Zionism’s Lost Shine

[slimmouse]

I'm just shocked that they accurately quoted Ahmedinejad in that comic book! No "We will wipe Israel off the map" boondoggle for these guys.

Hey, if that's how they feel, more power to them for promoting their opinions. The comic art is interesting and well done. I disagree with most of it, but it's pretty contientious as far as propaganda goes!

YOPJ

I think its better for anyone who knows whats really happening on the ground in that part of the world to best consider this yet another example of the dark Satire I discovered in a Murdoch newspiece a while back ( where some gobshite was now suggesting that we need to interven militarily in Syria in order to prevent weapons from the conflict falling into the hands of Al Quaeda. I subsequently posted it in the dark humour thread.

When you see this kinda stuff, I mean its just an insult to humanity.

[KeenInsight]

One can only hope that the Haredi Jews of Israel will one day outnumber the Right-Wing, Nationalist, Colonialist Israel Government that has been in place for many years.

Its been predicted that it may become a focal point of a civil war in Israeli itself where one side believes in Human Rights and Unifying with Palestine / Non-Militarism, while the other believes in the literal enslavement of Palestine and the continually obliteration of their peoples, rampant racism, etc. Both Haredi Jewish peoples and Arabs suffer similar plight in Israel; police harassment, discrimination, and religious persecution.

The propaganda of the Imperialist/Nationalistic/Zionist leadership in Israel has become so fierce that it penetrates Mainstream Media of Western Civilizations, as they are one in the same with the Imperialists that control Western Civilization.

[seemslikeadream]

[seemslikeadream]

A First for the Israel Boycott?
April 24, 2013
By
Elizabeth Redden
The general membership of the Association for Asian American Studies has unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the boycott of Israeli universities, making it the first scholarly organization in the U.S. to do so, according to the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

About 10 percent of the association’s membership was present for last week’s secret ballot vote, which was open to all members and took place on the final day of the AAAS annual conference in Seattle. The resolution raises a number of concerns about the impact of Israeli policies on Palestinian students and scholars – including restrictions on travel and the forced closure or destruction of schools as a result of Israeli military actions – and describes Israeli academic institutions as “deeply complicit in Israel's violations of international law and human rights and in its denial of the right to education and academic freedom to Palestinians, in addition to their basic rights as guaranteed by international law."

“Be it resolved that the Association for Asian American Studies endorses and will honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions,” the resolution reads in part. “Be it also resolved that the Association for Asian American Studies supports the protected rights of students and scholars everywhere to engage in research and public speaking about Israel-Palestine and in support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.”

The AAAS president, Mary Yu Danico, confirmed the resolution was approved and directed questions to the association’s past president, Rajini Srikanth, a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. Srikanth likened the academic boycott to that which was levied against South African universities to protest apartheid, and emphasized that the boycott is of institutions, not individual academics. “The reason that we’re very clear that this is a boycott of Israeli institutions and not Israeli scholars is that we are very aware that there are Israeli scholars who understand the difficulties that Palestinian academics and students have and speak up in support of Palestinian rights,” she said. “So we would absolutely be working with them, and providing them whatever support they need to challenge their institutions.”

At the same time, she said, “We would discourage partnerships with Israeli academic institutions, whether they’re curriculum partnerships or study abroad partnerships, because that would be becoming complicit with the discriminatory practices of Israeli institutions, and we would be encouraging faculty, staff and students to forge alliances with Palestinian faculty and Palestinian students who now have so much difficulty engaging in conversations with scholars from the rest of the world."

Britain’s main faculty union, the University College Union, has issued a series of resolutions over the years that fall just short of endorsing an academic boycott of Israel (see for example this 2008 resolution and this one from 2011). In April, the Teachers Union of Ireland became the first educational trade union in Europe to support an outright boycott, as The Jerusalem Post reported. However, the issue hasn’t gotten as much traction among academics on this side of the Atlantic, where boycotts are widely viewed as antithetical to academic freedom.

The American Association of University Professors opposes academic boycotts, stipulating in a 2005 statement that "since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has been committed to preserving and advancing the free exchange of ideas among academics irrespective of governmental policies and however unpalatable those policies may be viewed. We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas." (The AAUP further elaborated on that statement in regards to a then-proposed boycott of two Israeli universities here.)

“It’s a morally incoherent argument that somehow on behalf of the Palestinian cause it’s O.K. to abandon the principles that academics normally hold dear, which is that you don’t penalize scholars for having political affiliations that you may or may not agree with,” said Richard L. Cravatts, the president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, a pro-Israel organization, and the director of Simmons College’s communications management program. "Having a litmus test for the political affiliations or connections of professors has always been anathema to most academics."

Cravatts also rejected as “abhorrent” what he described as a singling out of the Jewish state for criticism when many other governments engage in condemnable behavior. Srikanth argued, however, that on the contrary academic criticism of Israel is subject to suppression through intimidation or censorship and that it is precisely the absence of meaningful criticism of Israel's human rights record on the part of the U.S. government that necessitates an academic boycott. "This is where civil society comes into play," she said.

[Searcher08]

I find it fascinating the same way The Watchtower is - in The Watchtower, all the men look like they are modelling clothing from 1970s and the women are patting lions.
I'm noticing that Captain Israel seems to be wearing snakeskin - his very armour is made from the skin of his BDS enemies - naughty Captain.

