Zionism’s Lost Shine

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:37 am

The Stealth Campaign in Congress to Support Israeli Settlements

by Lara Friedman

Since the beginning of this year, an unprecedented but little-noticed campaign has been waged in Congress—backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and others—in support of Israeli settlements. At the core of this campaign is an effort to legislate a change in U.S. policy, which since 1967 has remained firmly opposed to settlements, under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Backers of the campaign, both in Congress and among outside groups like AIPAC, are promoting numerous pieces of legislation that redefine “Israel” to mean “Israel-plus-the-settlements” and make supporting settlements an integral and mandatory part of American support for Israel, as a matter of policy and law. They pass off their efforts as an entirely non-controversial matter of countering boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) against Israel in general, countering BDS policies adopted by the EU and some European countries, in particular.

Exploiting the fog-of-panic over BDS, they paint their efforts in black-and-white, “with-Israel-or-against-Israel” terms. And, whether out of fear, ignorance, or actual support for the campaign’s pro-settlements agenda, most members of Congress have swallowed this explanation without protest. They have done so despite the fact that not a single European country has adopted anything even resembling BDS policies against (Europe remains Israel’s largest trading partner today), and despite the fact that even a cursory examination of the legislation and policies in question reveals that they have nothing to do with, and would have no impact on, BDS targeting Israel, but rather would only result in U.S. support for settlements.

Thus far, the campaign—both in its brazenly dishonest framing and for its highly-controversial goal—has gone largely unnoticed and unchallenged. A handful of experts (including this author) have worked tirelessly to educate Congress and the public to what is really going on; a few talented journalists have tried to tell the whole story (for example, here and here). In the one case where the campaign managed to pass pro-settlements language into law, the Obama administration made clear that U.S. policy on settlements would not change. Regrettably, this clarification had no noticeable impact in Congress.

As documented in detail below, backers of this campaign clearly believe they have found a winning strategy, one that involves hijacking more and more elements of U.S. foreign policy and working to tie them, in law, to U.S. support for settlements. The energy behind this campaign shows no sign of abating, and there are no indications that Congress is waking up to the dangers this campaign holds—not only for the chances of achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace, but for an ever-widening range of U.S. policies and interests.

The 2015 “Settlements=Israel” Campaign: A Year in Review

Winter 2015: Initial Legislation Introduced: On February 10, Representatives Roskam (R-IL) and Vargas (D-CA) introduced HR 825. On March 2, Senators Cardin (D-MD) and Portman (R-OH) introduced their companion bill, S. 619 (Cardin announced he would be introducing S. 619 on March 1, at a plenary session at the AIPAC policy conference). Shortly thereafter, both bills were posted on AIPAC’s website as part of AIPAC’s legislative agenda (and remain there as of this writing). Notably, on September 9, 2014 Buzzfeed reported that AIPAC was directly involved in drafting the legislation. The ostensible purpose of both bills is to protect Israel from BDS policies adopted in other countries, particularly in Europe. In reality, these bills would define Israel, for the purposes of U.S. trade policies, as including the settlements, and make it U.S. policy to push back against policies that distinguish between settlements and Israel. The legislation also appears to lay the groundwork for barring the U.S. private sector from working with foreign companies that, on their own or consistent with laws to which they are subject, distinguish between Israel and settlements, and possibly even for extraterritorial sanctions. Notably, on its website AIPAC initially characterized the bill as concerned with the treatment of “Israel and her territories.” After attention was drawn to this unusual wording (unusual because it implies that AIPAC views the occupied territories as part of Israel), AIPAC removed the reference and its advocacy page now refers only to Israel.

Spring-Summer 2015: Pro-Settlement provisions attached to major trade bills. In April 2015, provisions similar to those in HR 825 and S. 619 were folded into two pieces of major trade legislation: the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, which eventually became HR 2146; and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (aka, the Customs Bill), which eventually became HR 644. During House and Senate Committee consideration of the provisions (Senate is here, starting at 09:01; House is here, starting at 18:00), members repeated concerns about BDS and “economic warfare” against Israel, ignoring the fact that the provisions would have no impact on BDS and would serve only to defend and promote settlements. President Obama signed HR 2146, including the pro-settlements provision, into law on June 29. The pro-settlements provision was of sufficient concern to the Obama administration that on June 30 it issued a statement clarifying that the bill’s conflation of Israel and settlement was not U.S. policy. This clarification may be intended to lay the groundwork for a veto or signing statement of future legislation containing similar provisions.

