Your propaganda is not at all convincing. People just aren't buying your weak, transparent, and wholly illogical arguments anymore. You've lost. You lost before you started. Your way is the wide path to Hell.
Published: 06/13/08, 1:46 AM
by Ted Belman
The more things change...
Arabs play offense while Israelis play defense. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of propaganda.
What a joke. The Israelis pump out an endless stream of propaganda on the offense until recently. Now they are getting on the defense, because they are being shown to be wrong morally and legally.
But first I want to look at the negotiations. Can anyone tell me what the Israelis are demanding? I'm waiting.
On the other hand, the Arabs are demanding the holy city in Jerusalem, the Green Line as the border and the "right of return". It seems Israel is always struggling to meet their demands in part, hoping it will suffice. No such struggle on the part of the Arabs; just the reiteration of their demands. They have a sense of entitlement, while the Israelis have a sense of indebtedness. That's no way to win a ball game.
Israel is constantly avoiding meeting anything. They have done this to drag things out while the illegal, immoral, violent land grabbing, deception, and obfuscation continue. Regardless, Israel had no business horning into Palestine and then horning out the Palestinian Arabs. The British hated it for the most part. Many Brits didn't really want to become powerless to protect the Arabs they had promised. Of course, there were false-Zionists in Britain and they had power and wealth.
The Arabs always rejected the State of Israel and in the seventies made a conscious decision to convince the world to do likewise. So, they began a propaganda war to demonize and delegitimize Israel and Zionism. The infamous Zionism is Racism resolution at the UN was the first volley.
Polls in Israel show that the vast majority of Jews believe the Arabs are inherently ethnically inferior. Those polls show some really despicable attitudes. Surveys of Israeli show ethnic bigotry against Arabs.
"Poll: Jewish students believe Arabs are uneducated, uncivilized, violent." Israel Today Magazine. January 10, 2007. (last accessed: Thursday, January 11, 2007).
Also, Hollywood stereotypes Arabs and Muslims. This is done by primarily on account of Jews in Hollywood controlling scripts, etc. We wrote about Jack Shaheen's film and book, "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People" in our post, "Jack Shaheen: Partial Truths." Read it if you haven't already.
David Matas, famed human rights lawyer from Canada, in his excellent book Aftershock, written in 2002, reviewed the attacks on Jews and Israel throughout the world, and asked: How could this happen sixty years after the Holocaust? He answers:
"The root cause of the revival of antisemitism is anti-Zionism. Zionism is the expression of the right to self determination of the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism, by definition, denies and rejects this right by denying the right to a state by the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism is a form of racism. It is the specific denial to the Jewish people of the basic right to which all people of the world are entitled.
"Israel exists because of the Holocaust, because of antisemitism and as a place of refuge for Jews fleeing persecution, for the cultural survival of the Jewish people and their right to self-determination, because of the ties of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, and because of international acceptance and recognition. The logic of anti-Zionism requires attacking each and every one of these reasons for the existence of Israel."
Hogwash. Anti-Zionism cannot be reduced to this at all. I am an anti-false-Zionist. A real Zionist is for peace, as that's what the term means. A false-Zionist is one who covets someone else's land and steals it by means of violence and subterfuge. Also, all people are entitled would mean that every family is a nation and deserves its own state. I don't deny that, but that's not the position of the false-Zionists. They aren't advocating for each Palestinian Arab family/nation to have its own nation-state. The truth is that the only way for anyone to achieve this dream is for everyone to achieve it. The only way to do that is by everyone sharing all the land as one big family of humanity, which we are if we will but accept the truth of it. We are one species (family).
Thus, the Holocaust is denied or trivialized and the creation of Israel is discredited as Western colonialism or a "mistake", if you will. In addition, the Arabs have created a narrative to compete with the Jewish narrative. The Arabs deny that both the First and Second Temples were located at or near the Temple Mount. In their narrative, they have the roots and rights in and to the land and the Jews have virtually no connection to it. They also deny the peoplehood of the Jews, while at the same time claiming their own and their right to self-determination.
The connection of the Jews to the land was originally by way of violent conquest and even wholesale extermination of other nations. The only thing we know of this comes out of the Torah. The Torah claims that the only justification was the utterly evil practices of the earlier inhabitants. That cannot be said of the Palestinians now. What's the excuse for coveting their land and taking it by force? There is none. It's inexcusable, just as the White man taking American Indian land by force was inexcusable. People need to repent and atone and live the New Commandment.
Beyond that, Arabs attack the Jews for all the worst crimes known to man. Their charges are not at all based in reality. It doesn't matter if there is any evidence to support them, nor that they are outrageous or perverse. They will distort facts or fraudulently present "facts" to support their allegations. They also misrepresent the law in order to more easily conclude that Israelis have committed a crime, or better still, a war crime.
It was a war crime to drop all those cluster bomblets on Lebanon wasn't it? Yes, it was. There's no doubt about it. Even if there were no law against it, it would still be extremely immoral and evil. Have the Arabs done evil in return? Yes, they have. Just arguing back and forth though is a delaying tactic.
The list of "crimes" include: perpetrating genocide or another holocaust; ethnic cleansing; the commission of war crimes for disproportionality; intentionally killing innocents; and creating an humanitarian disaster. Anti-Zionists are relentless in stigmatizing Israel as an Apartheid state, so that they can create a worldwide movement to delegitimize Israel similar to the movement that undermined the real Apartheid regime, South Africa. And to do this, the reality and the nature of the Apartheid regime are distorted and falsified.
More hogwash. "The reality and the nature of the Apartheid regime are [not] distorted and falsified." The similarities are appropriately brought to the attention of the world. Look, it was 1948 (after WWII) that the false-Zionists made a huge error in taking land. Desperation and being traumatized and hardened is no excuse for dispossessing others. If you think it is, you're sick. Your moral compass is broken. You better repent.
Anti-Israel lies also include the following:
the occupation is illegal;
How is it legal? Is it legal, because the U.S. has bullied the world? No, that doesn't make it legal. The supreme mundane law in the world is the U.N. Charter and Declare of Human Rights. You need to think. The actions of Israel are unconstitutional on a global scale. The only thing that is preventing the right decisions global is the coercive (militaristic) nature of the U.S. Empire. However, might doesn't make right.
the settlements are illegal;
If you're saying the settlements are legal, you're an idiot. Your leaders don't even assert such nonsense, though they assert plenty of nonsense.
Judea and Samaria are Palestinian lands;
Well, even before Abraham, the land was occupied. That doesn't mean that there wasn't room for others at the time (no room at the inn even for a young pregnant woman about to give birth). Remember, the promise was conditional. It's always been conditioned. It was conditional under Moses who predicted that the Jews would be thrown off the land for becoming too unrighteous.
Israel is the aggressor;
Well, who horned in on whom?
Jerusalem is holy to Islam;
They say so. They have as much right to think of it that way as anyone else, don't they? I'm no Muslim, but I don't hold with Pharisaic, Talmudic Judaism. (ANTI-SEMITISM AND OTHER TRICKS OF THE MACHIAVELLIANS.) I'm a Christian. I hold with the teachings of Jesus (a real Jew by the way). He gave you all the right direction: The Great Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the New Commandment. They all fit perfectly together. Serve the Arabs. You'll be amazed that they will serve you in kind if you really mean it.
the Arabs support a two-state solution; and
They are moving now to a one-state solution, because the Jews have taken too much land and carved up theirs with a Jew-only network of roads.
the Jews want to take over the world pursuant to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
There are some people in every nation who aspire to dominate the world. There are Jews who do. That doesn't mean all Jews do. It doesn't do any good though to pretend that there aren't Jews who salivate at the thought of a Jewish Empire of Biblical proportions.
David Matas and others have convincingly debunked all of these lies. But the Arabs follow the Nazi Goebbels' dictum to a 'T':
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Sure, you mean the Big Lie like, "A land with no people, for a people with no land." That was a Big Lie wasn't it? It was a Big Zionists Lie, like so many others. Yes, it was. There were people in Palestine. The arable land was under cultivation. The estimates are that the Jews terrorized some 700-800,000 Palestinian Arabs into fleeing. Hundreds of villages were destroyed. The best homes were taken over by Jews who have never given them back — just stole them without excuse or legal cover.
The phrase "the big lie" was also used in a report prepared during World War II by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
What was Hitler trying to do? He was trying to take land by violence that he coveted as living space for the Germany people Hitler wanted to build into a huge Empire to last longer than the Roman Empire. Did the Palestinian Arabs do that to the Jews? No, they didn't. The Romans are the ones who beat the Hell out of the Jews and threw them off the land, just as Moses and Jesus said would happen. Of course, that isn't Jesus's fault. He told the Jews what to do to avoid it; but like Moses, he knew that too many would retain their stiff necks.
This, too, Arabs follow carefully. Its only natural, since Haj Amin al-Husseini, the father of militant Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept, was a close confidant of Hitler and asked of him to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs, and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."
One can draw too much of a conclusion about Haj Amin al-Husseini. Besides, the British took over from the Ottomans and they still didn't like the Jew's tactics in Palestine. The British had been beaten up and severely weakened during WWII, so they couldn't sustain their Empire and pulled out of mediating in the region. In the U.S., Truman was a domestic liberal as were so many American Jews, but he wasn't above ethnic bigotry and crass political calculations. He needed those American Jews he figured. He didn't need the Palestinian Arabs. That's not the right spirit though. He was right on many issues, but wrong on many too.
Plus Ã§a change, plus c'est la mÃªme chose. [The more things change, the more they stay the same.]
What the Israeli government must do is to challenge every one of the anti-Jewish lies at every opportunity. That's what its PR should be about and not about the babes on the beach. That is playing offense.
PR "about the babes on the beach" must be an inside joke. "...babes on the beach"?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)