http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1852221,00.html

(snip)

All the same, Churchill's task, as he himself saw it, was clear: somehow, in some way, the great mass of the population of the US had to be persuaded that it was in their interests to join the war in Europe, that to sit on the sidelines was in some way un-American. And so British Security Coordination came into being.

BSC was set up by a Canadian entrepreneur called William Stephenson, working on behalf of the British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS). An office was opened in the Rockefeller Centre in Manhattan with the discreet compliance of Roosevelt and J Edgar Hoover of the FBI. But nobody on the American side of the fence knew what BSC's full agenda was nor, indeed, what would be the massive scale of its operations. What eventually occurred as 1940 became 1941 was that BSC became a huge secret agency of nationwide news manipulation and black propaganda. Pro-British and anti-German stories were planted in American newspapers and broadcast on American radio stations, and simultaneously a campaign of harassment and denigration was set in motion against those organisations perceived to be pro-Nazi or virulently isolationist (such as the notoriously anti-British America First Committee - it had more than a million paid-up members).

Stephenson called his methods "political warfare", but the remarkable fact about BSC was that no one had ever tried to achieve such a level of "spin", as we would call it today, on such a vast and pervasive scale in another country. The aim was to change the minds of an entire population: to make the people of America think that joining the war in Europe was a "good thing" and thereby free Roosevelt to act without fear of censure from Congress or at the polls in an election.

BSC's media reach was extensive: it included such eminent American columnists as Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson, and influenced coverage in newspapers such as the Herald Tribune, the New York Post and the Baltimore Sun. BSC effectively ran its own radio station, WRUL, and a press agency, the Overseas News Agency (ONA), feeding stories to the media as they required from foreign datelines to disguise their provenance. WRUL would broadcast a story from ONA and it thus became a US "source" suitable for further dissemination, even though it had arrived there via BSC agents. It would then be legitimately picked up by other radio stations and newspapers, and relayed to listeners and readers as fact. The story would spread exponentially and nobody suspected this was all emanating from three floors of the Rockefeller Centre. BSC took enormous pains to ensure its propaganda was circulated and consumed as bona fide news reporting. To this degree its operations were 100% successful: they were never rumbled.

Nobody really knows how many people ended up working for BSC - as agents or sub-agents or sub-sub-agents - although I have seen the figure mentioned of up to 3,000. Certainly at the height of its operations in late 1941 there were many hundreds of agents and many hundreds of fellow travellers (enough finally to stir the suspicions of Hoover, for one). Three thousand British agents spreading propaganda and mayhem in a staunchly anti-war America. It almost defies belief. Try to imagine a CIA office in Oxford Street with 3,000 US operatives working in a similar way. The idea would be incredible - but it was happening in America in 1940 and 1941, and the organisation grew and grew.

(snip)

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana:

Shit, they had NUTHIN on the zionist propaganda machine,



You have no idea of the strength of the big oil funded anti-Israel campaign. You have no idea how many conferences there are each year training folks like you in the latest anti-Israel talking points. (There was one last month- there is another next month....)



which must have hundreds of thousands of lurching lemming PR volunteers plugged into its "alert" net, leaping to do media-watchdog duty at Damascus''s bidding



-- flooding identified breaches in the wall with hundreds of emails per hour, letters to congressmen, letters to editors, angry threats, on and on. I've witnessed it first-hand.

As have I. I have seen the protests at Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinsteins Office. I've seen the postcard and letter writing campaigns from the other side.



Most people send out a letter to the editor maybe once a decade. Some of you freaks must be doing it five times a day.



There are so many anti-Israel letters to the editor in the SF Chron, I am begining to recognize the names of the authors.

Do people love Israel? Yes? Do they passionately defend her ? Yes. (Just look at the huge sea of blue and white on Indy Bay from the Aug. 12 rally) It was truly a grassroots effort- no budget, no support from the established community. Does your resentment stem from that?

I now realize why I couldn't find a picture of a dead Israeli baby ANYWHERE!!!! Thanks Tia!!

10 months old. Shot by a sniper while riding in her stroller

Want more?