Fall 2015: Warning the EU over settlements policy. On November 9, Senators Cruz (R-TX) and Gillibrand (D-NY), along with 34 other senators, sent a letter to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, slamming the EU for its impending policy of requiring that labels on products coming from Israeli settlements accurately reflect their point of origin, which means they cannot say “made in Israel.” On November 10, Representatives Lamborn (R-CO) and Weber (R-TX), along with 34 of their House colleagues, sent a similar letter to Mogherini. Both letters treat the EU policy as a form of BDS against Israel. The Senate letter specifically references the pro-settlements provisions passed into law as part of the TPA legislation as justification for its attack on the EU’s policy, underscoring the fact that defending settlements was, from the start, the intent behind those provisions.

Fall 2015: Urging USTR action against the EU over settlements policy. On November 12, following the EU’s publication of its new settlement labeling policy, Representatives Roskam (R-IL) and Vargas (D-CA), and Senators Portman (R-OH) and Cardin (D-MD)—the foursome behind the original pro-settlement bills, HR 825 and S. 619—jointly sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, opposing the EU labeling policy and urging U.S. intervention. The letter references the pro-settlement provisions in the TPA bill as justification for its demands, underscoring (again) that defending settlements was, from the start, the intent behind those provisions. The letter also makes explicit the members’ goal of erasing the 1967 lines (aka, the Green Line) by introducing a new term of art for the occupied territories: “post-1967 Israel.” This term (like the one used and then deleted by AIPAC earlier in the year, “Israel and her territories”) clearly discloses a political agenda of legitimizing Israeli settlements.

Fall 2015: Holding Ex-Im Bank funding hostage to support for settlements. In late November, Senators Portman (R-OH) and Cardin (D-MD)—who are playing a consistent and energetic role in leading the pro-settlements campaign to add pro-settlements language—began an effort to link funding for the Export-Import Bank (which is currently shuttered for lack of funding) to support for settlements. Their effort, which once again being framed as pro-Israel and anti-BDS, is reportedly strongly supported by Wyden (D-OR) and Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV). In a letter lobbying for inclusion of the provision, Portman and Cardin specifically cite the pro-settlements provision in the TPA bill as precedent and point to the EU’s recent settlement products labeling policy as a concrete example of BDS against Israel that Congress must fight.

Lara Friedman is the director of policy and government relations at Americans for Peace Now.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:35 pm

This is one of the many reasons why "Israel's" days are numbered, no matter how many billions and billions of dollars' worth of weapons it gets from the US:

"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:39 am

Trump’s Heresy on Israel
December 6, 2015

The appeal of Donald Trump’s bigoted comments has exposed an unpleasant truth about the Republican Party, which has been flirting with racism since Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but his refusal to toe the line on Israel also highlights the groveling by other candidates, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

With less than two months until the Iowa caucus opens the 2016 primary season, Donald Trump’s poll-leading candidacy continues to cause increasing anxiety among Republican Party leaders worried about how he can be stopped from actually getting the nomination.

Trump poses two overall problems for the party. One is how freely he insults, denigrates, and offends a variety of groups — to the extent that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank flat-out calls him a bigot and a racist and criticizes other Republican candidates for being hesitant to call out Trump in the same way. The political problem for the party, of course, is that Trump’s ignoble attitudes in this respect will become associated with the party as a whole.

A second problem is in one sense a reverse of the first. It involves what Trump, in his unrestrained, not-according-to-script style, says that is distinctly different from what the other candidates are saying and what those differences imply about the other candidates. We saw an instance this week at a candidate forum held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, an important event in the “Sheldon primary,” in which most candidates are seeking the blessing and financial support of Mr. Adelson and other wealthy donors with inclinations similar to his.

Both of the leading outsider candidates made some headlines regarding foreign policy. In the case of Ben Carson it was the continued demonstration of his weak grasp of foreign affairs generally, with the main takeaway from his speech being his repeated mispronunciation of Hamas as “hummus.” In the case of Trump it was a couple of things he said, or didn’t say, about the important foreign policy issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One was Trump’s refusal to say that Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided capital of Israel. Trump approached the subject partly in his usual didactic way about deal-making, saying “you can’t go in [to a negotiation] with that attitude.”