[seemslikeadream]

I find it fascinating the same way The Watchtower is - in The Watchtower, all the men look like they are modelling clothing from 1970s and the women are patting lions.
I'm noticing that Captain Israel seems to be wearing snakeskin - his very armour is made from the skin of his BDS enemies - naughty Captain.

oh wearing the skin of your enmey gives him the super ability to rewrite history

[Searcher08]

So Ken O'Keefe must be ostracised... because he plays into the hands of the people who make the Captain Israel comic. Riiiight.

Perhaps Captain Israel can have a special issue where he fights David Icke, Gilad Atzmon and Ken O'Keefe, the Captain in a Tag Team with David Aaronovitch.

[seemslikeadream]

BDS victory at TIAA-CREF
Jonathan Cunningham provides the backdrop to a new step forward for the boycott, divestment and sanctions struggle--this one against the Israeli company SodaStream.

July 22, 2013

Supporters of the BDS movement against Israel call on shoppers not to buy Sodastream
THE BOYCOTT, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement that has been protesting the Israeli occupation of Palestine took another step forward this month when the giant retirement fund giant TIAA-CREF announced it was divesting $9 million from SodaStream, an Israeli company that makes its carbonation machines in the occupied West Bank.

TIAA-CREF has been facing pressure from a new arm of the movement: We Divest, a campaign launched by Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) in 2010. Days after the SodaStream divestment was announced, We Divest organized a national day of action on July 16 to up the pressure on TIAA-CREF to divest from other companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The first step in the campaign at TIAA-CREF came last February when over 200 shareholders filed a resolution asking the fund to divest from companies that "contribute to or enable" human rights violations--in particular, those ongoing in Palestine. TIAA-CREF refused to put the proposal to a proxy vote among shareholders--and won approval for this move from the Securities and Exchange Commission. In response, activists all over the U.S. held demonstrations, protests and actions in front of TIAA-CREF offices.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE CAMPAIGN against TIAA-CREF is part of a larger solidarity effort for Palestine. In 2005, a coalition of more than 170 Palestinian organizations called for international supporters to initiate boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns--to boycott Israeli products and companies, divest from businesses that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and demand government sanctions for Israel's violations of international law.

The goal of the BDS campaign is to support the Palestinian struggle to secure an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, to stop the system of institutionalized racial discrimination against Palestinians in Israel, and to recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. The model for BDS is the international divestment campaign against apartheid South Africa which helped the Black freedom struggle finally topple the racist regime.

In recent years, BDS activism has become very effective in highlighting the crimes of the Israeli system--and the complicity of other governments, especially the U.S., that support it. The movement has been gaining momentum rapidly. The world-renowned physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking joined the academic boycott of Israel earlier this year, and this year alone, universities stretching from Oslo in Norway, Sydney in Australia, Sheffield in Britain, York in Canada, and Berkeley in California, among many others, have taken steps toward divestment.

This is the backdrop to the actions at TIAA-CREF. Jewish Voice for Peace started the We Divest campaign to pressure the fund--whose full name is the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equities Fund--in 2010. TIAA-CREF was chosen after it was pressured in 2009 to divest from Africa-Israel Investments, whose construction projects were viewed by activists to be in violation of human rights and international law. The following year, the We Divest campaign moved from being led by JVP to being structured as a coalition, with a representative of participating organizations serving on a National Coordinating Committee.

In February 2011, 20 shareholders filed a resolution asking TIAA-CREF to "engage" with companies doing business with occupying forces. This resolution might seem weakly worded, but it inspired the administrators to take drastic measures. Their first response was to disallow a vote by shareholders on the proposal and to request SEC approval for this action.

After the resulting outrage among activists and the promise of protests at its doorstep, TIAA-CREF moved its annual shareholder meeting from New York City to Charlotte, N.C. Despite the change of venue, however, dozens of activists still showed up outside the shareholder meeting to demand divestment from Israeli apartheid.

This year's proposal is much more direct than the one submitted in 2011. It demands that TIAA-CREF "end investments in companies that, in the trustees' judgment, substantially contribute to or enable egregious violations of human rights, including companies whose business supports Israel's occupation."

This resolution had 10 times as many shareholders backing it. The unequivocal wording produced stronger opposition from pro-Zionist forces. TIAA-CREF has been threatened with a lawsuit by Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center (ILC), if it allows the resolution to come to a vote. ILC is a Tel Aviv-based nonprofit that focuses on issues related to the Palestinian struggle for justice. Its work includes blocking other BDS work around the globe, as well as legal efforts to keep Gaza's southern border closed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE CAMPAIGN to pressure TIAA-CREF has generated two distinct victories. In July 2012, TIAA-CREF removed all Caterpillar stock--worth more than $72 million--from its "Social Choice" fund. And now this year, TIAA-CREF divested more than $9 million from SodaStream.

Andrew Dalack of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network explained why SodaStream has become a central focus of the BDS campaign:

SodaStream insists in its marketing materials that they are "Building Bridges, Not Walls," but the truth is that it profits from a system of illegal occupation and settlements, based on walls and checkpoints that control, humiliate, and criminalize millions of people. It appears TIAA-CREF was able to see through the empty slogans and identify SodaStream as a company that in no way could be passed off as "for the greater good." We commend them for that.

This victory reinforces the obvious--if TIAA-CREF sees the problem with an investment in SodaStream, it should acknowledge the problem with investment in other companies that profit from Israel's occupation and allow shareholders to vote on the resolution to divest from apartheid.

Activists around the U.S. gathered in protest of TIAA-CREF's blatantly undemocratic decision to block a shareholder vote. The day of action was July 16, the date of the shareholder meeting when the resolution would have been voted on. Actions took place in at least 12 cities, including Charlotte, N.C., (where the meeting was held), Denver, Chicago and New York City.

In Denver, an action called by the Colorado BDS Coalition (CBC) took place in front of the TIAA CREF building at 17th and Broadway. CBC chose TIAA-CREF as its primary target in April of this year, following a conference of solidarity activists. CBC is made up of several organizations and individuals, including the International Socialist Organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, Friends of Sabeel, and Front Range Jewish Voice for Peace.

In New York City, the BDS group Adalah turned out several dozen activists who performed mime, songs and creative divestment chants outside the Midtown headquarters of the pension giant. Known for transforming public protests into cultural events, Adalah-NY once again used street theater and music as a means to attract attention from the rush-hour crowds heading toward Grand Central Station a few blocks away.

The crowd favorite was a hearty rendition--complete with dance moves--of the group's call for TIAA-CREF to divest, sung to the tune of the '70s hit "YMCA." Lyrics and video of the demonstration/performance will be posted to the Adalah-NY website.

Caterpillar Removed from TIAA-CREF’s Social Choice Funds

For Immediate Release

Caterpillar Removed from TIAA-CREF’s Social Choice Funds

Victory for Pro-divestment Advocates

June 21, 2012- Pension fund giant TIAA-CREF has removed Caterpillar, Inc. from its Social Choice Funds portfolio. As of May 1, 2012, financial data posted on TIAA-CREF’s website valued Social Choice Funds shares in Caterpillar at $72,943,861. Today it is zero. “We applaud this decision,” said Rabbi Alissa Wise, Director of Campaigns at Jewish Voice for Peace and National Coordinator of the We Divest Campaign (http://www.wedivest.org). “It’s long past time that TIAA-CREF began living up to its motto of ‘Financial Services for the Greater Good’ when it comes to the people of Israel and Palestine.” Since 2010, We Divest has been urging TIAA-CREF to drop Caterpillar and other companies profiting from and facilitating Israel’s 45-year-old military occupation and colonization of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. “By selling weaponized bulldozers to Israel, Caterpillar is complicit in Israel’s systematic violations of Palestinian human rights,” said Rabbi Wise. “We’re glad to see that the socially responsible investment community appears to be recognizing this and is starting to take appropriate action.” Caterpillar has come under increasing criticism from human rights organizations in recent years for continuing to supply bulldozers to Israel, which uses them to demolish Palestinian civilian homes and destroy crops and agricultural land in the occupied territories, and to build illegal, Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land. In the coming weeks, many will be watching the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly taking place in Pittsburgh, where church commissioners will vote on a motion to divest from Caterpillar and two other companies, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard, that remain in TIAA-CREF’s Social Choice Funds. Last month, Friends Fiduciary, a Quaker institution, divested $900,000 worth of shares in Caterpillar stating: "We are uncomfortable defending our position on this stock."

What Others are Saying

Omar Barghouti, Palestinian human rights activist and founding member of the BDS movement said, "CAT is out of the bag of TIAA-CREF's socially responsible companies thanks to the inspiring campaign waged by JVP and its partners, with vision, persistence and tactical skillfulness. Palestinian civil society, represented by the BDS National Committee (BNC), deeply appreciates these efforts and believes that more pressure will ultimately convince TIAA-CREF to fulfill its basic moral obligation to finally divest from CAT and all other corporations that are complicit in Israel's grave and escalating violations of international law and human rights." Cindy and Craig Corrie, Rachel Corrie’s parents said, “For nearly a decade, we have witnessed human rights abuses committed with Caterpillar equipment in the West Bank and Gaza and have joined thousands who have asked the company to stop supporting these actions. We are hugely gratified that TIAA-CREF has taken this step. When governments and corporations avoid responsibility, we must refuse to profit from their abuses. Our family salutes and thanks TIAA-CREF for this decision that moves all of us closer to accountability.” Jennifer Bing, Middle East Program Director of the Chicago office of the American Friends Service Committee, a member organization of the We Divest Campaign Coordinating Committee, said, “As a TIAA-CREF client institution which has divested from Caterpillar ourselves, we are encouraged to see this first, great step toward creating a complete occupation-free portfolio that my colleagues and I are eager to have as an investment option.” Samia Shafi of Adalah-NY, a member organization of the We Divest Campaign Coordinating Committee, said, “This small, positive first step shows that TIAA-CREF is not immune to pressure for human rights for Palestinians. Our We Divest Campaign will continue pressuring TIAA-CREF until we win full divestment from all companies in TIAA-CREF’s portfolio that profit from violations of Palestinian human rights.” Anna Baltzer, National Organizer with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation -- a coalition of more than 380 organizations around the country -- and a member group of the We Divest Campaign Coordinating Committee, stated: “After years of Caterpillar refusing to change its practices, we are gratified that the U.S. corporation and others like it are seeing that support for Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies comes at a dear cost. There can be no more business as usual with such institutions. The tide is turning.”

Background

· The Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate with Caterpillar before calling for selective divestment. MRTI’s report on engagement with companies on Israel/Palestine-related issues noted that:

Caterpillar’s complicity in non-peaceful pursuits led the 2010 General Assembly to denounce the company’s profiting from involvement in human rights violations. Sadly, despite significant support for the shareholder resolution calling for a review of its human rights policy, Caterpillar has become even more intransigent. It has cut off all communication with the religious shareholders. Caterpillar continues to accept no responsibility for the end use of their products.

· In 2004, Amnesty International urged Caterpillar to take action in response to the documented use of its bulldozers to violate international law in the occupied territories, noting that “thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers.” · Human Rights Watch, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Presbyterian Church USA have all made similar recommendations to Caterpillar, to no avail. · In 2003, a Caterpillar bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier killed American activist Rachel Corrie while she nonviolently protested the demolition of Palestinian homes in the town of Rafah, in Gaza.

[coffin_dodger]

I don't understand why, in this day and age, anyone would think that they need to produce the simplistic tool of Cap'n Israel (which appears to be aimed squarely at children) to sell its cause. And incidentally, who is it aimed at? I mean, surely adult audiences are more sophisticated than that, these days?

If it is a reflection of the modern Israeli citizen and their attitude to the world around them, the mantra expressed in this publication would already be a part of the mindset, history and narrative of the Israeli citizen. So I can't see it's aimed at them.

If it's aimed at young Jewish Americans (as conjectured by Mark Levine in the article referred to above - as part of a welcome packet to "tens of thousands of Jewish freshmen and women as the new academic year begins on college campuses and Hebrew schools across the country") - why would the publishers consider these kin to be dolts, to know nothing of their heritage and needing to be treated as children?

Is it aimed at the struggling American public trying to live their daily lives against the grim backdrop of a society in freefall, to inform them as to why their government continues to unilaterally support Israel both financially and militarily - when that same US government cannot address it's own home-festering problems in any meaningful way? What would be the point of that? - surely it's akin to rubbing salt into the wounds of a country that needs to look inwards for a while, rather than expend sorely 'required-at-home' resources abroad. I can't even see this as being the target audience - one only has to look at the love and respect paid to Netanyahu by the US congress when he visited a couple of years ago, to understand that the will and thoughts of the American people were expressed with undeniable clarity by their democratic representatives on Capitol Hill - that the support of Israel is, and will remain, solidly unwavering.

If it's aimed at the BDS movement, as a kind of 'look how mighty the arsenal of weapons we have at our disposal to discredit you is', I think it may have failed to intimidate.

Who is it aimed at? The time for treating adults as children who need to be herded is kind of past, dontcha think? I just don't get it.

[semper occultus]

...shouldn't it be called "My Son.....the Superhero"....

[seemslikeadream]

Who is it aimed at? The time for treating adults as children who need to be herded is kind of past, dontcha think? I just don't get it.

But what was originally experienced as an exercise in sublimation has turned, six decades later, into a contact sport. With identity politics now a trenchant feature of culture, the Siegels and Shusters of the new millennium needn’t mask their anxieties in fabricated tales of faraway planets and secret identities. Arlen Schumer, for example, an award-winning illustrator, found his inspiration for Captain Israel in the all-too-real biblical kingdom of Judea, where his scale-armor-clad hero was born. In eight densely packed pages, aimed primarily at American college students, the Captain introduces his readers to Mark Twain, Theodor Herzl, Lord Balfour, and a bevy of boldly colored maps, all illustrating Israel’s unimpeachable moral uprightness and right on its divinely promised land. When the Captain himself speaks, it’s only to deliver punchy lines like “For almost two thousand years, no other state of unique national group developed in Palestine; instead, different empires and peoples came, colonized, ruled, and disappeared—but Jewish communities remained throughout the ages.” Even ignoring the gross historical inaccuracies and racist overtones packed into this lumbering sentence, it’s hard to imagine any actual young person finding the Captain remotely compelling.

And yet, the Captain soldiers on. A second issue—the first one was published this January—was slated for publication earlier this month but was postponed following a spat between Schumer and Stand With Us over the inclusion of some anti-Semitic writings by Martin Luther. An advertisement for the second issue shows the muscular hero battling an enormous serpent, identified as “The Venomous Snake Charmer BDS,” a reference to the international movement pursuing boycotts against Israel. Until he can do battle with the evil reptile (which, as some critics have rightly mentioned, bares a troubling resemblance to imagery used in the anti-Semitic cartoons of early last century), http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-an ... discussion

some of us are just getting really tired of AD treating us like children so this comic book does amplify the real situation going on right here at RI ....OTT crazybullshitcrapolalookingforananti-semiteundereveryrockRIpost....and I doubt he will address the comic book at all and go on ignoring the other side of the story that he keeps pushing here....to him the Palestinians are in no need of defending from him the way Zionists are.....and now we have AD's enabler du jour ...taking over a place left abandoned by others....

Arlen Schumer has more in common with Icke than Atzmon ever could...I never read anything where Atzmon talked about reptiles being the enemy so maybe AD should go back to the school of associations for counseling .....then slow his roll

[Searcher08]

The Captain underneath his steroidal bulges, Star of David shield and Menorah Pali-cannon seems a kind of sad character - and he seems to do the thing that Alice described so eloquently, which is to declare their victimhood above all others unto the point of "How could you be so mean and selfish and hurtful to us that you leave us no choice but to drop white phosphorous bombs on your families" <cue tears delivered Joan Crawford style>

The audience = the same perhaps as Captain America... perhaps it is just something to talk about. Perhaps something to engage attention and create conversation when things are a bit rocky...

I think it is important not to overestimate it. There was a great quote by Abe Foxman in the film about the ADL called IIRC 'Outfoxed' where he said actual Jewish power was way less than non-Jews imagined but actually a lot more than Jews imagined - and seemed to see it as sensible to perpetuate both sides - and I have to say from his point of view I think that makes great sense.

The thing at the moment that I find truly bizarre is Israel encouraging the situation in Syria. I would have thought (not withstanding the alliance with Iran) that the Alouite devil you know is worth WAY more than either a civil war or Salafist devil you dont...

I don't understand why, in this day and age, anyone would think that they need to produce the simplistic tool of Cap'n Israel (which appears to be aimed squarely at children) to sell its cause. And incidentally, who is it aimed at? I mean, surely adult audiences are more sophisticated than that, these days?

If it is a reflection of the modern Israeli citizen and their attitude to the world around them, the mantra expressed in this publication would already be a part of the mindset, history and narrative of the Israeli citizen. So I can't see it's aimed at them.

If it's aimed at young Jewish Americans (as conjectured by Mark Levine in the article referred to above - as part of a welcome packet to "tens of thousands of Jewish freshmen and women as the new academic year begins on college campuses and Hebrew schools across the country") - why would the publishers consider these kin to be dolts, to know nothing of their heritage and needing to be treated as children?

Is it aimed at the struggling American public trying to live their daily lives against the grim backdrop of a society in freefall, to inform them as to why their government continues to unilaterally support Israel both financially and militarily - when that same US government cannot address it's own home-festering problems in any meaningful way? What would be the point of that? - surely it's akin to rubbing salt into the wounds of a country that needs to look inwards for a while, rather than expend sorely 'required-at-home' resources abroad. I can't even see this as being the target audience - one only has to look at the love and respect paid to Netanyahu by the US congress when he visited a couple of years ago, to understand that the will and thoughts of the American people were expressed with undeniable clarity by their democratic representatives on Capitol Hill - that the support of Israel is, and will remain, solidly unwavering.

If it's aimed at the BDS movement, as a kind of 'look how mighty the arsenal of weapons we have at our disposal to discredit you is', I think it may have failed to intimidate.

Who is it aimed at? The time for treating adults as children who need to be herded is kind of past, dontcha think? I just don't get it.

[seemslikeadream]

August 06, 2013
The Israel Lobby and the War on Terror
What National Interest?
by LAWRENCE DAVIDSON

President Obama and his congressional colleagues are carrying on an established, yet clearly dangerous, tradition of U.S. foreign policy — the mixing up of national interest and the parochial interests of powerful lobby groups. Indeed, given the way U.S. federal politics has long operated, national interest is, except in rare cases, an impossible notion. This is because almost all politicians and both political parties are so tied to, and financially dependent upon, powerful lobby groups that they cannot formulate independent positions on issues important to these lobbies. Thus, what is put forth as national interest is most often the interest of a particular interest group with too much money buying too much influence.

In today’s foreign policy arena this conflation of the general and the particular is best seen in U.S. policies in the Middle East. Here are four recent examples:

The renewal of “peace talks” between the Israelis and the Palestinians is presently big news. The Obama administration casts itself as the “honest broker” bringing the two sides together to renew negotiations after a three-year hiatus. However, the United States has never served as an “honest broker” between these two parties and this is one of the reasons that their conflict has remained unresolved so long.

Why can’t the U.S. be the “honest broker”? Because the American government is in no position to formulate an independent policy reflecting the nation’s national interest in a just and therefore lasting peace. The Zionist lobby (made up of both Jewish and Christian Americans) is so powerful that the vast majority of politicians and both political parties will not defy it. So the U.S. position is always pro-Israel.

That is why the Obama administration recently appointed Martin Indyk “special envoy to shepherd [Israeli-Palestinian] talks toward a final settlement.” Indyk is an outright Zionist whose lack of impartiality contributed to the failure of peace talks under the Clinton administration. There is no secret about this, nor is there any apparent embarrassment on the part of the Obama administration at simultaneously claiming to be a worthwhile mediator while assigning an overtly prejudiced envoy to the talks.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that, if there is a “settlement,” it will be a pro-Israeli one forced upon a Palestinian National Authority, which, in any case, is made up of people who are not representative of the Palestinians at large and really have no legal standing to negotiate anything, much less a final status agreement. Is this a formula for future peace? Of course not. But it is what the Zionist lobby finds acceptable.

If the appointment of Indyk were not enough to indicate the lack of any “national interest” guiding American policy when it comes to the “peace talks,” then this next item is definitive. According to a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a confidential letter from President Obama delivered to the Israeli government gave assurances that the U.S. position is that Palestinian refugees should return only to a future Palestinian State and not to Israel (from where many were evicted). In addition, any settlement of borders should reflect “the reality on the ground.” Such a position prejudices the outcome of negotiations in favor of the Israelis and therefore will certainly deny justice to the Palestinians. That almost assures future strife and cannot possibly reflect U.S. national interest. Objectively, it does not even reflect Israeli national interest. It does, however, coincide with the wishes of the Zionist lobby in Washington.

In late July Deputy Secretary of State William Burns told Congress that President Obama will not make a judgment whether the military removal of Mohammad Morsi, Egypt’s first freely elected president, constituted a coup. Under U.S. law, if the government judges what happened in Egypt to be a coup, all American aid to the Egyptian military ($1.3 billion a year) would have to stop. However, the Obama administration does not want the aid to stop, and so Burns announced that, “The law does not require us to make a formal determination as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination.” Just how does Burns determine “national interest”? Well, in this case the “national interest” is having an Egyptian officer corps, bribed with U.S. tax dollars to act in a pro-Israeli fashion, running their country. Thus U.S. “national interest” is defined by Israeli national interest. If presented this way to the American people, there would no doubt be objections, so our policy is publicly put forth differently. According to a recent statement by Secretary of State John Kerry, the Egyptian military removed a freely and fairly elected government in order to “restore democracy.”

Finally, there is the U.S. Congress’s obsessive refusal to come to terms with Iran. One of the longest series of foreign policy bills to come out of the post 9/11 Congresses are bills levying sanctions on Iran. Ostensibly, this is because Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Wait a minute! For years the heads of every relevant American intelligence agency have been telling each of those Congresses that there is no evidence that the Iranians are seeking such weapons. No matter, the Zionist lobby says they are and, what’s more, has helped write every one of those sanctions bills. Now, just days before a new moderate Iranian president takes office, the House of Representatives passes the most punitive sanctions bill yet. Let’s insult the guy we might be able to deal with. U.S. national Interest? No, the interest of a powerful lobby.

Lobby Interest and the War on Terror

What has this literal selling out to the Zionists of U.S. national interests in the Middle East gotten the country? For one thing, it helped bring on the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However, you can’t expect those who sold their independence for a handful of campaign silver and other political support to admit this. Thus, no branch of the U.S. government has ever owned up to the fact that terrorist attacks are in part a product of American foreign policies. Having refused to grasp this fact, the U.S. government has failed to make any reforms in how it formulates such policies. Which means the special interests are still in charge.

As a consequence we find the following: “The State Department issued a worldwide alert on Friday [2 August 2013] as it suspended operations in 21 Muslim countries in response to ‘current information’ that suggests al Qaida and affiliated militant groups could strike within the next month.” By the way, just a year ago Washington was telling us that the “defeat of al Qaida was within reach.” This premature optimism was then replaced by last May’s gloomy prediction that the “war on terror” is likely to last “another 10 or 20 years.” The truth is that unless we come to see national interest apart from the parochial interests of powerful lobbies such as the Zionists, there will be no end at all to the terrorist threat.

This is a hole that the U.S. political system dug for itself. There is enough entrenched conservatism in the country to make campaign finance reform unlikely for the foreseeable future. At the same time, money coming from private interests to fund the campaigns of their favorite candidates (who in turn have sold their political souls to these interests) is declared the equivalent of “free speech” by the Supreme Court. As a consequence special interests such as the Zionist lobby can and do buy themselves control over vital aspects of Middle East foreign policy. It is a failed system which has already dragged the nation halfway to hell. Another “10 or 20 years” will take us the rest of the way in.

New York Times Slammed for Downplaying Dangers of Palestinian Stone-Throwing ‘Hobby’
Aug. 6, 2013 8:29am Sharona Schwartz

The New York Times published a front page story Monday about a West Bank village in which scores of boys spend their time throwing stones at Israelis. That article is eliciting criticism from pro-Israel mainstream media watchdogs who say it romanticizes the violent pastime which can be deadly.

The story, “In a West Bank Culture of Conflict, Boys Wield the Weapon at Hand,” profiles 17-year-old Muhammad Abu Hashem who has been arrested four times in three years for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and civilians. The Times reports that his five brothers have all faced similar charges of throwing stones and that three of the boys and their father were in prison at the same time last year.
NYT Slammed for Downplaying Dangers of Palestinian Stone Throwing Hobby

AFP captured this dramatic photo in 2012 of Palestinians throwing large rocks at an Israeli teacher’s car in the same village profiled by the New York Times.

“Children have hobbies, and my hobby is throwing stones,” Muhammad told the Times. “A day with a confrontation is better than a free day.”

In the village of Beit Ommar between Bethlehem and Hebron, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren writes, “rock throwing is a rite of passage and an honored act of defiance.”

“They throw because there is little else to do in Beit Ommar — no pool or cinema, no music lessons after school, no part-time jobs other than peddling produce along the road. They do it because their brothers and fathers did,” the Times writes, describing the Palestinian perspective.

Among the sites criticizing the piece:

CAMERA: “The New York Times Romanticizes Palestinian Stone Throwers and Ignores Their Victims”

Honest Reporting: “Note to New York Times: Throwing Stones is an Act of Violence”

The Washington Free Beacon: “NYT Downplays Deadly Results of Palestinian Rock-throwing ‘Hobby’”

The American Thinker: “NYT Absolves Stone-throwing Palestinian Youth”

Honest Reporting calls the Times piece an effort of “some in the media to glorify the violence,” adding, “New York Times reporter Jodi Rudoren is the latest apologist to present Palestinian stone throwers as noble defenders of their land and victims of Israeli oppression rather than as violent criminals.” It writes:

…Rudoren goes to great lengths to build sympathy for the Palestinian youth and his family, noting how his mother made sure to give him a long sleeve shirt for his stay in prison because “they both knew it would be cold in the interrogation room.”

The “settlers” don’t receive nearly the same level of empathy, even when they are the victims of the rocks being thrown. Menuha Shvat, the only Gush Etzion resident quoted in the story, is also the only one who discusses how dangerous rock throwing can be.

The Times mentions that a man and his baby son died in 2011 when their car was attacked by Palestinian stone throwers and flipped over. Honest Reporting takes issue with the Times, because it “does not even bother to name the Israeli victims she mentions. In fact, the man’s name is Asher Palmer, and his one-year old son is Yonatan. And they didn’t simply die. They were killed, and the Palestinians who threw the rocks were convicted of murder.”

“To her credit, Rudoren attempts to present the values of the local Palestinians in their own terms. But the moral ambiguity that comes across in the article carries a price. By allowing the glorification of violence to go unchallenged, the article becomes yet another piece that fails to hold the Palestinians to any form of accountability,” writes Honest Reporting.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) writes, “Stones kill, maim, wound and change people’s lives forever. Israeli infants have been slain, toddlers critically wounded and adults have sustained severe head injuries or were hospitalized with lighter injuries, all due to Palestinian stone throwers.”

It adds, “…this was a story that romanticized and heroized the Palestinian perpetrators. It is they – not the Israeli dead and injured – who are presented as the victims, ‘provoked by the situation,’ forced into this type of ‘futile’ hobby, only to be arrested and incarcerated by fierce, powerful Israeli soldiers.”

CAMERA writes, “Her article focuses on the perpetrators’ excuses, justifications for and pride in their actions, as well as the hardships they endure when arrested for their activities,” such as missing school.

The American Thinker writes, “Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren offers a lengthy list of plaudits received by stone-throwing boys, but you’d be hard put to find any explanatory note by Rudoren that these are lethal weapons that maim or kill their targets. Basically, Rudoren views stone-throwing as simply an interesting cultural phenomenon. She clearly shies away from condemning such tactics.”

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine writes, “…though the story only mentions the victims of the stone throwing in passing in one sentence, flinging a large rock at an individual or a moving vehicle is not a game. It is a form of terrorism. Such actions are felonious assaults by any definition of the law. The purpose of the stone throwing is not making a political statement but to inflict injury and even death on those so unfortunate as to be in range of these missiles.”

TheBlaze has reported on a number of the Palestinian rock-throwing attacks, including the killing of the Palmers. The dramatic photo seen above was captured by AFP last year in the same village, Beit Ommar, profiled by the New York Times.

Yisrael Medad who writes the “My Right Word” blog reports that from January to June of this year, there have been 5,144 stonings, 611 Molotov cocktail attacks, 8 shootings and 3 stabbings perpetrated against Israelis in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

In comparison with the Palestinian perspective, CAMERA explains, in the U.S., stone-throwing is viewed as a serious offense. For example, an American teen was handed a life sentence in 1986 for throwing a stone from an overpass that killed a toddler in a car below. And in 2010, two teenagers in South Carolina were “indicted on first degree murder charges after killing a woman sitting in the front seat of a car with a stone hurled from an overpass.”

The same village profiled by the Times was in the news in May when a red flag with a swastika was seen flying near a mosque there.

[seemslikeadream]

How Can Zionist Martin Indyk Be an Honest Broker in the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations

By Mazin Qumsiyeh
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, August 5, 2013



Japan, Indyk and Negotiations

I will be in Japan giving a series of lectures on Israel-Palestine situation (explaining apartheid, popular resistance, nuclear weapons, and advocating for the only viable sustainable solution: one democratic secular state). Please tell your Japanese friends that they can find my schedule (in Japanese) at http://qumsiyeh.org/upcomingevents/

Public Negotiations began amid great fanfare in Washington DC. Saeb Ereklat sat next to a war criminal (Tsipi Livni who is responsible for massacre of hundreds of civilians in Gaza) and across from the Israeli lobbyist Indyk (representing the US) after giving up on the requirement (that is part of Oslo and the Road map) for a settlement freeze and settling for informal verbal assurances. This is the same Erekat who has been fruitlessly “negotiating” for 20 years along the sa,e lines (hence his book titled “Life is negotiations”). It is the same person who the Palestine Papers leaked to AlJazeera was shown giving one after another concession while the Israeli side yawned and asked for more (see http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/).

But most disturbingly, Abbas and Erekat accepted Martin Indyk as a US key broker in the talks. Indyk was appointed as US envoy to the “peace process”. Indyk will broker the deal between Erekat and Livni even though Indyk is a Zionist Jew who was an Israeli lobbyist. Indyk took leave of absence from the Zionist group the Brookings institute in Washington DC. A major funder of this institute is Haim Saban (see more about Saban at http://www.mediamonitors.net/mazin32.html). Indyk first worked in Washington for the 'Washington Institute for Near East Policy' (WINEP), an offshoot of AIPAC (Israel’s lobby). Indyk did not have US citizenship but this was quickly corrected with a speeded up process of facilitation, nomination, and approval (all in less than two weeks) by President Clinton in order to appoint him (this is rather unberlievable) as US ambassador to Israel. Appointing a lobbyist for a foreign country as US ambassador to that country is unprecedented. Now appointing a wolf to broker the deal between another wolf and a chicken is quite a feat. We will see how fast this chicken will get fleeced.

Ya’alon said, “Releasing prisoners came as a result of choosing a bad option over a worse option… We reached the decision to avoid the worse [option]. Many strategic considerations, which may be revealed in the future, stood behind this, and hence we must go forward with a release of pre-Oslo prisoners.”

Netanyahu said it even more clearly: that he refused to accept borders of 1967 or a settlement freeze and that this move to negotiations is merely to strengthen Israeli positions.

Palestinian Authority police prevent a Palestinian march and attack demonstrators who object to the unilateral decision by Abu Mazen to return to negotiations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbAkYyw3u7c

Analysis: Palestinians should invest in a Plan B By Daoud Kuttab
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=598851

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD
http://qumsiyeh.org

[seemslikeadream]

The Boycott of Israel Eight Years In

By Lawrence Davidson
Redress, Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, August 5, 2013

Boycott Israel movement at eight

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement directed toward Israel is eight years old. It was started back in 2005, when a coalition of Palestine-based social and economic organizations called for such a comprehensive effort.

At first the BDS movement appeared to be a long shot. Israel, with its worldwide coterie of Zionist supporters, both Jewish and Christian, seemed invincible. Particularly in the Western world, the belief in Israel’s legitimacy had reached the status of sacred tradition. The Zionists worked very hard to achieve this status by controlling the historical interpretation of events that had led from World War I and the Balfour Declaration to the creation of Israel in 1948, and beyond. They might well have been able to maintain control of Israel’s past, present and future if the Zionist leadership had not succumbed to the sin of hubris. They became so ideologically self-righteous and militarily muscle-bound that they believed their place in the world to be untouchable. Thus, as they built a country based on discrimination and colonial expansion in an age increasingly critical of such societies, they refused all compromise with the Palestinians and treated criticism of their behaviour and policies as at once anti-Semitic and irrelevant. They therefore failed to notice that their stubbornness was allowing others to erode the Zionist version of the history of modern Palestine/Israel.