I mean, even if you are unable to generate original thoughts, we expect more than a psycho- bot response.

Okay; we really don't.

Then why are you here?

Just some futile attempt at sabotage?

Or is it just compulsion-obsession now?

Or has it always been?

I bring up all the Lebanese children Israel has killed in the past MONTH (dozens? hundreds?) and what do they rebut me with? ONE dead kid from FIVE years ago. This speaks volumes: 1) it supports the FACT of what I said before: that Israeli infant casualties are rare as hen's teeth 2) it reflects the REALITY of their "moral" sense of proportion: the death of Shalhevet Pass justifies the deaths of all the Arab babies they've killed since

Total Number of Palestinian deaths : 4209

Children: 892

Women : 273

Men : 3044

Total Number Israeli deaths: 1113

Children : 113

Women : 305

Men : 603

So... we can see who the majority of the victims of this campaign are.

Who are the nazis?

The ones who commit the ultimate aggression, war; soldiers died for it, civilians died because of it.

Nazis were hung for it.

More Germans were killed during World war II than Americans. Does that make them the victims?

Don't get your logic here.

WWII was between Germany and the Soviet Union. The whole Western Front was a sideshow. So was North Africa. Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union, first in front of Moscow, then at Stalingrad, and finally during Kursk. Everything after Kursk was a mopping up operation. If D-Day had never happened, the Third Reich still would have died. The issue had already been decided in the battle the Russians call the "Ride of Death" and the Germans call "The Bloodbath at Beograd." The guts were ripped from the Nazi army there. Then, and only then, the Anglo-Americans moved in like a pack of jackals to grab for themselves, a few chunks off the still twitching corpse.

It was really Russia that saved the world from Hitler, losing 30,000,000 of its people in the process -- THIRTY. FUKKING. MILLION. PEOPLE. -- and then what sort of thanks did it get? Whilst hogging all the credit, Britain and the US stepped right into the Nazis' shoes and took over where they left off. The US standard account of WWII is so warped and self-centered it's appalling. Typical history as told by the victors

That was a world conflict, so you should make your argument based on that, the Axis Powers against the allies.

The Axis Powers had much less casualities and deads than the allies.

For example, 22 millions Russians died.

From that we can conclude that the Axis Powers were the agressors.

By the same token, going into the records we see that there is a disproportional amount of casualties and deads on the Palestinian side which clearly demonstrates that the state of Israel is by far, the agressors.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Their enemies have unguided missiles. So, if the the Israelis aren't targeting civilians, why the discrepency in civilian causalties?

"Israel is the diversion used by the oil interests as scapegoat. Its a way of concealing the fact that 7,500 members of the Saudi royal family get all the oil money."

Aw, yoo meen poo-ah widdew Exxon and Chevwon don't get NUFFIN?? Are you, like, lying in a bathtub full of airplane glue or something? Spark up a joint while you're at it. I'd love to see your source for this "info"

"If it weren't for the external scapgoat, maybe these countries would need to look inward and deal with their own social political and economic issues. Instead, they get to blame Israel. Its so convienent"

This is a straw man. These countries' shameless class dictatorships and Israel's constant destabilizing influence are two prongs of a single strategy called 'Western global domination.' The Arab sphere has seen its share of secular modernist DEMOCRATIC national leaders. The Western Empires hate these guys and have done everything feasible to destroy them, usually succeeding. Achieving modernity and first-world status would give these countries far more autonomy. Better to keep them medieval, repressive, stupid, and torn by internal conflicts (divide and conquer, baby. It's their all-time fave).

Israel's been their right-hand man every step of the way

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/151252

http://www.americanempireproject.com/bookpage.asp?ISBN=0805076522

Let's look ONLY at Palestinian and Israeli casualties age ten and under. I think this cleans up your 'teen combatant' objection very nicely. How about it?