He’s right about the negotiating reality as it concerns any hope for a two-state solution — and thus any hope for Israel to live in peace — and he is on sound ground regarding why as a matter of U.S. policy and international consensus it has long been recognized as a mistake to prejudge, let alone prejudge in an entirely one-sided way, the final status of a city to which both parties to the conflict have strong historical, religious, and cultural ties. But what Trump said on this subject went over like a lead balloon in the particular room in which he was speaking.

Similarly ill-received by this audience was his noting that Israel is not necessarily committed to making peace. Trump was even more gentle and “even-handed” about this subject than he could have been, with his exact words being “I don’t know that Israel has the commitment to make it [a peace agreement], and I don’t know the other side has the commitment to make it” — as if those under a military occupation should be expected to be no more anxious to end the occupation than the occupier is.

The background fact is, of course, that the current right-wing Israeli government has repeatedly indicated its preference for holding on to the territories rather that making a peace agreement that would involve yielding some of that land and making possible a Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even though he is less direct about this than some other members of his government, recently reaffirmed this preference and said Israel should “control all of the territory” and “forever live by the sword.” But for Trump to note this truth and to stray from the Israeli government’s narrative that it wants peace but doesn’t have a willing partner was anathema in the room in which he was speaking.

Trump was still in lead balloon territory with another of his comments at the same event: “I know why you’re not going to support me — because I don’t want your money. You want to control your own politician.” Ouch.

This remark was part of Trump’s “I’m too rich to be bought” shtick, but then the other candidates proceeded to demonstrate how apt the remark was. A visitor who wandered into the room who did not otherwise know which country’s election campaign was in progress would have surmised that the candidates were running for president of Israel rather than president of the United States.

Marco Rubio, for example, was at least as disciplined as any of the others in toeing the accepted line. His speech featured a condemnation of the European Union’s requirement for accurate labeling of goods coming from “what the EU considers ‘Israeli-occupied territories’.” Rubio declared that the regulations in question were “discriminatory laws that apply only to Jews” and that “we need a president who is not afraid to call this out for what it is: anti-Semitism.”

So it is anti-Semitic not only to say or do anything opposed to Israeli colonization of the occupied territories, but even to let consumers know what’s coming from those territories?

No one knows when, between now and the general election next November, Trump’s presidential candidacy finally will implode. But in the meantime he is drawing attention to some unappealing aspects not only of his own campaign but also those of his competition.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby zangtang » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:13 pm

^^ Imagine a thousand year healing process.
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:35 am



Start watching at 1:30 if you don't want to watch the whole thing. Israeli occupation soldiers throw down a knife, and, pointing their guns at her, force a terrified 14 year-old Palestinian girl to pick it up (to get her fingerprints on it), then arrest her. This video was reportedly filmed at an Israeli military check-point on December 1, 2015, outside the city of Bethlehem, which is illegally occupied by the Israeli war criminals.

It's worth noting that the illegal Israeli occupation soldiers have killed over 100 mostly young Palestinians over the past month, using the pretext that the Palestinians had knives and stabbed Israeli colonists. In most cases, the Palestinian medics were prevented from trying to save the Palestinians who have been shot by the soldiers of the illegal occupation. Most of the bodies of the Palestinians have not been returned to their families.

It's also worth noting that Israel has been credibly accused in the past, of stealing the organs of Palestinians they've killed.

They have also used this same pretext to demolish Palestinians' homes, especially in Jerusalem, which has been undergoing a rapid and brutal forced "Judaization" under the illegal Israeli occupation.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:00 pm

This should convince people not to boycott the criminal occupation...they're holding their Palestinian victims hostage.

Israel threatens to prevent Europe from carrying out projects for Palestinians

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)--
The Israeli ministry of foreign affairs has said that six European states will not be able to continue carrying out projects in Palestinian areas because of their involvement in labeling products of Israeli settlements.

Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, France, Luxembourg and Malta will no longer be able, in varying degrees, to carry out or take part in projects for the Palestinians in their areas, the ministry threatened.

