12%, Dahan says. ‘From 1997 to 2012 the price for the basket of consumer goods bought by the middle quintile increased 44% while the basket of the lowest quintile increased 48%. In other words, the hardest hit has been the lowest quintile,’ he says.

      “Dahan argues that policy makers should focus on the two ends of the scale that have been moving further to the extremes, as this is what is generating the inequality, choking economic growth and hurting the middle class in the long run.

      ” ‘Some people blame inequality on the fact that the ultra-Orthodox and Arabs are largely outside the workforce,’ Dahan says. ‘But even if we take them out of the equation, Israel remains one of the world’s least egalitarian countries. The problem crosses all sectors of the population and encompasses all parts of Israeli society.’

      “When asked if Israel’s inequality might be less than official figures indicate due to the prevalence of its black market economy, Dahan said ‘there is no doubt that people conceal their real income, but this is true for the bottom rungs of the income ladder as well as the top rungs, so its impact isn’t straightforward.’

      ” ‘Also, Israel leads the world, for example, in the divergence of educational achievements between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils, and in education you can’t say inequality stems from the black market.’

  6. Binyamin in Orangeburg
    December 15, 2012, 12:20 pm

    Did anyone look at Henry Kissinger like he was wearing payos when, during the Yom Kippur war, he, as he himself described it years later, “put the entire military airlift capacity of the United States at the service of the IDF”?

  7. Annie Robbins
    December 15, 2012, 12:42 pm

    five- and ten-year-old kids have horrendous attitudes not just toward Israel but toward Jews. I cannot believe that if, over the last thirty years, the United States made this a central issue, we wouldn’t be in a different position. But we never did.

    i agree, the US should start clamping down hard on israel about iof policy of targeting and imprisoning children.

  8. pabelmont
    December 15, 2012, 12:51 pm

    “when WINEP presented former policy-makers Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross with awards as scholars and statesmen.”

    You see, that way these guys can go on TV and say “award-winning” and ‘scholar” and “statesman”. Because their pals said so. Self-referential twaddle.

    Bet these guys will say how sorry they are for the carnage at Newtown school (Dec 14, 2012) but never a mention, and hardly a tear, for the carnage of American bombs etc. in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Israel’s kindly attentions to Gaza and Lebanon.

    • Rusty Pipes
      December 15, 2012, 6:27 pm

      “You see, that way these guys can go on TV and say “award-winning” and ‘scholar” and “statesman”. ” But for anyone with a memory, Abrams’ first descriptive is “convicted felon.” Anyone with such a history and a drop of conscience or shame would not be bringing up his experiences with Nicaragua.

  9. American
    December 15, 2012, 1:42 pm

    There should be some way to set them up or frame them if necessary, for some criminal acts that would put them away or perhaps have them deported in a plea bargin deal….anything to get them out of the US and out of any circle of influence in the US. In cases like these kind of people I would go for ‘the ends justifying the means,’ cricket or not, democratic or not.
    And actually if some them like Perle, Abrams, Feith and others had been prosecuted for things they were caught doing in the past like passing US classified info they wouldn’t be the problem they are today.

  10. Stogumber
    December 15, 2012, 2:29 pm

    Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the “dual loyalty” problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their “dual loyalty” problem (even WASPs, in the 18th century); in fact, the problem is inevitable for immigrants. Wouldn’t such an approach help Jews to be more open with it?

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 15, 2012, 3:40 pm

      RE: “Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the ‘dual loyalty’ problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their “dual loyalty” problem . . .” ~ Stogumber

      SEE: “It took 4 Irish-Catholic leaders to stop the Irish lobby’s support for violence in N. Ireland”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 8/26/11
      LINK – link to mondoweiss.net

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 15, 2012, 6:11 pm

        ALSO RE: “Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the ‘dual loyalty’ problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their ‘dual loyalty’ problem . . .” ~ Stogumber

        MY COMMENT: Here ya go!

        SEE WIKIPEDIA [Peter T. King]:

        (EXCERPTS) Peter Thomas King (born April 5, 1944) is the U.S. Representative for New York’s 3rd congressional district, serving since 1993. He is a member of the Republican Party, and represents the central Long Island district that includes parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties.
        King currently serves as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and drew attention in early 2011 for holding hearings on the extent of radicalization of Muslim Americans. . .
        . . . King actively supported the Irish republican movement in the 1980s, and frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with senior members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, many of whom he counted as friends.[12][24] King compared Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams to George Washington and asserted that the “British government is a murder machine”,[25] but he did not meet Gerry Adams until 1984, four years after his open support for the IRA began.[26]
        He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and U.S. governments had accused of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons.[12][27][28][29] Regarding the 30 years of violence during which the IRA killed over 1,700 people, including over 600 civilians, King said, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it”.[30] He also called the IRA “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland.”[31] This was despite the death of American Kenneth Salvesen, and the wounding of another, Mark McDonald, in the 1983 IRA Harrods bombing of December 1983 which resulted in six deaths and ninety injuries.
        Speaking at a pro-IRA rally in 1982 in Nassau County, New York, King pledged support to “those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”[12][32] In 1985, as Grand Marshall of New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, he again offered words of support for the IRA.[33]
        A Northern Irish judge ejected King from his courtroom, describing King as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.[12] Although some organizations reported that King was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro-IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity, he was merely not interviewed.[12]
        In 1993, King lobbied for Gerry Adams to be a guest at the inauguration of President Bill Clinton.[33] In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of “anti-Catholic bigoted forces,” after Bush visited Bob Jones University in South Carolina, described by King as “an institution that is notorious in Ireland for awarding an honorary doctorate to Northern Ireland’s tempestuous Protestant leader, Ian Paisley.”[12]
        King stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[12] but in 2008, King spoke in favor of bail for a fugitive IRA member, Pól Brennan, who had escaped from prison in the U.K. 15 years earlier during the Maze Prison escape, and who had been apprehended in Texas.[34][35]
        At a September 2011 hearing in England concerning terrorism, King said that the IRA used British torture as a recruiting tool, but that it has no parallels with American treatment of suspects after 9/11. Labour MP David Winnick commented to King that “there’s been some surprise in the United States but also in Britain that you have a job looking into and investigating into terrorism” and added that King “seems to be an apologist for terrorism.” [36] . . .

        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 15, 2012, 4:20 pm

      ● RE: “Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the ‘dual loyalty’ problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their “dual loyalty” problem . . .” ~ Stogumber

      ● AS TO GERMAN “DUAL LOYALTY”, NOTE THIS FROM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO IN THE COMMENTS HERE ONMONDOWEISS:

      DICKERSON3870 says:
      May 7, 2012 at 3:27 am

      • WATCH: Rudolf Hess opening speech (English Subtitles), [VIDEO, 04:00] – link to youtube.com [SORRY, THIS VIDEO NO LONGER SEEMS TO BE AVAILABLE! – J.L.D.]
      In this four minute clip from the film Triumph Of The Will, Hess is speaking at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally and introduces the Heimatland (Homeland) concept that he and Hitler had devised during the writing of Mein Kampf while they were in prison together at Landsberg as a consequence of their convictions for involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.
      As Hess explains it (at about 3:05), Hitler is creating a homeland for all the ethnic Germans of the world wherever they might happen to live (not just those residing within the borders of Germany).
      As translated by the subtitles, Hess says (speaking to Hitler): “Thanks to your leadership, Germany will be attainable as the homeland. Homeland for all Germans of the world.”

      • NOTE: “What Does ‘Homeland’ Mean to You?”, by Ronald Bailey on July 19, 2007

      I was getting my daily dose of NPR this morning when Morning Edition’s listener letters segment came on. One comment from Linda Lewis from Branson, Mo., really resonated. She was complaining that when NPR interviewed Homeland Security advisor Frances Townsend about the new National Intelligence Estimate that the interviewer had “bought into” the language of “protecting the homeland.”
      Ms. Lewis complained: “I wasn’t alive during World War II, but I associate “the homeland” with Nazi propaganda. It’s fascistic and offensive.” She prefers “U.S” or “America.”
      For me, too, the word “homeland” conjures a kind of antediluvian primitive nationalism (tribalism) based on blood and soil , not a people united by their devotion to political ideals like liberty and free speech.

      SOURCE – link to reason.com

      • P.S. It is my understanding that Hess and Hitler took the “homeland” (heimatland) idea* directly/specifically from the Zionists. I believe Thom Hartmann refers to this in the audio clip from his radio program (which no longer appears to be available).

      * As Hess explains it (at about 3:05 in the video clip), Hitler was creating a homeland for all the ethnic Germans of the world wherever they might have happened to live (not just those residing within the borders of Germany). They modeled this after the Zionist idea of Israel being the “homeland” of all the Jews of the world wherever they might happen to live (not just those residing within the borders of Israel).

      SOURCE – link to mondoweiss.net

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 15, 2012, 5:20 pm

        ● RE: “WATCH: Rudolf Hess opening speech (English Subtitles), [VIDEO, 04:00] – link to youtube.com
        [SORRY, THIS VIDEO NO LONGER SEEMS TO BE AVAILABLE! – J.L.D.]”
        - me (above)

        ● AFTER MUCH WORK, I HAVE FOUND THE ENTIRE TRIUMPH DES WILLENS (TRIUMPH OF THE WILL) FILM WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES: The pertinent portion of Rudolf Hess’ speech about the German Heimatland (Homeland) begins at about the 25 minute mark.
        Triumph des Willens (1935) – Triumph of the Will [VIDEO, 1:44:27] – link to youtube.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 15, 2012, 5:40 pm