"Bull fucking SHIT!!! There has yet to be even ONE such leader, you cunt-meister."

hahahaha! try:

1) Mossadheg, Iran, toppled 1953 by CIA/MI6 who then installed one of the 20th century's most vile dictators

2) Qassem, Iraq. Was moving toward constitutional democracy from the previous British-installed monarchal dictatorship when toppled by CIA 1963 (by their puppets the Ba'athists)

3) Nasser, Egypt, definitely a secular modernist, dreamed of a democratic Egypt but like Castro understood it was a backdoor for overthrow by his enemies; CIA plotted to assassinate him. His protege Sadat popped off by Manchurian Candidate "lone nut" to clear the way for Western ass-licker tyrant Mubarak

4) Qaddafi, Libya, not a democratic leader but definitely a secular modernist. Relentlessly hounded by US imperialists and their snarling attack-bitch Izzie-stan

5) Saddam, Iraq, same comments as for Qaddafi

With the exception of Mossadegh, they were also pan-Arab nationalists. Can't have that, no way, uh-uh. Fucking up that plan is Israel's whole raison d'etre

Did anyone else hear a mosquito?

Ya know, democracy -- or to be more precise "democracy" -- just isn't the ne plus ultra of political perfection you Izzie-bullshits assume all us cattle believe it is.

**News Flash**

Some of us have seen The Man Behind The Curtain.

Yeah, true popular rule SOUNDS good. Shit, maybe it's even better than it sounds. How would I know? I'm just an American. No American knows because none of us have ever seen hide nor hair of the Real Thing.

What we HAVE seen is a _FUCKIN_SHELL_GAME_ where we get to choose between two sets of whores for the super-rich who pretend to offer us a real choice, who get up and compete in front of us to see who's the better liar, the upshot of which is the minute or two we spend each year shuffling into little booths like beef steers in a feedlot to flick a few levers over (if we're lucky. if not we get touch-screens), all of which is designed to cause us to imagine we have our hands on the wheel of the Great Ship Itself.

IT BOGGLES THUH FUKKIN MIND!!!!!

Yeah, I guess this snow job works pretty good on STUPID PEOPLE

This isn't popular rule. The crypto-monarchs would boil us all in oil before they'd ever let THAT happen! It's merely the pièce de résistance of all their bullshit scams. Oh, here ya go: IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN CHRISTIANITY!!!! And Marx thought he knew his opiates!

Even now, so many Americans still swell up with pride when some obvious lying asshole throws a big wedge of Mom's Apple pie in their faces, even when he follows it with an iron fist. This despite having witnessed all the bullshit of the past 40 years and especially the past six. I look at these people and I'm very torn between pity and contempt. All the crypto-monarchs have to do is make sure a critical cross-section of these morons stays *just* above a certain critical threshold of privilege. Other than that they can do whatever the fuck they want. This **completely** describes the fraud we call "democracy"

As I see it, dictatorship is alot of the same shit minus half the lies. Oh, and minus the threshold level of privilege too of course, but this too is riddled with ambiguities: privilege and good character seem to occur in inverse proportion. Incredible numbers of Americans today could use a good popping of their privilege bubble. For once in their lives they might stop thinking like Marie Antoinette.

We have BJ ( of Santa Cruz ) who enjoys labeling anti- Zionists as 'anti - semitic'

When she has not a clue what the term means. Or does and is merely another Zionist collaborator.

Jeopardizing Jews all over the world.

BJ's use as well as yours of 'anti -semitism' is really about Anti -Zionism.

Anti semitism is against all semitic people. Arabs included.

You collectively have highjacked the word to shroud your invasion of Palestine and all the other lands in 'Greater Israel' to smother criticism. It's the only leg you have and it's a prosthesis.

And now, Zionist use the term to deflect reports of Israeli atrocities.

To actually be an anti-Semite is shameful and evil. But to be called one incorrectly, is a badge of honor.

Finklestein nailed it on Democracy Now!:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

(snip)

Norman Finkelstein & Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami Debate: Complete Transcript

(snip)

The problem is when you get to the United States. In the United States among those people who call themselves supporters of Israel, we enter the area of unreason. We enter a twilight zone. American Jewish organizations, they're not only not up to speed yet with Steven Spielberg, they're still in the Leon Uris exodus version of history: the “this land is mine, God gave this land to me," and anybody who dissents from this, you can call it, lunatic version of history is then immediately branded an anti-Semite, and whenever Israel comes under international pressure to settle the conflict diplomatically, or when it is subjected to a public relations debacle, such as it was with the Second Intifada, a campaign is launched claiming there is a new anti-Semitism afoot in the world.

