Zionism Unmasked


The Dark Face Of Jewish Nationalism
By Dr. Alan Sabrosky

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu once remarked to a Likud gathering that “Israel is not like other countries.” Oddly enough for him, that time he was telling the truth, and nowhere is that more evident than with Jewish nationalism, whether or not one pins the “Zionist” label on it.

Nationalism in most countries and cultures can have both positive and negative aspects, unifying a people and sometimes leading them against their neighbors. Extremism can emerge, and often has, at least in part in almost every nationalist/independence movement I can recall (e.g., the French nationalist movement had The Terror, Kenya’s had the Mau Mau, etc.).

But whereas extremism in other nationalist movements is an aberration, extremism in Jewish nationalism is the norm, pitting Zionist Jews (secular or observant) against the goyim (everyone else), who are either possible predator or certain prey, if not both sequentially. This does not mean that all Jews or all Israelis feel and act this way, by any means. But it does mean that Israel today is what it cannot avoid being, and what it would be under any electable government (a point I’ll develop in another article).

The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:
1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism, and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the PIRAs or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;

2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g., a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel & the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the IDF but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;

3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and

4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer & more low-tech fashion.

The implications of this for Middle East peace prospects, and for other countries in thrall to their domestic Jewish lobbies or not, are chilling. The Book of Deuteronomy come to life in a state with a nuclear arsenal would be enough to give pause to anyone not bought or bribed into submission — which these days encompasses the US Government, given Israel’s affinity for throwing crap into the face of the Obama administration and Obama’s visible affinity for accepting it with a smile, Bibi Netanyahu’s own “Uncle Tom” come to Washington.

The late General Moshe Dayan, who — Zionist or not — remains an honored part of my own Pantheon of military heroes, allegedly observed that Israel’s security depended on its being viewed by others as a mad dog. He may have been correct. But he neglected to note that the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite. It is an option worth considering.

Hat tip to Sabbah blog

Pedophilia in Israel and other non-kosher news


Evidently Old Testament law allows for marriage with young girls like it’s sister religions.

A 14-year-old Israeli girl has got a divorce from her 17-year-old husband, making her what media are describing as the country’s youngest divorcee. The two sweethearts had exchanged vows in front of friends, exchanged a ring, and the union had been consummated.

The pair went on to get a divorce after the boy’s parents offered the bride a sum she couldn’t refuse.  I like the rather casual and informal nature of their wedding ceremonies; gather a few friends, get a ring and voila, you’re married!    We could go digging through scripture and find where marriage with girls even younger is justified in Judaic religious law just as the Islamophobes have done, providing us with voluminous and erroneous information about this subject as it applies to Islam, but I’ll spare the readers what would be a chore for me.  However, there’s more!!

Pigs are now kosher in Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.  Some Israelis think pigs are better at detecting terrorists than dogs.  At first when I read this article I thought the settlers were hoping the pigs would be protection against Palestinian intrusion on their land, a kind of natural animalistic force field. Evidently it’s against religious law to raise pigs so this is a big step to get approval allowing  them.  Perhaps pig farms will be in Israel’s future, in which case there might be something to the purported claim that Israelis are the descendants of monkeys and pigs.  I guess for now they’ll have to import them, the pigs that is, from their main ally, the US.  Oink!

Computer game encourages killing Muslims


Since the end of the article below says the game became popular because of bloggers who linked to it, let me be one of the bloggers who links to it, not because I want people to play the game which features killing Muslims but because I want someone to hack the game and change the players around a bit.  Let’s see how quickly the game would come down if it featured Christians and Muslims killing Sikhs and Jews, or hmm..let’s say Sikhs and Muslims killing Christians and Hindus, or Hindus and Sikhs killing Jews and Buddhists or Muslims killing Jews, or better yet, Palestinians killing Israelis or Anglicans killing Roman Catholics.  Here’s the article.

A computer game in which players control an American soldier sent to “wipe out the Muslim race” has been condemned as offensive and tasteless by a British Muslim group.

The goal of Muslim Massacre, which can be downloaded for free on the internet, is to “ensure that no Muslim man or woman is left alive”, according to the game’s creator.

Players control an “American Hero” armed with a machine gun and rocket launcher who is parachuted into the Middle East.

Users progress through levels, first killing Arabs that appear on screen and later taking on Osama bin Laden, Mohammed and finally Allah.

The game’s creator, a freelance programmer known as Sigvatr, described the game on the SomethingAwful.com website as “fun and funny”.

In a “How you can help” section, he writes to visitors: “Don’t whinge about how offensive and ‘edgy’ this is.”

British Muslim youth organisation The Ramadhan Foundation expressed its “deep condemnation and anger” at the game.

The group said: “This game is glorifying the killing of Muslims in the Middle East and we urge ISP providers to take action to remove this site from their services as it incites violence towards Muslims and is trying to justify the killing of innocent Muslims.

“We have written to the British Government to urge an inquiry into this game and take action to shut down the site. This is not satire but a deliberate attempt to demonise Muslims.”

The foundation’s chief executive, Mohammed Shafiq, added: “Encouraging children and young people in a game to kill Muslims is unacceptable, tasteless and deeply offensive.

“There is an increase in violence in this country and some of it comes from video games. When kids spend six hours a day on violent games they are more likely to go outside and commit violence.

“If it was the other way around, with a game featuring Muslims killing Israelis or Americans, there would be uproar and rightly so.