Walla News website quoted a senior Israeli official from the ministry as saying that "Israel cooperated with some of these countries in the past to institute projects to rehabilitate the Gaza Strip and strengthen the Palestinian Authority, but this is going to change and they will begin to encounter difficulties and obstacles."

"The goal of this new attitude," the official said, "is to clarify to the countries that pushed for the product labeling that their actions have a price in the Palestinian arena." Link
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:17 pm

I'm getting really worried about Sweden. The odds that "ISIS"/Daesh will strike there have just increased exponentially.

Image
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby zangtang » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:26 pm

and if they do.....then we will know.



- rather than suspect.
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby tapitsbo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:59 pm

We hear a lot about Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism. I'm thinking maybe some here have some interesting thoughts on the meaning of Masonic Zionism - even if there are christians/jews involved in it I sense it has its own significance
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:02 pm

tapitsbo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:59 pm wrote:We hear a lot about Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism. I'm thinking maybe some here have some interesting thoughts on the meaning of Masonic Zionism - even if there are christians/jews involved in it I sense it has its own significance


I have no doubt at all that Zionism is Masonic. The same with the so-called "Christian Zionism", and with the Muslim Brotherhood. All three are just facades for Masonic manipulation of people's minds in the name of religion, while those who run them keep sending each other coded messages. What I'm not sure about is whether those doing the manipulating share an actual Masonic belief system, or simply find it useful.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:22 pm

The Jewish Communal Fund Invests in Islamophobia
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)More
by Eli Clifton

Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S. brought an outcry from across the political spectrum. The idea that the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination could propose a policy of outright discrimination based on religion was a shock to many. But even more surprisingly, his proposal appears to have had little if any impact on his poll numbers, where he still holds more than a 10-point lead over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in second place. The roots of Trump’s Islamophobia, and the willingness of the GOP electorate to accept such a proposal, lie in a mainstream acceptance, if not support, of Islamophobia.

Surprisingly, the Jewish Communal Fund (JCF), based in New York City, bears a degree of responsibility for funding some of the most high-profile propagators of Islamophobia.

The JCF is a donor-advised fund, which allows donors to deposit money and receive an immediate federal income tax deduction. Then the group directs the funds to eligible non-profit organizations at the donors’ direction. But JCF won’t send money just anywhere. Their handbook warns that “all grant recommendations are nonbinding.” Moreover,

the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Communal Fund retains the right to deny any grant request where the purposes and activities of the recommended charitable organization are deemed to be adverse to the interests of the Jewish community.
Last month, I wrote in The Forward about JCF’s funding of well-known anti-Muslim advocate Pamela Geller. She is perhaps best known for running anti-Muslim advertisements on public busses, including one that read “Islamic Jew-hatred: It’s in the Quran.” Between 2012 and 2013, the JCF contributed $100,000 to her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

But JCF’s funding of Islamophobia isn’t limited to Geller. An examination of the grants listed in JCF tax filings from 2001 to 2013 reveals approximately $1.5 million going to groups that largely exist to spread Islamophobic and anti-Muslim messages.

Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism

Between 2006 and 2013, the JCF contributed $477,190 to The Investigative Project on Terrorism, a group headed up by Steve Emerson. Emerson is best known for several high-profile gaffs following terrorist attacks. Earlier this year, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, Emerson inaccurately claimed that the city of Birmingham, England was a “Muslim-only city” where non-Muslims “don’t go,” leading British Prime Minister David Cameron to call Emerson “a complete idiot.”

This was just the latest in Emerson’s missteps. In 2013, he inaccurately said that the Boston Marathon bombings were perpetrated by “a Saudi national” and, when his assertion was proven false, claimed that the authorities were covering up the Saudi role. And in 1995, Emerson told CBS News that the Oklahoma City federal building bombing had a “Middle Eastern trait” because it was carried out “with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

David Horowitz Freedom Center

Between 2005 and 2013, the JCF contributed $250,020 to the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Horowitz argues that the U.S. is facing a growing danger of “Islamo-fascism” and expresses a special vitriol for Palestinians, who he describes as “sick, nasty terrorists” who “can’t live alongside anybody who’s not… Muslim.”