There is no evidence of a new anti-Semitism. If you go through all the literature, as I have, the evidence is actually in Europe, which is Dr. Ben-Ami's half-home ground, Spain, but throughout Europe, the evidence is, if you look at like the Pew Charitable Trust surveys, anti-Semitism has actually declined since the last time they did the surveys. They did it in 1991 and 2002. They said the evidence is that it's declined. And the same thing in the United States. What's called the “new anti-Semitism” is anyone who criticizes any official Israeli policies. In fact, my guess is had people not known who wrote *Scars of War, Wounds of Peace*, that book would immediately be put on the A.D.L.'s list of verboten books, an example of anti-Semitism, because he says things like the Zionists wanted to transfer the Arabs out. That's anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with the real world. It's a public relations extravaganza production to deflect attention from the facts, from the realities, and I think this afternoon in our exchange, there were some areas of disagreement for sure, but I think a lot of what Dr. Ben-Ami said would not go down well with most of American Jewry, and that's when they'll soon be charging him with being an anti-Semite.

(snip)

Can anyone find a non-Izzie-bullshit-machine "translation" of this interview? I sure can't

Hey Beck-O, what do have to say about this?

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/kaplanwatch/115131386202230540/#13198

If you want to torment someone, TW appears to be on line.

A picnic? I love picnics! And walking distance too! See you there!



A.N.S.W.E.R. Summer PicnicSan Francisco

Date: Saturday August 26, 2006

Time: 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Repeats: This event does not repeat.

Next reminder: The next reminder for this event will be sent in 2 days, 4 minutes.

Description: Second Annual A.N.S.W.E.R. Summer PicnicSan Francisco

Saturday, August 26, 15 p.m.

Precita Park

Folsom St at Precita (1 blk S of Casar Chavez)

Join other A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition activists for BBQ and Potluck. We will have a soccer match, croquet, badminton and more

donation for BBQ, chips and a drink or BYO picnic (vegetarian/vegan BBQ available). Please RSVP if you are planning to purchase a BBQ dinner, call 415-821-6545 or email answer@actionsf.org.

Directions:

BART: 20 min. walk from 24th St. BART or 5 min. on MUNI #67 from SE corner of Mission and 24th.

It doesn't matter which one is right because the existence of anti-Semitism, real or imagined, no more justifies Zionist aggression than did prejudice against Aryans living in Danzig and the Sudatenland, or for that matter the prejudice of the Allies at Versailles, justify Nazi aggression.

Nothing that any Nazi did to any Jew justifies what the Zionist entity has been doing to Palestine and Lebanon.

The Zionists have no more right to rule Palestine by the right of their ethnicity than the Nazis had to rule Europe by right of theirs. Pointing this out is not "anti-Semitic," it is anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist.

Jews have precisely and exactly the same rights and responsibilities as do the members of any other tribe on the planet. A tribe is a tribe is a tribe. There are thousands of tribes. None of them have special rights, not Jews, not Aryans, not Hutus, not Serbs, not any of them. No member of any tribe is ever exempt from their responsibility to deal with members of other tribes as equals. Anything less is racism.

To condemn anti-Semitism, but not pro-Semitism, is racist. To call all anti-Zionists "anti-Semitic" is a lie. Zionists lie constantly, and not just about this. They have to, because there is no honest defense for ethnic cleansing.

'Zionists, don't have one pre-approved opinion.'

and we would all appreciate you telling us the differences on how THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS ZIONISTS that believe that the LANDS OF PALESTINE BELONG TO ZIONISTS.

See:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=175262#175665

Not all Jews are Zionists. Most Zionists aren't Jews.

Every Zionist, by definition, believes that Jews have more rights than non Jews, to land, water, trees, arms and political power in Palestine. If you don't believe that, then by definition, you're not a Zionist.

1 Someone unable to see or admit Israeli crimes against humanity in spite of international condemnation...

I'll stick yo that.

an old SchtarkRavingYidiot: "For everything there is a time"

At its simplest, political-emotional commitment to Israel's existence. This by itself is pretty meaningless. You get much more meaning out of the word by looking at the various species of zionists and how they're motivated.

1) Christian zionists

Probably the largest camp numerically but not the most powerful. These are apocalyptic fundamentalist whackos who long to see the "End Times" -- the devastation of the world by God's righteous wrath -- and think the Jews' reclamation of Israel is a key event that will kick it off. They especially want to see Solomon's Temple rebuilt on the Temple Mount. When the last block is laid, I guess that's when the Heavenly Grampa will appear in the sky floating on a cloud and they'll all literally float off into the sky to join him. This part they call "the rapture." Then they'll hang out up there cozy and safe in Grampa's lap while he vaporizes all the heathens with bolts of lightning. "Heathens," mind you, includes any Jews who don't convert to Grampa worship. Because of their sheer numbers, these freaks have a lot of electoral clout in the US, so the Jabotinskyites have been pandering to them shamelessly in recent years

2) Brainwashed American boob zionists

People who've carelessly exposed themselves to US propaganda Big Lies all their lives and have completely succumbed to them. It's so much easier than thinking! When the subject of Hiroshima comes up, for example, they're the ones who get all red-faced and start barking that "Truman HAD TO do that to save 500,000 of our young boys! What's wrong with you?" Like most of the pop history our media shovels daily, this is of course a lie, but don't try reasoning with them. It's pointless. The Christian pea-heads believe in the God Grampa, while these pea-heads believe in the God 'Murkah. Republicans of all walks tend to fall into this category. Since Israel is one of the US Empire's most important client states, they've all had their brains buried under bullshit about it, which they devoutly believe. Like I said, it beats thinking

3) Imperial zionists

The tiniest faction, but far and away the most powerful. Their viewpoint is the one Zbigniew Brzezinski was speaking from in his book 'The Grand Chessboard.' They consider Israel to be one of their most powerful pieces: at least a rook, possibly a queen. These are power-drunk supreme mafiosi. They crave extreme wealth and power and regard the zionist hoi polloi (see next) as useful cannon-meat to this end. Their arrogance is visible in the top echelons of Israeli and zionist political organizations. "Oh goody, we just got a fresh load of cannon-meat this week from Russia. Let's give them all machine guns and point them toward Hebron!"

4) Jabotinskyites, aka "zionist Jews"

To understand popular Jewish zionism as it's seen in the US today, you ***MUST*** investigate the life and ideas of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky and his political followers.

Jabotinsky was a peer of Hitler and Mussolini, by which I mean he was a fascist, plain and simple. He was especially palsy with Mussolini and spent much of the thirties covering his back. 'Fascist' mind you means 'anti-Bolshevik counter-revolutionary,' and like all fascists that's what Jabotinsky essentially was. He started agitating against Russia in eastern Europe, but then moved his gig to Israel -- what he saw as a sanctuary for Russia's Jews. Here, finding the Haganah militia to be insufficiently vicious toward Arabs, he recruited its more bloodthirsty troops into Irgun, forming the first zionist terror organization.

One person to whom Jabbo was introduced late in life was a little boy named Martin (Meir) Kahane, who was spellbound by Jabotinsky. Kahane later spent time in a youth indoctrination camp of Betar, the Hitler-Youth-type organization Jabotinsky had created in 1923 (same year Hitler started his).

All of this sets the stage for 1967, the year American Jews suddenly forgot all about Civil Rights and Tikkun Olam and became a mass of tongue-chewing pro-Israel crazies. What did this, of course, is the '67 Six Day War, in which the United Arab Republic (a coalition of Egypt and Syria) used their Soviet-trained, Soviet-equipped, Soviet-funded armies to threaten Israel.

Remember what I said about fascism meaning anti-Bolshevism? This war spawned an explosion of anti-Soviet sentiment among US Jews that sent them flying into the arms of the Jabotinskyites, in whose hands they've been like pizza dough ever since. Meir Kahane, like his boyhood idol, was a frothing anti-communist maniac extraordinaire, and with the '67 war he went from being virtually unknown outside Brooklyn to being the Grand Wizard of US zionist extremism. In New York, with secret support from "ex"-Mossad Director Yitzhak Shamir (one of Jabotinsky's most violent followers), Kahane launched an eight-year spree of terror bombings on Soviet diplomatic missions and the like. Then in 1970 he moved to Israel to inspire more terrorist activity amongst the first wave of West Bank "settlers" then moving into occupied Palestine

There were a few other guys floating around who would remain obscure for a while, most of them grad students under University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss -- another zionist Jew with fascist connections, this time directly to the Nazi regime. Prior to '67, these grad students identified as Trotskyites. Afterward they became some of the most extreme anti-Soviet whackos ever seen, referred to even within the Reagan administration as "the Crazies." These guys are all household names today: 'Wolfowitz,' 'Perle,' 'Feith'...

As they've ascended into the highest circles of the US foreign-policy establishment, their thinking has reflected some of Leo Strauss' creepiest political ideas, many of which came straight out of the fascist movements of post-WWI Europe -- his formative environment. Like the fascists of the '30s, including Jabotinsky, Strauss and his disciples were/are exceedingly hostile to the concept of popular democratic rule.

This is important to remember when zionists croon to you about democracy. They're just trying to twist the knobs in your head. Their own ideological leadership doesn't believe in democracy and never has. The ILLUSION of it is unbeatable for keeping the herds nice and docile, though

The modern zionist movement started by Theodor Herzl and others in the 1880s was not fascist at first. There was no such political animal afoot then. But Jabotinsky transformed it into a form of fascism -- this is very straightforward -- and that's what it's remained ever since. From 1948 to present, Israel's government has been dominated by hardcore chips off the Jabotinsky block. Menachem Begin, for example, was his right-hand man in the '30s and took over Irgun after Jabotinsky died.

It's startling how well fascism explains zionism today, from its obvious racist subtext to its fanatical nationalism to its vicious military belligerence to its glassy-eyed hypnotized followers and its superlative command of the Big Lie.

It's one of the great ironies of our age that zionism is today probably the purest and most active form of fascism on earth

See for yourself

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

by Lawrence Britt

Spring 2003

Free Inquiry magazine



Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.



Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.



Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.



Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.



Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.



Controlled Mass Media

Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.



Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.



Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.



Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .



Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.



Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.



Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.



Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

That Zionism is racism is not. Zionism is racism for precisely and exactly they same reasons, and in precisely and exactly the same way, that Nazism is racism. The only real difference between the two is the name of the favored ethnic group.

Also, Zionism is not racism. Those who insist to the contrary and maintain that Zionism is a variant of Nazism despite years worth of elaborate edification like 'nessie' has received are hate ongering liars and in some cases racists as in nessie's case. Death to all those who make these odious comparisons. Death to the anti-Semite 'nessie'.

Palestinians are not an ethnic group. Palestinians are, by definition, people who live in Palestine. They include several ethnic groups, i.e., Arabs (both Christians), Jews (both secular and religious), Druze, Armenians, Circassians, etc.

Thats correct,"Palestinian" is a purely political label rather than an ethnic label.



"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. "

So really, it just required a two year residiency period so as to accomodate all of the Arabs that had immigrated to Israel from other Arab countries under the British Mandate seeking the economic benefits that the Zionists created.

He keeps on trying to confuse you. But he's not consistent as you will realize once you have followed his claims for a few consecutive months. Ergo, he's a liar. All rabid anti-Zionists are. Never trust a rabid anti-Zionist. He hasn't been consistent in his aforementioned claim.

O Queen of academic integrity (ding ding)

Who, pray tell, is Lawrence Britt? How did he come up with that list? I'm SURE you MUST know these things because you obviously hold yourself to such **sterling** academic standards BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Isn't it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own? (Typcical question)

For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?