…so successful has BDS been that the Israeli government has established an official task force to counteract it.

Eight years is not a very long time, but a surprising amount has been accomplished. Increasing numbers of people, particularly in the Western world, have been made aware of the plight of the Palestinians as well as their version of the history of Palestine/Israel. With this change in historical perspective, BDS established a foothold and started to grow. The movement has spent most of its time since 2005 coordinating a series of efforts to convince private-sector consumers, businesses, academics and artists to cut their ties with the Zionist state and its colonies. The latest success in this effort came just recently, when two of the largest supermarket chains in the Netherlands announced they would no longer sell Israeli merchandise manufactured or grown in the occupied territories. Indeed, so successful has BDS been that the Israeli government has established an official task force to counteract it.
European Union makes a move

Another recent event may be even more significant, because it suggests the potential for expanding BDS from the private to the public sphere. This was signalled when the European Union issued new rules for implementing certain categories of funding agreements with Israel. Funding of grants, prizes, loans and other financial cooperative ventures will now exclude Israeli institutions located in or doing business with the occupied territories.

I want to emphasize the notion of “potential” because the EU move is not a boycott action as such. It is a signal to Israel that the EU will not recognize Israel’s claim to any part of the occupied territories without a peace settlement, and therefore this move serves as a point of pressure on the Israeli government to give up its hubris and negotiate with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA – also referred to as the Palestinian Authority, or PA). By the way, the PNA as presently constituted is not a representative body and therefore has no legal authority to negotiate anything. However, the EU (along with the Israelis and the United States) persistently ignores this fact.

…even if, by some miracle, the Israelis see the light and withdraw from the occupied territories, there will still be a BDS movement agitating for an end to discrimination against non-Jews within the 1948 borders.

Nonetheless, this EU ruling is a step in the right direction, and some important Israelis understand the message. For instance, the Israeli peace organization Gush Shalom released a statement which said that the “EU has started to confront the government of Israel – and every citizen of Israel – with a road sign that cannot be ignored”. At least not without moving Israel toward “being an international pariah”. The renowned columnist and reporter for Israel’s newspaper Haaretz, Gideon Levy, has declared “The change [Israel needs] won’t come from within… Change will only come from the outside.” Therefore, “Anyone who really fears for the future of the country needs to be in favour of boycotting it economically.” And, Israel’s justice minister, Tzipi Livni, the present government’s only minister publicly in favour of negotiations with the Palestinians, has warned that the threat of European economic sanctions extends beyond the occupied territories. “It’s true that it will begin with the settlements,” she stated. “But their [a growing number of Europeans’] problem is with Israel, which is perceived as a colonialist country, so it won’t stop with the settlements and will reach all of Israel.”

Livni is correct. Israel’s version of history notwithstanding, the country’s origin is as a colonial settler state. As suggested above, the result was an inherently discriminatory society. This is not because most Israeli citizens are Jewish. It is because most are Zionists. Modern Zionism, which still reflects the colonial outlook of 19th-century imperial Europe, is the guiding ideology of Israel, and it proclaims that the country must be a Jewish state. Unfortunately, you can’t design a country for one group only, in a land where there also exists other sizable groups, and not end up with a discriminatory and oppressive society. Therefore, even if, by some miracle, the Israelis see the light and withdraw from the occupied territories, there will still be a BDS movement agitating for an end to discrimination against non-Jews within the 1948 borders.
Israel’s negative reaction

Becoming a real democracy, where all citizens enjoy genuine political equality, is Israel’s only way of escaping the inevitable isolation that comes with the growing BDS movement. Yet, there is no reason to believe that the ideologues who now control the Israeli political and religious power structures are going to move in this direction. One can see this not only from the growing effort the Israeli government is putting into countering BDS, but also from the angry reaction of its political leaders to the EU decision.

… both in the private and public sectors of Western society, greater numbers of people no longer follow the line of historical interpretation set down by the Zionists.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the EU decision with the temperament of a monarch. “We will not accept any external edicts on our borders.” That was, perhaps, the royal “we” he used. Then it was back to the first-person singular: “I will not let anyone harm the hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank], in the Golan Heights or in Jerusalem – our united capital.” The prime minister was quite off base in his pronouncements. He is the head of a country that has meticulously avoided setting borders for decades just so Israel could expand at opportune moments. That sort of imperial behaviour is not well accepted in today’s world. Also, unless he can greatly increase Zionist lobby leverage on the EU, he has no way to prevent the “harm” that may finally befall his compatriots for naively assuming the whole world will accept their criminal behaviour forever.

The entire episode points to the fact that, both in the private and public sectors of Western society, greater numbers of people no longer follow the line of historical interpretation set down by the Zionists. This is a major shift. Many Zionists might see this as a sign of growing anti-Semitism, but it really is nothing of the sort. There is nothing inherently Jewish about discrimination and colonialism. However, the same cannot be said for modern Zionism.
Conclusion

Again, the BDS movement is only eight years old. We can compare this to the more than 30 years it took the boycott of South Africa to end apartheid. So, comparatively, BDS is only at the beginning of its trek. Its fast start and ongoing achievements should bring hope and pride to those involved in the movement. They should also raise some serious second thoughts in the minds of those Israelis who think Netanyahu and his government of ideologues can prevent their country’s increasing isolation.