In a National Review column last year, titled “Thank you, ISIS,” Horowitz asserted that “virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror.” He went on to accuse Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin of coming “from a family of Muslim Brotherhood leaders” and concluded by suggesting that Barack Obama is aligned with the Islamic world to destroy America. He wrote:

[U]nfortunately, the president is still asleep or, less charitably, is hostile to American purposes, is hostile to the military that defends us, and identifies more with the Islamic world that has produced these forces who would destroy us than with the country he is sworn to defend.
Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum

Between 2001 and 2013, the JCF contributed $659,060 to Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum. In the Washington Times last Friday, Pipes criticized Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslims, but only to suggest that Trump got his wording wrong. Pipes wrote that Trump should have called for a ban on “Islamists” instead of “Muslims” because “they are the barbarians who ‘believe only in Jihad.’”

Pipes has a long history of making Islamophobic and anti-Muslim comments. In 2010, Pipes attacked Obama for speaking out against Florida Pastor Terry Jones’s plan to burn copies of the Quran, an act that senior Pentagon officials and the White House feared could lead to violence against Americans in the Middle East.

“Mr. Obama, in effect, enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory Shariah compliance,” wrote Pipes.

And Pipes’s concern about Muslim immigration, coupled with blanket generalizations about Muslim immigrants, is a common thread through his writing. In his 2002 book, Militant Islam Reaches America, Pipes wrote:

All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. Also, they appear most resistant to assimilation. Elements among the Pakistanis in Britain, Algerians in France, and Turks in German seek to turn the host country into a Islamic society by compelling it to adapt to their way of life.”
Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy

In 2001, the JCF contributed $10,000 to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, which conducted a poll cited by Donald Trump that showed 25% of American Muslims agreed that violence against Americans is justified. But that poll had some serious problems. It was an opt-in survey of 600 Muslims, a fact Gaffney’s group didn’t disclose when it first released the poll. Opt-in is a style of polling that the American Association for Public Opinion Research warns is “subject to unknown error that cannot be measured.”

The Anti-Defamation League denounced the Center for Security Policy, which the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation stopped funding in 2013, for “pioneer[ing] the anti-Sharia hysteria.”

In 2011, Gaffney was banned from attending the Conservative Political Action Conference after accusing two of the event’s organizers – former George W. Bush administration official Suhail Khan and anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist – of being Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Although JCF’s $10,000 contribution to Gaffney might seem small, the Middle East Forum, with its $659,060 in funding from JCF, has also been a generous supporter of Gaffney’s work. Between 2008 and 2012, Middle East Forum contributed $300,000 to the Center for Security Policy, according to publicly available tax filings.

The $1.5 Million Question That JCF Won’t Answer

JCF’s contributions to these groups raise questions about whether the fund—or the UJA-Federation of New York, which holds a “controlling financial interest” in JCF, according to UJA-Federation’s auditor’s report—are endorsing the statements and positions taken by Geller, Emerson, Horowitz, Gaffney, and Pipes.

JCF claims to retain “the right to deny any grant request where the purposes and activities of the recommended charitable organization are deemed to be adverse to the interests of the Jewish community.” Does that mean that the fund’s trustees believe that grants to anti-Muslim groups are beneficial to the interests of the Jewish community?

I called the Jewish Communal Fund to seek clarification. I was transferred to a spokeswoman who interrupted me after I introduced myself, saying, “I’ll have to call you back.” She abruptly hung up—and never called back.

Photo: David Horowitz
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:40 pm

Adelson Funded Group that Praised Hitler, Blamed Jews for Anti-Semitism

by Eli Clifton

In July, Iran and the P5+1 countries signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran, in exchange for sanctions relief, would reduce its low-enriched uranium levels by 98%, eliminate its medium-enriched uranium stockpile, and reduce the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds. It was the product of nearly two years of negotiations as parties worked toward a long-term agreement to resolve tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.

But we’re only beginning to get some peeks behind the curtain at the funding, alliances, and odd bedfellows that comprised the opposition to the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievement. New evidence points to an unlikely pairing between one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors and a controversial apocalyptic Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), whose leader has gone so far as to say that Adolf Hitler was doing God’s work by bringing the Jews back to Israel.

Tens of millions of dollars were spent in efforts to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, led by a $20 million campaign underwritten by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Ultimately, after nearly two years of negotiations, lobbying, and public debate, Senate Republicans failed to block the nuclear deal in September 2015.