It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:

* Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?

* Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?

* Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?

According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.

Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:

* A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:

"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)

*

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

*

As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

*

But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights to begin with, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!

*

In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

* In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing the land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

* In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

*

In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.

This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.

Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".

Truth Warper gets the racist strawman trophy for today. Disputed territories means that Jews are entitled just as umch as Palestinians to set up residence in legally no-man's land. (Feeling a stark discomfort with this notion? Then just turn it on its head.)

But the dunass part is the squtter trailler refrain. If was the Jordanian occupiers who threw them their keys and then Arafat the shuch who ensured they'd remain boxed inside. The Warper takes every thing that was perpetrated by Arabs/Palis and attributes it to Israelis/Jews cockroaches, some of which are trying to defend their precious souls from interlopers planting olive trees on their property to lay a claim on land, or from "brave fighters" operating under the cover of those same trees.

"But the dunass part is the squtter trailler refrain. If was the Jordanian occupiers who threw them their keys and then Arafat the shuch who ensured they'd remain boxed inside."

Neither of the "points" you're making here makes any sense at all.

The Jordanians WANTED the settlers to come??..?...

"Arafat ensured they'd remain boxed inside.."

When the fuck did he ever do that? They NEVER "remained boxed inside." The settlements, the 'Jews-only' roads, etc., have grown opportunistically from a few nuclei to the heavy-trunked vascular network of tentacles that divides "disputed territory" today. These concrete monolith walls you're throwing up now are one of the most extreme psychological assaults ever.

Holy shit, that's the whole point! Of course. It's a psy-war move to make them feel completely trapped, toothless, and hopeless. Then they'll finally just give up and leave. The few hardcores that stay put you'll just move in and exterminate. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel

Oh, wait, I get it! Silly me: you meant relative to what Arafat *WOULD* have done had he catered to your every "G-d-Chosen" fantasy!

First he'd have slunk up to you like a craven terrified little cur, humiliated to the point of dehumanization, to hand you the keys to everything West of the Jordan.

After taking the keys, you'd kick him in the stomach and he'd yelp deliciously.

This would happen right before the part where he flopped out flat on top of the gold rug he'd just rolled out for you, allowing you to walk across him grinding your Elvira spike heels to take possession of his entire world.

From this he would jump up happily -- but craven, keep the craven -- to scurry toword Jordan like a scruffy-faced bug, his mind -- nay, his *heart* -- having obviously been destroyed. And in this he would only represent *all* of them, who'd be slogging behind him in tow, hollow-eyed broken-hearted babes in arms...

Yeah, wouldn't that be cool.

So much for those swarthy smelly SQUATTERS, stealing OUR red-haired, grey-eyed, fish-belly-white ancestral homeland! Harrumph!

One thing's certain: Arafat sure wouldn't have stood and fought and made you look bad, just like the Satan's right-hand imp he in fact was! Yuusss (pat pat)



Uh.... No. You're going to have to put forth a real argument, I'm afraid -- supported, of course by multiple credible citations (since your say-so on such a thing is, well ... please dahling, pointing out the obvious all the time gets seww teeeed-yusss, cluck)



Otherwise you will have -- by default, you understand -- taken a whip-snapping, ground-thumping, 10-foot-long berserk crocodile tail up yore ass and got your brains beat out on the nice pretty grove of coconut trees I decided to nest in this season

But the dunass part is the squtter trailler refrain. If was the Jordanian occupiers who threw them their keys and then Arafat the such who ensured they'd remain boxed inside.

"Neither of the "points" you're making here makes any sense at all. "

I don't care that you can't construe them properly. You're an ahistorical ignoramus buffoon.

"The Jordanians WANTED the settlers to come??..?... "

Just _how_ did you mess up the dosages today?

- Arafat ensured they'd remain boxed inside..

"When the fuck did he ever do that? They NEVER "remained boxed inside." "

There's no escape from proclaming this: you're cretinous, to put it mildly. You always read the history from one side of the dispute and then marvel at being "unable" to remember...

This is all I care to rebut in your goo-goo ga-ga spiel of racist madness.