        RE: “. . . Hitler was creating a homeland for all the ethnic Germans of the world wherever they might have happened to live (not just those residing within the borders of Germany). They modeled this after the Zionist idea of Israel being the ‘homeland’ of all the Jews of the world wherever they might happen to live (not just those residing within the borders of Israel).” – me (above)

        SEE: “Feiglin New Rightist Power Behind Likud Throne”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 12/27/08

        Gershom Gorenberg has written a stunner of a political appraisal of the role Moshe Feiglin and his far-right allies will play in Likud before and especially after the next national election. Feiglin is an Orthodox extremist settler leader who toiled in the political trenches of far-right splinter parties until he cottoned on to an idea David Duke had some time ago. Instead of laboring in political obscurity, take over the major party nearest to your ideology. In this case it was Likud.
        In the last leadership primary, Feiglin (remember again that his views are somewhat akin to Duke’s in an Israeli context) garnered 25% of the vote to embarrass Netanyahu deeply. In the most recent primary, Feiglin and his allies chipped away further at the party leader: not only did Feiglin place 20th on the list which would’ve made him a certain MK winner (party leaders later used technicalities to move him to 36th), but many of his ideological soulmates placed high in the list as well. Gorenberg argues that no matter how centrist Netanyahu tries to paint the party, the newly empowered extremists will weigh him down like an albatross. The Israeli journalist speculates that even IF (a big “if”) Netanyahu would want to engage in territorial compromise with the Palestinians after becoming prime minister, the rump right wing caucus could muster the support to nix such an initiative or anything that even smacks of craven capitulation to the enemy.
        Here are some of the more shocking beliefs that Feiglin holds:

        On the Jewish Leadership website, [he] proposes principles for a constitution for Israel. It would include a high rabbinic court, chosen only by clergy, that would overturn any legislation it saw as contradicting Jewish religious law. A newly established senate, with a guaranteed Jewish majority of over 80 percent, would have to consult the rabbinic court on all national issues. Israel would lay claim not only to the West Bank and Gaza, but also to all of Jordan.
        . . . He proposes . . . holding a ceremony at every army base in which all non-lethal weaponry would be destroyed. Faced with Palestinian demonstrators, soldiers could only shoot to kill. . . Another Feiglin tract contrasts parliamentary democracy with an “authentic Jewish regime” that would express the “organic unity of the Nation of Israel.” Put simply, Feiglin’s ideology is the meeting point of fundamentalism and fascism.

        Gorenberg concludes his essay with this warning about the false ‘branding’ of Likud under Netanyahu’s leadership:

        The campaign packaging for the Likud will show Netanyahu’s face. In his modulated MBA voice, he’ll try to sell the Likud to voters as a pragmatic conservative party, willing to make peace if only the Palestinians agree to its conditions. Inside the package, however, is a party in thrall to a lean and hungry man offering extremist leadership for Israel. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to richardsilverstein.com

        P.S. ALSO SEE THESE TWO:

        “Bogie Yaalon’s Excellent Adventure with Feiglin, Kahane Kids”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 8/17/09
        LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com

        “Yaalon Looks to Fascist Right for Support in Likud Leadership Struggle”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 8/20/09
        LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2012, 6:43 pm

        dickerson, despite Feiglin’s strong showing in the primaries netanyahu&co pulled a switcheroo to get him knocked down the list of likud MP’s fearful his party would seem to wacko.

        link to haaretz.com

        but for a truly frightful and realistic look at what’s happening on the election front check out Uri Avnery’s Cold Revenge

        link to counterpunch.org

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 15, 2012, 10:56 pm

        RE: “despite Feiglin’s strong showing in the primaries netanyahu&co pulled a switcheroo [back in 2009 ~ J.L.D.] to get him knocked down the list of likud MP’s” ~ Annie Robbins

        MY COMMENT: The old “switcherroo” worked last time (back in 2009), but I doubt that Netanyahu will be able to use it this time. I don’t believe he can get away with two switcheroos in a row!

        ALSO NOTE: “New Poll Shows Surge in Israel’s Religious Far-Right”, by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, 12/14/12
        Jewish Home Surges, Vying for Second Place With Labor

        Though in some ways the poll is already obsolete because the data comes before Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was indicted and resigned, a new poll shows a shift in voter sentiment toward the religious far-right.
        Likud-Beiteinu’s plurality remains virtually assured, but continues to shrink, with recent 40 seat projections falling to 35 in both polls. The seats don’t seem to be going to the center-left either, with the far-right secular list losing a number of seats to the religious far-right.
        Labor remains a consensus number two, but the Jewish Home bloc is surging into a close third, with one poll showing them only a single seat behind Labor, going from a three seat also-ran to a 17 seat potential king-maker.
        It also puts Jewish Home ahead of the traditional religious right party, Shas, which is polling at 10-11 seats. Between those two and the UTJ, the religious right, far-right is looking to collect significant seats over their 2009 showing, making Lieberman’s calls to cut them out of the coalition seemingly impossible.

        SOURCE – link to news.antiwar.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 15, 2012, 11:31 pm

        RE: “The old ‘switcheroo’ worked last time (back in 2009), but I doubt that Netanyahu will be able to use it this time. I don’t believe he can get away with two switcheroos in a row!” – me (above)

        SEE: “The Likud presents: The craziest, most radical list ever expected to win elections”, By Noam Sheizaf, 972 Magazine, 11/26/12
        Knesset members behind attacks on the left, Arabs and asylum seekers won the day at the Likud primaries. All moderates but one were pushed down the list, and probably won’t serve in the next Knesset.
        LINK – link to 972mag.com

      • seafoid
        December 16, 2012, 12:34 am

        The FT quoted an opinion poll that gave Likud/Beiteinu 80% of the seats they currently have in the next election.

    • American
      December 15, 2012, 4:37 pm

      Stogumber says:
      December 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the “dual loyalty” problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their “dual loyalty” problem (even WASPs, in the 18th century); in fact, the problem is inevitable for immigrants. Wouldn’t such an approach help Jews to be more open with it?>>>>>

      Well like it or not the “Uber” Jews, the Zios we all know only too well, are the main force in the dual or even in some cases in a ‘single’ loyalty problem. Everyone else is just sort of a supporting cast of corrupt politicians, the brainwashed, the christian zio fanatics and so forth.

      I don’t agree though that dual loyalty problem is inevitable for immigrants. It’s one thing to retain feelings for or have sentiments for your former country but it’s something different to actively seek to control and use the power of the country you are a citizen of, often in devious ways and to the detriment of it’s own interest and citizens, for the benefit of your former country or your emotional homeland…..that’s what we ‘re talking about.

      When you’re talking about specifically Jews supporting Israel other than the main “Enforcers” or fanatics so to speak, then you get into a lot of substratum’s imo of yes, sorta, half way, not so much and not at all.

      But if you want to talk “in general” about dual loyalty and the justificaitons for it, I’ll use this quote about Jews from ifamericansknew since I think it explains how some US Jews justify support for Israel and it could be representative of some other group, although I can’t think of another one this fits exactly ……

      ” (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term (dual loyalty) in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United States.”

      This is very naive thing to believe about two separate and very different nations, particulary when one is basically a client nation of and very dependent on the other, but some have convinced themselves of this. Are they bona fide ‘traitors’ to believe or say that? No, they are just naive, led by various emotions to believe this because they want to believe it. But it’s not the real world, there just aren’t any two countries that always have the same identical interest.

    • Krauss
      December 15, 2012, 5:47 pm

      There are several problems with that.

      1. Most Jews are not in any shape or form conflicted about their loyalty. Those who are conflicted, are also the ones who are most likely present themselves as specifically Jewish, rather than a multitude of things, with Jewish being one of them. It’s an age-old problem; in all ethnic communities, the more reactionary elements tend to rise in the ethnic leadership positions; they care the most. The reasonable ones mind their own business and go on without being seen.

      2. Even if you tried to go after a select few, it would still inevitably spill over and cause great unease – with good reason – among the wider Jewish population, which would enable the hardliners.

      3. Dual loyalty, real or unreal, is still a different thing for, say, an Irish-man than for a Jew. For a Jew it’s a much more visceral thing, because it’s been targeted at us for centuries, millenia, in a way it hasn’t been for, say, the Irish.

      4. Finally, as Israel turns more proto-fascist(or just straight fascist), the price of loyalty will climb exponentially. The result will simply be to weed out everyone but the most extreme racists, at which point to isolate them will be easy. But we’ll have to wait a few years for that, regrettably.

      • seafoid
        December 16, 2012, 12:42 am

        It’s a real mess.
        the hardliners drive the agenda. It looks as though the vast majority of US Jews wouldn’t be seen dead making aliyah to Israel and sending their kids to the IDF but that this emptiness in their Jewishness can be offset for many by vicarious aliyah in the form of voting for Israel or donating to Israel or even just supporting the rabbi down at the synagogue in whatever he does for Israel. It must give a nice warm fuzzy feeling tempered for some with ever increasing levels of unease. It’s a community thing and it’s their community but what happens when one part of the community drifts away from a common understanding of right and wrong?

        Like a sister with a brother who moved back to the old family farm . She sends money from the city. He always askes her to come live with her. She used to feel torn but has arrived at a state of equilbrium. She likes her city life. The money she sends makes her feel good. He has a very violent streak. His kids are unmanageable. But the money she sends makes her feel good.

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 15, 2012, 6:35 pm

      ● RE: “Wouldn’t it be useful to debate the ‘dual loyalty’ problem in a general way, not singling Jews out, and quite matter-of-factly. Germans, Irish and a lot of other immigrants have had their ‘dual loyalty’ problem . . .” ~ Stogumber

      ● QUESTION: Why do you think we have all these dual nationals: people with passports from both both Ireland and the U.S.; Germany and the U.S.; Brazil and the U.S.; Iran and the U.S.?

      ● ANSWER: BECAUSE OF ISRAEL! ! ! (NOT BECAUSE OF IRELAND, GERMANY, BRAZIL, OR IRAN!

      ● FROM WIKIPEDIA [Afroyim v. Rusk]:

      [EXCERPT] Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.[1][2] The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man who had voted in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, but the Supreme Court ruled that Afroyim’s right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
      The Afroyim decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of multiple citizenship in United States law.[3] A series of treaties in place between the United States and other nations (the Bancroft Treaties), which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization, were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable. . .

      SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  11. DICKERSON3870
    December 15, 2012, 3:29 pm

    RE: “Abrams says his greatest accomplishments in office were acts involving Jews, including asserting the Jewish right to colonize the West Bank.” ~ Weiss

    FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, The Washington (Neocon) Post, 04/08/09:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have
    resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state. . .

    SOURCE – link to washingtonpost.com

    P.S. Elliott Abrams has totally convinced me [by the sheer power of his (il)logic and his very impressive math skills] to wholeheartedly support the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank.
    As I understand it, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River). Fiat justitia! ( “Let Justice Be Done!” )

  12. Mayhem
    December 15, 2012, 4:04 pm

    Elliot Abrams was happy to talk about ‘settlements’ on this interview on Australian ABC radio. Refer link to abc.net.au
    He pointed out that while there is all this huffing and puffing about possible new settlements that Gaza is openly rearming:

    It’s not some kind of great threat to peace. It does not end the possibility of a two-state solution. It is not some kind of horrendous, earth-shaking event and I think we have taken our eye off the ball.

    Something is happening right now this week that is going to end up in another war and that is the failure to close the tunnels between Egyptian Sinai and Gaza. If more Iranian missiles pour into Gaza there will be another row. That’s just definite.

    That’s actually happening this week. You can read it in The New York Times, The Washington Post – the tunnels are opening again. That’s really dangerous. A planning decision that may or may not result in some further construction, five years from now, is not such a great threat to peace

    • Annie Robbins
      December 15, 2012, 6:22 pm

      If more Iranian missiles pour into Gaza there will be another row. That’s just definite.

      If more US weapons pour into Israel there will be another row. That’s just definite.

    • Inanna
      December 15, 2012, 6:27 pm

      Of course the settlements aren’t a problems if you’re Jewish. But have you ever considered the possibility that they might be if you are Palestinian? Stay inside the circle jerk, Mayhem.

      • Mayhem
        December 17, 2012, 9:29 pm

        @Inanna, the settlements are an issue because you and your ilk like to harp on about them. Furthermore I never said they didn’t bother me.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 17, 2012, 10:09 pm

        right,because if we said nothing everything would go swimmingly.

  13. yourstruly
    December 15, 2012, 4:46 pm

    himmler blamed the jews for deutchland’s failures & never mentioned concentration camps

  14. chinese box
    December 15, 2012, 5:40 pm

    Fascinating indeed. What a bubble these people live in. Thanks for posting this.

    The supreme irony is that if any of these three men had tried to be even-handed in their criticism some other segment of the lobby would probably have come forth to smear and disown them. The bias is policed and self-reinforcing.

    • Reds
      December 16, 2012, 10:30 am

      Smear,disown and attack to no end,

      But don’t forget a little smearing by the far right is good for these men because it gives the (fake) impression that there two sides of thinking. Fox News style of “Fair and Balance” even know both sides of the WINEP?AIPAC Lobby agree on nearly everything. Mainly used to sell the American public that the likes of Ross is somehow objective or the other side

  15. Rusty Pipes
    December 15, 2012, 6:14 pm

    Annie Hall has many wonderful, memorable scenes. One that I find more applicable to this context was the one where they were standing in line at the movie theater and the guys next to them kept making remarks that Allen thought were anti-Semitic, like “D’you eat?”, “No, D’you?” Ross made a remark that totally contradicted the perspective of 20 other people in the room and they stared at him. They could just as easily have been thinking, “how did this idiot get a job here?”

  16. RoHa
    December 15, 2012, 10:32 pm

    “Abrams … asserts, amazingly, that Jews are discriminated against in hiring by the FBI and CIA and other government agencies. ”

    If the Jews who apply turn out to have loyalty to Israel, it would seem perfectly sensible for US government agencies to be cautious about hiring them.

    As a dual Australian/British citizen, I can vote here in Australia, but (by Federal law) I would not be able to run for Parliament until I renounced my British citizenship.

  17. Reds
    December 16, 2012, 10:24 am

    The insurance by Ross and Abbrams allows them to say what they want and any criticism can be furthered used to there advantage.

    Say someone from the FBI or CIA says “hey that’s not true about discrimination in either the CIA or FBI” This would allow them and WINEP/Israeli lobby to open the topic if “there are enough jews/israeli in those area’s, Most likely worded by them and the Robert S of the media “Is the CIA anti-Israel?”Is the CIA anti-Israel? “Joining us is Dennis Ross to talk about these troubling signs” that start quoting some congressmen and how we sould get involved and just so happens folks from the WINEP or SABAN starting getting big roles in the FBI or CIA.

    Were one to criticize such action the A Card could be thrown out as proof that Abbrams was Right.

  18. DICKERSON3870
    December 18, 2012, 4:50 pm

    RE: “Abrams is asked what his best achievement was in gov’t service . . . ABRAMS: ‘I’m going to have to give you two—divide them in half. Working for [Henry] ‘Scoop’ Jackson and Ronald Reagan on what ultimately became a million Russian Jews moving to Israel, which really has changed Israel.’

    MY COMMENT: And those million or so immigrants from the Soviet Union (some of them not even Jewish) might very well turn out to have been the ‘tipping point’ in Israel’s transition to a much more fascistic government. But considering Elliott Abrams’ “track record” in Central America* and elsewhere (ably assisted by the über-nefarious John Negroponte), it should come as no great surprise that he would take great pride in having achieved a more fascistic Israel.

    * P.S. FROM ‘RIGHT WEB’/IPS [Elliott Abrams]:

    (EXCERPT) . . . [Elliott] Abrams is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. He was indicted by a special prosecutor for intentionally deceiving Congress about the Reagan administration’s role in supporting the Contras—including his own central role in the Iran-Contra arms deal. In this deal, national security staff led by Oliver North brokered the sale of weapons from Israel to Iran in exchange for Iran helping broker the release of six Americans held hostage by Hezbollah. Some of the money made from the sale was channeled to the U.S.-backed and -organized Contras, who were spearheading a counterrevolution against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Congress had prohibited U.S. government assistance to the Contras because of their pattern of human rights abuses.
    At the time of his involvement, Abrams was the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, working under George Shultz. Abrams pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses (including withholding information from Congress) to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. Throughout the proceedings, Abrams denied knowledge of the NSC and CIA programs to support the Contras. He blamed Congress for the deaths of two U.S. military members shot down by the Sandinistas in an illegal, clandestine arms supply operation over Nicaragua. He [Elliott Abrams] described the legal proceedings against him as “Kafkaesque” and called his prosecutors “filthy bastards” and “vipers.” . . . [18]

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to rightweb.irc-online.org

  19. DICKERSON3870
    December 18, 2012, 5:24 pm

    RE: “Abrams is asked what his best achievement was in gov’t service . . . ABRAMS: ‘I’m going to have to give you two—divide them in half. Working for [Henry] ‘Scoop’ Jackson and Ronald Reagan on what ultimately became a million Russian Jews moving to Israel, which really has changed Israel.’

    AS TO ELLIOTT ABRAMS’ “CHANGED ISRAEL”, SEE: “Lieberman ‘Speaks Arabic’”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 2/09/12

    Imagine if you will George Wallace in the 1968 presidential campaign telling the white world he knew how to deal with Negroes. To convey this, he coins the slogan: “He speaks Negro.” Or imagine Strom Thurmond running as a Dixecrat for president in 1948 on a States Right platform. His slogan is: “He speaks Nigger.” I imagine too that it would’ve made a great campaign slogan for Ol’ Bull Connor when he ran for sheriff in Montgomery in the 1960s. Show those darkies who’s boss.
    Of course, no presidential candidate in this country could get away with adopting such a slogan. We may have racism underlying our politics, but we’re much more genteel about it and speak in code rather than overtly as Avigdor Lieberman does.
    All this by way of saying, I find it astonishing that Lieberman can make such a slogan the heart of his campaign and actually win votes by doing it. Not only win votes, but likely become the third largest political party in the process. I don’t want to ever read another pro-Israel comment here that dares to brag about Israeli democracy and the “good deal” that Israeli Arabs get.
    Let’s lay bare what this slogan means. It means that Lieberman “speaks their language.” That he knows how to “deal with them.” He fights fire with fire (Arabs are viewed according to these terms as shiftless, violent, and malevolent). One way he will deal with them is by adjusting Israel’s borders so that Israeli Arab villages in northern Israel would be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, while Jewish settlements in the West Bank would be transferred to Israeli sovereignty. It’s a slightly more sophisticated form of population transfer advocated by the Israeli far-right ultra-nationalists. Slightly more sophisticated but no less odious or racist for that.
    Lieberman’s slogan also conveys the hatred and mistrust that many Jews feel for Israeli Arabs. In fact, one of the hallmarks of his ‘populist’ campaign is a McCarthy-style demand for non-Jewish citizens to sign loyalty oaths to the Jewish state and “Israeli democracy.” Apparently the irony of demanding a loyalty oath from 20% of the nation’s citizens and believing that such an oath represents “democratic values” is lost on Lieberman.
    Lieberman is the very same politician who on TV called an Israeli Jewish lawyer who brings human rights cases against the IDF for killing civilians in the midst of targeted assassination operations, a “kapo.” He’s the very same who said Israeli Arab Knesset members should be “strung up on lampposts.” Haaretz just revealed he was a member of Meir Kahane’s Kach party when he first arrived in Israel from the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, Kach was outlawed as a terrorist organization.
    Haaretz’s Gideon Levy as usual puts it so well in Kahane Won:
    Rabbi Meir Kahane can rest in peace: His doctrine has won. Twenty years after his Knesset list was disqualified and 18 years after he was murdered, Kahanism has become legitimate in public discourse.
    If there is something that typifies Israel’s current murky, hollow election campaign…it is the transformation of racism and nationalism into accepted values…Now the instigator of the new Israeli racism will apparently become the leader of a large party once again in the government. Benjamin Netanyahu has already pledged that Lieberman will be an “important minister” in his government. If someone like Lieberman were to join a government in Europe, Israel would sever ties with it…
    The nightmare is here and now. Kahane is alive and kicking – is he ever – in the person of his thuggish successor.

    . . . Looked at another way though, Lieberman’s obsession with Israeli Arabs does raise important questions about the future of Israeli democracy. Will Israel turn into an ethnocracy in which Arabs have little or no rights, while Jews are supreme? Or will Israel recognize that it simply cannot be a real democracy unless it offers ethnic minorities rights that are equal to the majority Jews? In this sense, Lieberman is laying down a marker and saying that for him Israel must become the equivalent to apartheid-era South African. Arabs who remain in Israel under Lieberman’s regime will accept explicit (and not tacit, as in the current system) second-class status. There will be no more talk of equality. Arabs will know who’s the boss. If they don’t like it they will be invited to deplane to any other Arab country that will have them. . .
    . . . I suppose it could be worse. Back in Lieberman’s old home, Russian neo-Nazi skinheads mimic Al Qaeda and sever the heads of migrant workers and display their handiwork on videos they proudly offer to the public. Imagine Yisrael Beitenu’s youth wing showing Israeli Arabs that they won’t take shit from anyone by beating a few Arabs to within an inch of their lives or even decapitating one or two particularly uppity ones. That would teach THEM a lesson, wouldn’t it? . . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 18, 2012, 5:48 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Lieberman’s anti-Arab ideology wins over Israel’s teens”, By Yotam Feldman, Haaretz, 2/05/09
      Yisrael Beiteinu was victorious overall in the mock elections held in 10 high schools across the country.

      [EXCERPTS] The Yisrael Beiteinu youths gather for a final consultation as dozens of elderly party supporters slowly make their way into the white tent where the movement’s conference is being held, behind the Plaza Hotel in Upper Nazareth.
      The youths, ages 16-18, many of them good friends from school, had stood for a long time before the event began at the intersection near the hotel, waving Israeli flags and shouting “Death to the Arabs” and “No loyalty, no citizenship” at passing cars.
      In the tent, they deliberate over what to shout when Lieberman enters: Calling out “The next prime minister” may sound a bit presumptuous with regard to the leader of what’s likely to be the third-largest party in the next Knesset. But during a week when Yisrael Beiteinu won the highest level of support in mock high-school polls – the sky’s the limit. . .
      . . . The conference concluded with the singing of the national anthem, which the young attendees sang aggressively in the style of Beitar Jerusalem fans. On the bus back to the center of Upper Nazareth, one of the youths offers this explanation for his excitement about the party:
      “This country has needed a dictatorship for a long time already. But I’m not talking about an extreme dictatorship. We need someone who can put things in order. Lieberman is the only one who speaks the truth.”

      Adds Edan Ivanov, an 18 year old who describes himself as being “up on current events”:

      “We’ve had enough here with the ‘leftist democracy’ – and I put that term in quotes, don’t get me wrong. People have put the dictator label on Lieberman because of the things he says. But the truth is that in Israel there can’t be a full democracy when there are Arabs here who oppose it.
      “All Lieberman’s really saying is that anyone who isn’t prepared to sign an oath of loyalty to the state, because of his personal views, cannot receive equal rights; he can’t vote for the executive authority. People here are gradually coming to understand what needs to be done concerning a person who is not loyal.” . . .
      . . .What’s happening here?
      “We have a problem: Upper Nazareth is surrounded by minorities. There are lots of incidents with them. Women are scared to walk in the streets, and people are afraid they’ll be stabbed. No one knows what to do about it at this point. There are people who live here and during a war they act as a fifth column. It will only be possible to make peace with them after we make war.”
      Is that why people shout “Death to the Arabs”?
      “The people who shout ‘Death to the Arabs’ – they mean death to those who support terror. There are Druze and Bedouin, too, and we have lots of friends who are minorities and we have no problem with them. By the way, there are also a lot of Arabs who come with us to demonstrations and shout ‘Death to the Arabs,’ meaning ‘death to everyone except me.'” . . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 18, 2012, 6:02 pm

        P.P.S. RE: We have a problem: Upper Nazareth is surrounded by minorities. There are lots of incidents with them. Women are scared to walk in the streets, and people are afraid they’ll be stabbed. No one knows what to do about it at this point.” ~ 18 year old Edan Ivanov (from above)

        MY QUESTION: What about forming roving “posses” of vigilantes to kick some Arab ass, torch cars belonging to Arabs, and try to burn down the homes of Arabs?
        Would that suit you, Mr. Ivanov? ? ?

        SEE: “Police arrest Jewish teens for allegedly assaulting Arab youth in Galilee”, By Eli Ashkenazi, Haaretz, 1/27/12
        Mohammed Mansur was rushed to hospital after a gang of Jewish teens allegedly beat him in Tiberias.

        An Arab youth from the Galilee village of Majd el-Krum was injured lightly on Monday night after a gang of Jewish teens beat him with sticks while he was walking along the promenade in Tiberias.
        Police arrested eight suspects ranging from 14 to 16 years of age who are believed to have taken part in the assault.
        The victim, Mohammed Mansur, was rushed to Poriah Hospital near Tiberias, where he was treated for injuries sustained all over his body.
        . . . The incident occurred two days after police arrested nine people suspected of assaulting Arab residents of Upper Nazareth and their property. All incidents are believed to be racially motivated.
        Seven of the suspects are between the ages of 15 and 18, and two more are 22 years old.

        The group is suspected of physically assaulting Arab residents of the city, torching cars belonging to Arabs and trying to set fire to their homes. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 18, 2012, 6:21 pm

        P.P.P.S. RE: “. . . The conference concluded with the singing of the national anthem, which the young attendees sang aggressively in the style of Beitar Jerusalem fans.” ~ from the above Haaretz article by Yotam Feldman

        SOME RECENT BEITARIM “ACTION”: “Beitar soccer fans march in Jerusalem chanting racist slogans, allegedly beat woman”, By Nir Hasson and Oz Rosenberg, Haaretz, 4/16/12
        Police are launching an investigation into the attack on 50-year-old Reli Margalit, after being criticized for failing to immediately investigate Beitar fans’ attack last month on Arab workers.

        [EXCERPTS] Dozens of Beitar Jerusalem soccer fans marched in Jerusalem chanting anti-Arab slogans on their way to a match on Sunday – and beat a woman who objected, the woman said. . ./b>
        . . . Reli Margalit, a 50-year-old musician from Jerusalem’s Nayot neighborhood, said a fan hit her on the head while they were marching from Sacher Park to Teddy Stadium. Beitar beat Hapoel Acre 1-0 in the Premier League match.
        “I heard cries of ‘Death to the Arabs,’ and since I was still incensed by the Malha Mall attack, I decided that I had to confront them now,” she said. “I made a sign reading ‘Down with Beitar’s racism.’ I believed that since I’m not a young woman and since I was alone, at worst it would come to curses, no more.”
        But it seems Margalit was wrong.
        “Within seconds they surrounded me and started spitting at me,” she said. “They took away my sign, and one of them – actually an older fan – hit me on the head with the pole of his flag. None of the fans protected me, and one girl showed up and tried to argue with me.”
        After a few seconds the fans continued on their way.
        Margalit said she doesn’t regret her action. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        December 18, 2012, 6:26 pm

        P.P.P.P.S. A LITTLE BE(I)TARIM BACKGROUND

        ● FROM WIKIPEDIA [Betar]:

        (EXCERPT) The Betar Movement (בית”ר, also spelled Beitar) is a Revisionist Zionist youth movement founded in 1923 in Riga, Latvia, by Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky. Betar has been traditionally linked to the original Herut and then Likud political parties of Israel, and was closely affiliated with the pre-Israel Revisionist Zionist splinter group Irgun Zevai Leumi. It was one of many right-wing movements and youth groups arising at that time out of a worldwide emergence of fascism.[1] Some of the most prominent politicians of Israel were Betarim in their youth, most notably Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, the latter of whom idolized Jabotinsky.[2]. . .
        . . . The group initially praised Mussolini for his anti-communism and fascist principles, leading it to adopt the black uniform shirt of Italian fascism for a short period. Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia, however, was seen as “cowardly” by Betar and led them to break with him shortly after.[8]. . .

        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

        ● ALSO SEE: “The Hidden History of Zionism”, Chapter 6, by Ralph Schoenman

        [EXCERPT] . . . Mussolini set up squadrons of the Revisionist Zionist youth movement, Betar, in black shirts in emulation of his own Fascist bands.
        When Menachem Begin became chief of Betar, he preferred the brown shirts of the Hitler gangs, a uniform Begin and Betar members wore to all meetings and rallies – at which they greeted each other and opened and closed meetings with the fascist salute. . .

        SOURCE –
        link to marxists.de

Leave a Reply