“I would urge ISPs to take action against sites like this and there can be no justification for this sort of video game. I hope the person who made this game thinks again.”

The game was first released in January this year but has become more popular in recent days after being linked to by several prominent blogs.

Islam, anti-semitism and France


We all remember the caricature of the last Messenger which appeared in European newspapers, some times more than once, as an act of solidarity with the Danish publishers where the cartoon originated. The worldwide reaction of Muslims ran the entire gamut of emotions from anger to demands that the offending cartoon be retracted to calls for the resignation of the cartoonist and/or the editor of the newspaper. European publishers insisted on their rights to a free press saying they would not be intimidated by any reaction no matter how violent or incendiary. Other publications printed the offending cartoon as an act of solidarity with the Danish publications. Sometime later, newspapers again published the cartoon, in my opinion, as an act of provocation hoping to get a reaction from Muslims which would be prominently displayed across the front page of newspapers around the world, but the basic premise of freedom of the press to publish a cartoon even if billions of people found it offensive was always the reason given for the cartoon’s publication. Editors, reporters, et.al all cited the right to a free press to publish unfettered any and everything deemed by them relevant to find its way on the printed page, no matter how many people it upset, no matter which religion was attacked.

Advance a short time later to 2008 and we find this headline.

Satirist sparks uproar with Sarkozy son Jewish jibe

and this one.

Cartoonist gets death threats over Sarkozy ‘Jew” quip

From the former headline:

A French newspaper satirist has sparked a feverish tug-of-war over free speech and anti-Semitism with a biting column on the engagement of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish heiress.

Published on July 2 in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the piece cost the 79-year-old Sine, a veteran cartoonist and anarchist writer whose real name is Maurice Sinet, his job after he refused to apologise.

Since then it has unleashed a torrent of op-ed articles, blog entries, petitions and counter-petitions as French writers, politicians and armchair commentators line up to vilify or defend him.

A lifelong provocateur whose previous targets have included Muslim fundamentalists and gays, Sine finally went to the police after a website published a call for him to be murdered, his lawyer said on Sunday.

Explaining what the uproar is all about, the second link writes.

L’affaire Siné, as it is known, began a month ago when the cartoonist wrote a column in Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly, about the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 21, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain.

Sinet repeated an unfounded rumour that the son of the President planned to become Jewish and added: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.”

The remark caused fury amid claims that it alluded to age-old prejudices about Jews and money.

With the press speculating that Mr Sarkozy could sue Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, its editor, asked Sinet to apologise.

“I’d rather cut my balls off,” he replied.

He was fired and Mr Val said that his comments “could be interpreted as making a link between the conversion to Judaism and social success and that was neither acceptable nor defendable in court”.

What I find amazing is the swiftness with which some people found the material offensive and retribution for the offense demanded, and the call by people who said the press had the right to publish material offensive to Muslims supporting the firing of someone who made at best a passing remark about Jewishness. With regards to French Jews, or Judaism, the press does not have the right to offend and should be concerned with French-Jewish reaction, it’s just that someone forgot to tell Monsieur Sinet that. It’s interesting how the reaction to Sinet’s cartoon follows closely the reaction Muslims had to offending material in the past, including the call by some in the Jewish community for Monsieur Sinet’s death! Shades of Salman Rushdie perhaps?

The convergence of zionism and Judaism


I believe it’s an unspoken truth that the two are inextricably related so much so that the lines are blurred and many people see them as one.  I don’t however, for in my opinion zionism is a political movement dedicated to the return of Jews to a certain part of the world at the expense of the people already living there, whereas Judaism is a belief in God, or G_d as I’ve seen some people write it while not quite knowing why they do it that way, that has some semblance of justice and fairness for all His creation.  Perhaps that’s my projection of ANY religion that takes off from the point of a benign and benevolent Creator, which I see wholly inconsistent with oppression and genocide, the likes of which are taking place in the occupied territories of Palestine.

I was very happy to hear that the Saudi regime initiated an interfaith meeting where they invited people from the major religions to Spain to talk about what they have in common and how they could foster better relations with one another. There’s certainly a lot to talk about there in this atmosphere of Islamophobia,  although I’m sure members of other faiths have plenty to talk about with Muslims.  The Saudis are generally very non-confrontational so they avoided inviting any religious representatives of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, from Palestine or Israel and there was the beginning of a conference whose doom was sealed before it ever got started.  Jews wanted Israeli Jews present probably because they thought their presence would indicate de facto recognition of Israel by the Saudis who until now have not recognized that state.  Moreover they were not to pleased with the mention of “zionism” in anything other than a good light.  Most likely, the conference organizers don’t equate zionism with Judaism as some Jews would like.  That criticism of “zionism” which I think had no place in an interfaith conference but whose defense by some Jews highlights the confusion between religion and politics, as it pertains to Judaism.  Some of the Jewish participants, and most notably one Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee said the conference would be little more than a photo opportunity unless it led to a follow-up in Saudi Arabia with Israeli Jews which seems to mean Jews won’t participate in a follow-up conference unless those two conditions are met: Israeli Jews are invited and it take place in Saudi Arabia. However,  not all Jewish participants were in such a conundrum about their religion and the state of Israel and were optimistic about the chances for the future.  The identification of a religion with a nation state has no place in an interfaith dialogue, especially one with as poor a human rights record as Israel.  That some Jewish members made that connection is more than unfortunate.