Casino billionaires and Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) board member Sheldon Adelson made no secret of his animosity toward the nuclear deal. He proposed launching a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran as a negotiating tactic. But his unconditional support of a hawkish foreign policy agenda in the Middle East—as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s growth of settlements in areas previously expected to be part of a future Palestinian state –seems to have brought him, and his money, in line with CUFI.

Tax filings reviewed by LobeLog show that Adelson contributed $1.82 million to CUFI in the 2014 tax year. The Adelson Family Foundation contributed to CUFI in the previous two years ($125,000 in 2013 and $25,000 in 2012), but the 2014 contribution marked a 14-fold increase in size over the foundation’s 2013 grant.

CUFI’s Controversial Claims

CUFI certainly took a vocal stance against nuclear diplomacy with Iran, sending email blasts to its membership about the Iran deal and making the negotiations the central topic of its 2014 annual summit in Washington.

Quick to embrace apocalyptic rhetoric, CUFI emailed its supporters when the Obama administration decided to extend talks with Iran beyond the November 24th deadline, telling them “the world took yet another step down the plank towards a dark abyss” and warned that Obama and his negotiating team either naively believe the Iranians were negotiating in good faith “or they are lying to the American people.”

The email concluded:

The only people who still seem to take Iran at its word are President Obama, Secretary Kerry and chief negotiator Wendy Sherman. Either that, or they are lying to the American people. Neither option is acceptable.
In June, 2015, CUFI held a conference call for its supporters, during which Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, who himself advocated for the invasion of Iraq, advised the group on how to lobby Congress to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Glenn Greenwald reported that Stephens told CUFI:

Someone should say, “this is going to be like your vote for the Iraq War. This is going to come back to haunt you. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt you. Because as Iran cheats, as Iran becomes more powerful, and Iran will be both of those things, you will be held to account. This vote will be a stain. You will have to walk away from it at some point or another. You will have to explain it. And some of you may in fact lose your seats because of your vote for this deal. You’ll certainly lose a lot of financial support from some of your previous supporters.”
CUFI and its chairman, John Hagee, have a long history of courting controversy.

In November 2014, the organization drew criticism from the Anti-Defamation League after its chairman, John Hagee, called Obama “one of the most anti-Semitic presidents in the history of the United States of America.” The ADL said his comments were “offensive and misplaced.”

Hagee’s own comments, however, have frequently veered into strange, and seemingly anti-Semitic, territory.

In a 2003 sermon, Hagee said that the Antichrist will be “partially Jewish, as was Adolf Hitler, as was Karl Marx.” In a 2006 book, Hagee appeared to blame anti-Semitism on Jews, writing, “It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews… that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.”

He went on to blame the rise of anti-Semitism on Jewish idol worship:

How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.
Courting the Born-Again Vote

Adelson’s decision to pour funding into the controversial group is probably closely linked with born-again and evangelical Christians’ largely unconditional support of the hawkish policies undertaken by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a personal friend of the Las Vegas-based billionaire.

A Bloomberg Politics poll from April found that “[b]orn-again Christians are more likely than overall poll respondents, 58 percent to 35 percent, to back Israel regardless of U.S. interests.”

Adelson isn’t the only RJC director to engage in outreach to Christian Zionists and seek their support in opposing the Iran nuclear deal.

In March, I reported that hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer was behind The Philos Project, a new group whose mission statement includes “educating Christians on the theological, historical, and political issues surrounding Israel and the Jewish people.”

The Philos Project, like CUFI, engages in fear-mongering and apocalyptic rhetoric about Iran. “Iran doesn’t mind killing people,” “Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon,” “Iran hates Christianity,” and “Iranian leaders see themselves as bringing about the end of history,” says a Philos Project article on “why we should worry about Iran.”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby Grizzly » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:53 pm


Netanyahu: If you take out Saddam, I GUARANTEE you will see enormous positive reverberations
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:30 pm

"Zionism is OK because anyone can become a Jew"

- actually heard somebody say this while also defending DNA testing for citizenship
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionism’s Lost Shine

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:26 pm

Video of Israeli Extremists Celebrating Toddler's Death at a Wedding Sparks Uproar
http://www.alternet.org/world/video-isr ... rks-uproar
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests