Why Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

[ahaze]

This is a well worthwhile read for the intimate vantage point into 60's era Israel political leadershp it provides on factors surrounding and interests coming to drive Israel's attack on the USS Liberty.  And then it spells out why its wrong to conflate Judaism with Zionism.

Why, really, was the USS Liberty attacked by Israel?

By Alan Hart,
keynote address to Liberty Veteran's Association
June 12, 2010

I want to begin by saying that though I covered wars wherever they were taking place on Planet Earth in my television reporting days – it was in Vietnam as a very young correspondent that I first started to ask myself questions about why things are as they are in the world – I am an Englishman and one who didn't serve in his country's armed forces. (Not because I was a draft dodger. Conscription had ended). So it is both an honour and a privilege for me to be with you this evening. And please believe me, I really mean it. I'm not a politician just saying it.

We do, of course, have something in common, OUTRAGE that can't be expressed adequately in polite words at the continued suppression here in America of the truth about a war crime – Israel's attack on the U.S.S Liberty; an attack which, if it had gone completely according to plan, would have seen the sinking of the ship with the loss, the murder, of all hands on board. (Which means that some of you here tonight would not be here).

In my latest book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, an epic journey in three volumes through the lies and truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, I have a chapter titled The Liberty Affair, "Pure Murder" on a "Great Day". (I'll source those quoted comments later).

In that chapter I say the attack ought to have been a sensational, headline-grabbing news story, but beyond the fact that an "accident" had happened and that Israel had apologized, it did not get reported by America's news organisations. It was too hot an issue for them to handle and pursue. If it had been an Arab or other Muslim attack on an American vessel it would have been an entirely different matter, of course. In that event there would have been saturation coverage with demands for retaliation including war, with columnists and commentators who are pro-Israel right or wrong setting the pace and tone.

I know that one of the prices Liberty survivors pay for telling the truth is vilification by supporters of Israel right or wrong. The message sent to James Ennes was no doubt typical of many. "You are an anti-Semitic, Nazi bastard. Drop dead."

Those and similar other false and filthy charges come out of the mouths of people who have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and are beyond reason. I mean that they are not open to informed, honest and rational debate. And that, simply stated, is the reason why peace has not yet been possible in the Middle East and probably never will be.

In passing I'll tell you what I have used as a shield against false and malicious charges of anti-Semitism.

I think I am probably the only person in the world who enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, arguably the two greatest opposites in all of history – Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. (She was called Mother Israel because without the $50 million dollars she raised in America in 1947, Ben-Gurion would not have been able to purchase the arms that enabled Israel to unilaterally declare its independence and impose its will on the Arabs).

One of my most treasured souvenirs from my television reporting days is a signed picture of Golda when she was prime minister. The inscription in her own hand is – "To a good friend, Alan Hart." Because I am a goy (a non-Jew) that meant a lot to me. The picture is on my web site and it's the first one in my latest book. In the late 1980's when I lectured and debated coast-to-coast across America and Canada, I had the picture with me and sometimes used it as a shield. When I was accused of anti-Semitism, I would hold up the picture, read out Golda's inscription, and say to my accuser – "Do you think that old lady was so stupid that she couldn't have seen through me if I was anti-Jew!" That always won me the applause of the audience and its contempt for my accuser.

Now to my explanation of why, really, the Liberty was attacked. I'm going to follow this with some thoughts about why the truth has to be given its necessary context and handled with great care.

I'll start by telling you where I was on Thursday 8 June 1967. I was in the Sinai desert. I was the first Western correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis. On reflection some years later, I realised that what I witnessed in the desert, well out of sight and sound of the attack on the Liberty, was a key to understanding why America's most advanced and sophisticated spy-ship (perhaps I should say intelligence-gathering platform) was attacked. I'll come to what I witnessed in a moment.

First, and to provide some context to assist complete understanding, I must summarise very briefly the whole truth about that particular war. By elements in the mainstream media which peddle Zionist propaganda, and other elements of it which are terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all, the Western world was conditioned to believe that Israel went to war because it was in danger of annihilation – "the driving in the sea of its Jews".

Zionism's first assertion was that the Arabs started the war by attacking Israel. Zionism's second story was that the Arabs were intending to attack and that in the name of self-defense, Israel had no option but to launch a pre-emptive strike because its very survival was at stake. Both those stories were big, fat, propaganda lies. The Arabs did not attack and were not intending to attack. It was a war of Israeli choice and aggression.

If that was only my Gentile view, it could be dismissed by supporters of Israel right or wrong as an alleged manifestation of anti-Semitism. But let me now tell you this. The forthcoming Volume 3 of my book begins with the longest chapter in the entire work. It's titled America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II; and the Creation of a Greater Israel. In this chapter I name and quote a number of Israel's political and military leaders of the time who, years after the war in most cases, admitted the truth. There isn't time this evening for me to name and quote them all, but here to make the point are four:

> In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

> On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."

> In the spring of 1972, General Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel's General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: "The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war." In a radio debate Peled said: "Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel." He added, "Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war."

> In 1982, Prime Minister Begin, arguably the world's most successful terrorist leader, went even further. He said : "In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

When I was writing the chapter on the 1967 war, I found myself saying to my readers that there were times, this was one of them, when I wanted to "cry out with the pain of knowing how much Israel's Jews (not to mention the whole of the Western world) had been deceived, lied to, by their leaders".

In passing I'll tell you why I was well informed in my television reporting days about what was happening behind closed doors in Israel. One of my sources, my deep-throat, was General Chaim Herzog, a founding father of Israel's Directorate of Military Intelligence. (He went on to become Israel's ambassador to the UN and eventually the state's president). On the second day of the war, when he was advising me on the best route into the Sinai to catch up with the advancing Israelis, he said to me: "If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext to go to war, we would have created one within a year or 18 months."

Another summary truth about what happened in June 1967 is that there would NOT have been a war if Israel's prime minister, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, and his Chief of Staff, General Yitzhak Rabin, had had their way. After Eygpt's President Nasser had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, they wanted only a limited military operation – to satisfy Israeli public opinion and, most of all, to put pressure on America to lead the international community in delivering on a promise President Eisenhower had made – that in the event of Eygpt closing the Straits of Tiran, the "society of nations" would be mobilized to cause the Straits to be re-opened by all means short of war. That was what Nasser was hoping would happen. For reasons of face, he needed to be able to say to the Arab world, "I backed down because of international pressure."

So why didn't Prime Minister Eshkol and Chief of Staff Rabin have their way?

The short answer is that in Israel the week before the war there was what amounted to a MILITARY COUP in all but name and without a shot being fired.

The best journalists have their brains not up here in their heads, but down here in their guts. From early May, my gut instincts were telling me that war was inevitable, and I persuaded my editor-in-chief at ITN (Independent Television News) to let me go to Israel with a film crew to report on the countdown to it. In those weeks I witnessed Israel's military and political hawks rubbishing Prime Minister Eshkol. They were painting him as indecisive, weak and frightened to confront Nasser. Their objective was to create a crisis of confidence in his leadership ,in the hope that he would be forced to resign. When that didn't happen, the generals demanded that Eshkol, who was both PM and Defense Minister, surrender his Defense Portfolio and give it to Israel's one-eyed warlord and master of deception, General Moshe Dayan. And that's what happened on Thursday 1 June, when a government of National Unity came into being. It was then inevitable that Israel would go to war in a matter of days. I actually predicted that it would do so on the morning of Monday 5 June.

Defense Minister Dayan (whom I knew quite well) was a law unto himself and had plans that went far beyond the war aim on which all of Israel's generals were agreed. It was the total destruction of Eygpt's Soviet supplied military equipment – planes, missiles, artillery, tanks, the lot. (For further background I have to tell you that Nasser had not wanted to be armed by the Soviet Union. He wanted America to be his arms supplier, and it was only when America refused that he turned in despair to the Soviet Union. Also true is that Nasser didn't want an upgraded military for the purpose of initiating war with Israel. He wanted Eygpt to be well enough armed to be able to demonstrate to Israel that attacking Eygpt to impose Zionism's will on it would not be a cost free option).

The key to understanding WHY Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty is in President Johnson's pre-war understanding with Israel's generals. Probably through Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Johnson gave Israel's generals the greenlight for war with Eygpt. But it was, effectively, a CONDITIONAL GREENLIGHT. On no account was Israel to widen the war the purpose of grabbing Jordanian and/or Syrian territory.

Dayan intended to do just that if and as the opportunity arose, but he had a problem. He knew, as all of Israel's generals and politicians knew, that although they had Johnson's greenlight to attack Eygpt, they would have only three or four days of complete freedom to act. Why? Because by the end of the third or fourth day, the Johnson administration would have to go along with a Security Council Resolution demanding an end to the fighting.

To guarantee that Israel could complete the job on the Egyptian front in a race against the diplomatic time clock, Dayan had to assign the bulk of Israel's armour, including elements of it that would be needed for an extended war on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts, to the Sinai.

Now to the significance of what I witnessed in the Sinai on the afternoon of Thursday 8 June when (unknown to me at the time) the Liberty had been silenced.... Scores of Israeli tanks and armoured personnel carriers, which had blitzkrieged their way through the Sinai sand, were being loaded onto huge lorries with trailers for transportation to the north, and re-deployment to the Jordanian and Syrian fronts. The orders for this re-deployment were coming by radio from Dayan's staff at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv.

This takes us to what the Liberty's mission was.

It was assigned to listen to all of Israel's military communications because some in the highest levels of American military and political decision-making did not trust the Israelis to keep their word about not extending the war to take chunks of Jordanian and Syrian territory, to create a Greater Israel of Zionism's mad dream.

The biggest fear of those who didn't trust Israel was the possible consequence of an Israeli attack on Syria, which had also been armed by the Soviet Union. The reasoning behind the fear went something like this. Soviet leaders almost certainly could and would live with the humiliating defeat of their Egyptian client, but for reasons of face they might not be able to live with the humiliating defeat of their Syrian client also. And that raised at least the possibility – if Israel attacked Syria – of Soviet military intervention, leading to the Cold War going Hot. (And this at a time when American forces were getting bogged down in an unwinnable war in Vietnam).

The idea behind the Liberty's deployment was that if it picked up messages indicating that Israel was re-deploying from the Sinai to launch major offensives in the north, and against Syria in particular, the evidence of Israeli intent and duplicity would be passed to Johnson, and that he would then pick up the 'phone to Prime Eshkol and say something like: "We know what your generals are up to. You must order them to stop, and if you don't or can't, I will."

Simply stated, the Liberty was on station as the Johnson administration's insurance policy. It's main mission was to prevent Israel going to war with Syria and possibly provoking a U.S-Soviet confrontation.

Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty to prevent it giving the Johnson administration early warning of his intentions to extend the war.

As it happened, Israel's last land grab of the war – the taking for keeping of the Syrian Golan Heights – DID provoke the threat of Soviet military intervention. For some hours there was the prospect of a superpower confrontation and possibly World War III. But at the brink, catastrophe was averted by use of the White House-Kremlin hot line.

Of all the evidence indicating that Dayan didn't want any of the Liberty's crew to live to tell the story, the most compelling in my view is the use of NAPALM during the attack. In Vietnam I saw what napalm can do. It reduces targeted human bodies to small piles of squelchy, black pulp.

So far as I am aware, the only honest piece of reporting in the American media in the immediate aftermarth of the attack was on 19 June in Newsweek's "Periscope" section. A small item in that read as follows:

"Although Israel's apologies were officially accepted, some high Washington officials believe the Israelis knew the Liberty's capabilities and suspect that the attack might not have been accidental. One top-level theory holds that someone in the Israeli armed forces ordered the Liberty sunk because he suspected it had taken down messages showing that Israel started the fighting."

One could salute Newsweek's brief moment of courage, but in one important respect the item was very wide of the mark. Everybody in Washington's war-loop who needed to know did know that Israel had started the war and that President Johnson had given it the greenlight to do so.

For many years there has been speculation that an Israeli general opposed Dayan's decision to attack the Liberty and said it would amount to "Pure murder"? Who was that general? I think I know.

Despite the fact that in his own memoirs he went along with the fiction that Israeli pilots failed to identify the Liberty as a U.S. ship and that the attack was a tragic mistake, I think it was, very probably, Chief of Staff Rabin – the Israeli leader who, many years later as prime minister, was stopped from advancing the peace process with Arafat and his PLO by a Zionist assassin. In the time available to me this evening, I'll give you just one reason of several why I'm convinced it was Rabin who opposed Dayan.

When the Liberty was being attacked, the insider gossip in Israel was that Rabin had "lost his nerve... cracked under the pressure... was drinking heavily... was under the table... a disgrace." I first heard this gossip from Israeli friends I knew to be very, very close to Dayan. It was then former DMI Herzog who confirmed to me that such rumours were rife. In retrospect I think the gossip was inspired by Dayan to give him scope to discredit Rabin if the need arose – if he so much as hinted to anybody outside the command circle that he had tried to prevent the attack on the Liberty. (Could it not be said that the idea of attacking the Liberty was enough to drive any rational human being, even an Israeli general, to drink?) The idea that Rabin might have been tempted to make trouble for Dayan was not unthinkable if he shared – and he probably did – Eshkol's private view of Israel's one-eyed warlord.

When the prime minister learned that Dayan had ordered the attack on Syria without consulting or informing himself or Chief of Staff Rabin, he thought about cancelling the order and said of Dayan, to his aide-de-camp, "What a vile man." (That quotation was unearthed by Avi Shlaim, one of Israel's leading "revisionist", which means honest, historians). What could have made Eshkol resort to such extraordinary language? My guess is that use of the adjective "vile" reflected most of all the prime minister's horror at Dayan's ordering of the attack on the Liberty.

Who was it who described Thursday 8 June 1967 as a "Great Day"?

That evening Egypt's President sent the following message to his Syrian counterpart:

"I believe that Israel is about to concentrate all of its forces against Syria in order to destroy the Syrian army, and regard for the common cause obliges me to advise you to agree to the ending of hostilities and to inform U Thant (UN Secretary General) immediately, in order to preserve Syria's great army. We have lost this battle. May God help us in the future. Your brother, Gamal Abdul Nasser."

That Nasser message, no doubt like all others, was intercepted by Israeli military intelligence. In the margin of a copy of it, Dayan scribbled the following note:

"Eshkol,

1. In my opinion this cable obliges us to capture maximal military lines.

2. Yesterday I did not think Egypt and Syria would collapse in this way and give up the continuation of the campaign. But since this is the situation, it must be exploited to the full.

A GREAT DAY. Moshe Dayan."

The Syrian leadership took Nasser's advice and announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. It came into effect at 0520 hours the following morning, Friday 9 June. So far as the Arabs and the organised international community represented by the UN were concerned, the war was over.... Six hours and ten minutes later, the IDF invaded Syria. Dayan had postponed the attack to allow for the redeployment of IDF units from Sinai – a redeployment that might not have been possible, Dayan had believed, if the Liberty was allowed to go on listening to IDF movement orders.

I end my chapter on this Israeli war crime with this sentence:

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.

Now to my explanation of why the truth needs its necessary context and must be handled with great care.

The problem with the truth, not only the truth about Israel's attack on the Liberty but its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and many other manifestation's of its arrogance of power and contempt for international law, is that it's pregnant with extreme danger because it could provoke anti-Semitism throughout the Western world where most Jews live as citizens of many nations. There is, however, a way to exorcise this extreme danger. It is by explaining the difference between Judaism and Zionism. I believe that knowledge of this difference is THE key to understanding.

JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not "the" Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.

ZIONISM as Jewish nationalism is a sectarian, colonial ideology-and-enterprise which, in the process of creating in the Arab heartland a state for some Jews – mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing – made a mockery of, and demonstrated contempt for, Judaism's moral values and ethical principles.

Supporters of Israel right or wrong conflate Judaism and Zionism because the assertion that they are one and the same enables them to claim that criticism of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Often, almost always these days, the accusation that criticism of Israel IS anti-Semitic is a form of blackmail, intended to silence criticism of, and suppress informed and honest debate about, the Zionist (not Jewish) state and its policies. The reality is that Judaism and Zionism as Jewish nationalism are total opposites, and knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding two things:

1. Why it is perfectly possible, with good reason on the basis of all the facts, to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism's on-going colonial enterprise) without being, in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic.

2. Why it is wrong to blame ALL Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Palestine that became little Israel, and then Greater Israel.

Though it is not well known, even by many Jews today, the fact is that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, Zionism's colonial enterprise was of no interest to more than a tiny minority of the Jews of the world and was OPPOSED by many of them. For example: On 5 March 1919, the New York Times revealed that 30 of the most prominent and outstanding Jewish Americans had signed a petition to President Wilson, warning him against any U.S. commitment "now or in the future to Jewish territorial sovereignty in Palestine." One of the 30 signatures was that of Adolph S. Ochs, the Jewish-American of German origin who was then the owner and publisher of the paper. In 1943, when the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism was formed, the then owner and publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, was a member of it.

The many Jews who opposed Zionism's colonial enterprise, including the early owners and publishers of the New York Times, knew it was morally wrong. They also believed it would lead to unending conflict with the Arabs. Most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the big powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

That fear was given a fresh airing in 1986 by Israel's longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi. In a remarkable book, Israel's Fateful Hour, he wrote this:

"Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world."

Today there is almost a case for saying that Israel's "misconduct"- in my view it sometimes amounts to naked state terrorism – has become not only "a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism" but the prime factor. I said "almost" a case because what we are witnessing today as a consequence of Israel's policies and actions is NOT the rise of anti-Semitism, not prejudice against and hatred of all Jews everywhere just because they are Jews.

What we are witnessing today in many nations, where more and more citizens are beginning to see an arrogant and insufferably self-righteous Israel as the obstacle to peace, is anti-Israelism, which is more accurately described as anti-Zionism. But as Harkabi warned, the danger is that what starts out as anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism. My own view, which I know is shared in private by a growing number of eminent Jews, is that this will happen – I mean that there will be another great turning against the Jews, possibly starting here in America

> IF Israel stays on its present course;

> IF the Jews of the world do not then distance themselves from the Zionist state's criminal behaviour and its denial of justice for the Palestinians; and

> IF Americans and Europeans among whom most Jews of the world live remain ignorant of the difference between Judaism and Zionism... And that is why I say the truth has to handled with great care and given its necessary context.

As some but perhaps not all of you will know, it was your first ever Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, and General George C. Marshall when he was serving as Secretary of State, who took the lead in trying to persuade President Truman that support for Zionism's colonial enterprise was not in America's own best interests. Their views were shared by all of your relevant intelligence agencies of the time. In my book I offer explanations of why a deeply troubled President Truman did not take their advice.

In that historical light I think it's not uninteresting that a serving American General of our time, General David H. Petraeus, has dared to say that continuing American support for Israel right or wrong is not in America's best interests and is even damaging them. The Epilogue to the forthcoming Volume 3 of my book is titled Is Peace Possible? In it I ask this question:

Could it be that the stage is being set for a titanic struggle in which President Obama, after the mid-term elections, will have to chose between doing what the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress want and what America's top military men know to be necessary if America's own interests are to be best protected?

And I add this comment:

If they could speak from their graves, I imagine the two most senior executives who advised President Truman not to support Zionism's colonial enterprise – Defense Secretary Forrestal and Secretary of State Marshall – would say, "Let's hope so and that this time reason will prevail."

I'll end my remarks to you this evening by quoting a line from the Dear America introduction to Volume 1 of the American edition of my book. It's a sort of open letter in which I am speaking directly to readers. In the very first sentence I say that if all of our children, wherever they live, are to have the prospect of a future worth having, the world needs America's BEST..

Only the truth can bring out the best of America, and there's no better place to start than with the truth about Israel's attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. I salute your efforts to make this truth known, If you can assist my efforts to promote it and other related truths, it might be possible to bring out the best of America before it's too late for us all.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

As I said in another post, it is not the apologist's problem or fault if his words about Zionism and Judaism are smeared as anti-semitic. He does not need to change, but the one carelessly tossing about the term "anti-semitic" is the one who needs to change. What you are suggesting, ahaze, is completely backwards, irrational, and obtuse thinking. It's as backwards as the ones who have made you believe that illusion.

If we start watering down the truth, where do we end up?

As for Mr. Hart's statement, "JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not "the" Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles," he is making an unfair comparison.

Judaism and Jews cannot be compared to Christians and Christianity, mainly because Christianity has been composed of multiple races and cultures, and thus is not subject to the racial and cultural cohesion required from all Jews, be he secular or religious.

Judaism or being Jewish is a culture. Christianity is a religion. Islam? I don't think it matters at this point. Hart is making unfair comparisons with the first.

I guess before you can intelligently discuss the alleged differences between Zionism and Jewish culture, you must first learn what what being Jewish really means.

As for the notion that Zionism is the greatest enemy of Jews, it depends on your perspective. On an individual level, we are all our own worst enemies. The inner struggle. Where collectivism exists, there is the potential for an external enemy to the individual. Zionism has given more to Jews than it has taken away. Yes Zionism has killed some of its own, but it has brought wealth and prosperity to most Jews. Is Zionism really an enemy to Jews? Collectively, no. The great majority of Jews have benefited from Zionism.Individually, yes. Jews have sold their souls for the cause and risk eternal damnation.

[ahaze]

So apparently Alan Hart's elucidation of circumstances surrounding Israel's motives and how they demonstrate Zionist agendas in clear opposition to Judaic intentions has little bearing on the concerns of the belief system driving the rebuttal here.  Sounds a bit fanatical to me.  So sparing any audience that might actually concern themselves with the lame attempt at attacking Alan Hart's insights rather than just assimilating his lecture for themselves, I'll just highlight a few of his fully disclosed facts.

Alan Hart effectively spells out the corruption Moshe Dayan famously brought to the phrase, "A GREAT DAY", and how Zionism formulates the core parisitic belief system feeding on best intentions.  Hart's a veteran reporter and author covering Arab-Israeli conflict since the 60's that provided him with a unique vantage point and perspective into Israel's 1967 war.  With a front row seat in the Sinai desert in good rapport with Golda Meir, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, Levi Eshkol, and Moshe Dayan, Mr. Hart exposes the extreme duplicity Zionists revert to in order to ensure their agendas.

Hart explains how the situation surrounding the kick-off of the 1967 war telling how Prime Minister Eshkol and Chief of Staff Rabin had pressed for a limited military operation in demonstration of strength to Egypt to support shipping through the Straits of Tiran but General Moshe Dayan exploited the opportunity to launch a full attack on Egypt, and then attacked the USS Liberty to blind visibility into the equipment relocation Dayan deceptively set in motion to launch fronts on Syria and Jordan.  Hart details the internal struggle within the Zionist machine at the time between Eshkol and Rabin upholding Jewish ethics while Dayan exploited the belief system to carry out atrocities.  It is this same vile exploitative nature demonstrated by Dayan that got Rabin assassinated years later by a Zionist triggerman.

After providing fascinating insight into internal struggles of the Zionist state, Hart concisely describes the core of the two ideological frameworks and their stark differences.

JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not "the" Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.

ZIONISM as Jewish nationalism is a sectarian, colonial ideology-and-enterprise which, in the process of creating in the Arab heartland a state for some Jews – mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing – made a mockery of, and demonstrated contempt for, Judaism's moral values and ethical principles.

Supporters of Israel right or wrong conflate Judaism and Zionism because the assertion that they are one and the same enables them to claim that criticism of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism.Often, almost always these days, the accusation that criticism of Israel IS anti-Semitic is a form of blackmail, intended to silence criticism of, and suppress informed and honest debate about, the Zionist (not Jewish) state and its policies. The reality is that Judaism and Zionism as Jewish nationalism are total opposites, and knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding two things:

1. Why it is perfectly possible, with good reason on the basis of all the facts, to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism's on-going colonial enterprise) without being, in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic.

2. Why it is wrong to blame ALL Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Palestine that became little Israel, and then Greater Israel.

Hart goes on to cite many examples of Jewish anti-Zionists who stood in opposition to "Jewish territorial sovereignty in Palestine".  He also clarifies how Jews are all judged according to the Jewish state and stand to validate anti-Semitism with its self-righteous abuse of its special privilege.  Hart describes how this insufferable self-righteousness built on ancient allegiance to a homeland stands to inflame a "great turning against the Jews" by concealing the true motives in belief systems based on Judaism

I know directly from Israeli Jews that they recognize they are at the mercy of Zionist extremists.  Those Israeli Jews I'm familiar with have spelled out to me how the belief systems are control structures to enable mass manipulation.  So I understand the point some folks harp on about the Talmud being the real poison of the bone, but that doesn't answer for the infinite number of positive expressions those belief systems have played in behavior of believers that are happily free of Temple Mount sentimentality.  It takes a special breed to remain so fixated on the "Sacred Noble Sanctuary" and I don't doubt there're some dark esoteric beliefs fixed around its allure, but those fixations are wrapped in so many lies only initiates in concealed realities stand to unravel what's real.  As far as the rest of the world is concerned the Zionist exaltation of Jerusalem exudes a psychopathic nature endangering all outsiders with the murderous contempt "believers" exercise towards any unaware of their secrets.  That doesn't make believers brainwashed in reverberations of the corrupt belief system culpable, in fact they deserve special exemption while dealing with the core cancer of Zionism.

If we must have a catchy soundbite - a al "The truth is what it is. Zionism is still Judaism." - then I'd go for "Zionism exploits Judaism".  But all those spewing "all Jews forever have exuded Zionist psychopathy everywhere" can piss off and have another    while they ponder all they're in denial of for all I care.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I'm going to respond in more detail to your last post in a bit, but you are over simplifying the issue by saying the only choices we have are it's, a) all Jews or b) only Zionists. This kind of "option" reeks of a Hegelian dialectic, as does the right wing vs. left wing paradigm.

I have never heard of an anti-Judaic (anti-semite if you will) ever say all Jews are conspiring together. Even the most anti-Judaic person has never said this that I know of. So right there, your argument is flawed. Secondly, you have not demonstrated the alleged differences between Zionism and Jewish culture--or the Jewish religion for that matter.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

So apparently Alan Hart's elucidation of circumstances surrounding Israel's motives and how they demonstrate Zionist agendas in clear opposition to Judaic intentions has little bearing on the concerns of the belief system driving the rebuttal here.  Sounds a bit fanatical to me.  So sparing any audience that might actually concern themselves with the lame attempt at attacking Alan Hart's insights rather than just assimilating his lecture for themselves, I'll just highlight a few of his fully disclosed facts.

Alan Hart effectively spells out the corruption Moshe Dayan famously brought to the phrase, "A GREAT DAY", and how Zionism formulates the core parisitic belief system feeding on best intentions.  Hart's a veteran reporter and author covering Arab-Israeli conflict since the 60's that provided him with a unique vantage point and perspective into Israel's 1967 war.  With a front row seat in the Sinai desert in good rapport with Golda Meir, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, Levi Eshkol, and Moshe Dayan, Mr. Hart exposes the extreme duplicity Zionists revert to in order to ensure their agendas.

Hart explains how the situation surrounding the kick-off of the 1967 war telling how Prime Minister Eshkol and Chief of Staff Rabin had pressed for a limited military operation in demonstration of strength to Egypt to support shipping through the Straits of Tiran but General Moshe Dayan exploited the opportunity to launch a full attack on Egypt, and then attacked the USS Liberty to blind visibility into the equipment relocation Dayan deceptively set in motion to launch fronts on Syria and Jordan.  Hart details the internal struggle within the Zionist machine at the time between Eshkol and Rabin upholding Jewish ethics while Dayan exploited the belief system to carry out atrocities.  It is this same vile exploitative nature demonstrated by Dayan that got Rabin assassinated years later by a Zionist triggerman.

After providing fascinating insight into internal struggles of the Zionist state, Hart concisely describes the core of the two ideological frameworks and their stark differences.

JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not "the" Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.

ZIONISM as Jewish nationalism is a sectarian, colonial ideology-and-enterprise which, in the process of creating in the Arab heartland a state for some Jews – mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing – made a mockery of, and demonstrated contempt for, Judaism's moral values and ethical principles.

Supporters of Israel right or wrong conflate Judaism and Zionism because the assertion that they are one and the same enables them to claim that criticism of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism.Often, almost always these days, the accusation that criticism of Israel IS anti-Semitic is a form of blackmail, intended to silence criticism of, and suppress informed and honest debate about, the Zionist (not Jewish) state and its policies. The reality is that Judaism and Zionism as Jewish nationalism are total opposites, and knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding two things:

1. Why it is perfectly possible, with good reason on the basis of all the facts, to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism's on-going colonial enterprise) without being, in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic.

2. Why it is wrong to blame ALL Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Palestine that became little Israel, and then Greater Israel.

If only political Zionism were the big threat as you and Hart seem to express, then how did the Jews gain prominence after their city, temple, and religious courts (the Sanhedrin) were burned to the ground in 70 AD?  They rose to prominence once again, without political Zionism. They survived the Roman dynasty, Talmud intact, and began to infiltrate Christianity towards the later stages of the Roman Empire before its fall, then to the Middle Ages, where they really began rising to power--first as merchants, then as bankers. They continued on using crytpo-Jewish tactics to undermine whichever society the dwelled in.

How did they go from having no homeland, no temple, no people, to now having the entire world? And you fiddle fart about political Zionism? Hah!

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I know directly from Israeli Jews that they recognize they are at the mercy of Zionist extremists. Those Israeli Jews I'm familiar with have spelled out to me how the belief systems are control structures to enable mass manipulation. So I understand the point some folks harp on about the Talmud being the real poison of the bone, but that doesn't answer for the infinite number of positive expressions those belief systems have played in behavior of believers that are happily free of Temple Mount sentimentality. It takes a special breed to remain so fixated on the "Sacred Noble Sanctuary" and I don't doubt there're some dark esoteric beliefs fixed around its allure, but those fixations are wrapped in so many lies only initiates in concealed realities stand to unravel what's real. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the Zionist exaltation of Jerusalem exudes a psychopathic nature endangering all outsiders with the murderous contempt "believers" exercise towards any unaware of their secrets. That doesn't make believers brainwashed in reverberations of the corrupt belief system culpable, in fact they deserve special exemption while dealing with the core cancer of Zionism.

Jews exploit themselves, as does any human being when he/she decides to sin. Conspiracy is crime...it is sin. There is no one to blame but yourself. Stop making excuses for criminals. God won't tell you on judgment day, after you kill and maim, that you are off the hook because some collective group coerced you to do it. Not gonna happen, my friend. Jews do no deserve special exemption. ALL peoples have gone through some tribulation at some point in time in history. Jews are not unique in this regard. How can you not believe that Judaism is esoteric when it fully admits it is?

Zionism is not the cancer. The tumour maybe, but it is the after result of a much larger ideology.

[abduLMaria]

Why Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

i think it has a lot to do with the Israeli Jews being a group of ultra-racist crazed religious extremists.

[ahaze]

How can you not believe that Judaism is esoteric when it fully admits it is?

I thought I acknowledged the "dark esoteric beliefs" apparently pulsing within all the religions fixed on Jerusalem as evidenced by the ongoing territorial turf wars flaring around Al Aqsa Mosque due to Judaic claims it sits on the foundation of the Temple Mount :? .

Zionism quantifies the fixation on Jerusalem, and those that focus all their attention on gaining control of it with extreme duplicity and murderous contempt in pursuit of carrying out God knows what.  Zionists won't tell what in god's name their "Precious" place on earth holds for them other than the standard mythological by-line, but whatever it is it justifies suspending all better judgment in jeopardy of humanity.  Zionism distinguishes the psychopathic bent this myopic value system promotes and allows for application across many contexts and boundaries according to sub-group behavior.  

Blaming Judaism strafes blame across all humanity indiscriminately.  Hmmm, sounds like a common deployment method Zionists exercise.  Hmmm, also sounds like a perfect "shame sham", an ala cart compliment to the need for carbon credits and body scans (a la the original sin spin).  "Shame humanity on all levels" appears to be top of Zionists' mission lists.  

Blaming mythology for corrupt behavior is like blaming a gun for murder.  Gross generalizing blame for Jewish conflicts to anyone ever pondering a theological thought germinated by Judaism exalts thoughts over actions.  Sounds a bit like a psychotic murderer defending themself claiming the TV or devil made them do it.

So unfortunately the feedback here sounds like a bunch of beligerant Zionist buffoonery.  Riiight, "Judaic theology/philosophy is all f^#!ed up and we hold the keys to fix it!" Absolutist absurdity, and glaringly obvious Zionist propaganda.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

How can you not believe that Judaism is esoteric when it fully admits it is?

I thought I acknowledged the "dark esoteric beliefs" apparently pulsing within all the religions fixed on Jerusalem as evidenced by the ongoing territorial turf wars flaring around Al Aqsa Mosque due to Judaic claims it sits on the foundation of the Temple Mount :? .

Zionism quantifies the fixation on Jerusalem, and those that focus all their attention on gaining control of it with extreme duplicity and murderous contempt in pursuit of carrying out God knows what.  Zionists won't tell what in god's name their "Precious" place on earth holds for them other than the standard mythological by-line, but whatever it is it justifies suspending all better judgment in jeopardy of humanity.  Zionism distinguishes the psychopathic bent this myopic value system promotes and allows for application across many contexts and boundaries according to sub-group behavior.  

Blaming Judaism strafes blame across all humanity indiscriminately.  Hmmm, sounds like a common deployment method Zionists exercise.  Hmmm, also sounds like a perfect "shame sham", an ala cart compliment to the need for carbon credits and body scans (a la the original sin spin).  "Shame humanity on all levels" appears to be top of Zionists' mission lists.  

Blaming mythology for corrupt behavior is like blaming a gun for murder.  Gross generalizing blame for Jewish conflicts to anyone ever pondering a theological thought germinated by Judaism exalts thoughts over actions.  Sounds a bit like a psychotic murderer defending themself claiming the TV or devil made them do it.

So unfortunately the feedback here sounds like a bunch of beligerant Zionist buffoonery.  Riiight, "Judaic theology/philosophy is all f^#!ed up and we hold the keys to fix it!" Absolutist absurdity, and glaringly obvious Zionist propaganda.

The city of Jerusalem holds no modern significance to Christianity. Jesus tells His disciples to look for the "New Jerusalem," which is a heavenly city. He is speaking spiritually. Let the Masons, the Jews, and the Muslims fight over the God-forsaken earthly city. Heck, even secular sources confirm that Jerusalem was trodden down by the Romans. God obviously allowed it to happen.

A so-called Christian who does  not understand the scriptures regarding heavenly Jerusalem has bigger problems than just interpretation. They are likely carnal-minded and have already completely missed Christ's spiritual message.

Jesus said that God would cause the City of Jerusalem and the Temple to be destroyed:

"Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.  2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation (Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem),' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—  16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Here Jesus is warning righteous Jews to flea when they see the Romans encircling the city. The non-believing Jews, not following the Bible, or the teachings of Jesus would not take heed to this warning, and theoretically, would go down with the city at the hands of Roman General Titus.

Here is the clincher in Luke 21:

"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.  21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.  22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written."

What punishment is Jesus talking about? Punishment against whoring Israel and her sister Judah.

Jeremiah 3:8 "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also."

Now we have an identity for Revealtion's Babylonian whore who rides the beast



So now, Ahaze, hopefully you are beginning to see that Jerusalem holds no significance to Christianity.

Blaming Judaism strafes blame across all humanity indiscriminately.

How so?

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

And then it spells out why its wrong to conflate Judaism with Zionism.

Oh Gawd, head back to the code pink forums will ya? We've heard this spiel before, constantly, and incessantly.    It's just really outdated   bullshit and damage control. Please, go get some new material from your Yeshiva buddies, come back, and try to convince everyone that Jews and Zionists are not the same thing, and that Zionism is the be all/end all to Jewish criminal behavior. It's laughable at this point and can be debunked with one simple fact: Zionism was invented by Jews in 1897, Jewish crime/terror/perfidy and corrosive influence has been around since the days of Jesus and beyond as evidenced by their complete and total expulsion from over 80 countries 109 times. Why do I have to keep repeating this easily verifiable fact god dammit? Do you know how to use google?

Eustace Mullins, New History of the Jews, Pg. 19

"The origin of the Jews is revealed by the origin of their tribal name. The word "Jew" was unknown in ancient history. The Jews were then known as Hebrews, and the word Hebrew tells us all about this people that we need to know....Hebrew means "one who is from across the river." Rivers were often the boundaries of ancient nations, and one from across the river meant, simply, an alien. In every country of the ancient world, the Hebrews were known as aliens. The word also, in popular usage, meant "one who should not be trusted until he has identified himself." Hebrew in all ancient literature was written as "Habiru". This word appears frequently in the Bible and in Egyptian literature. In the Bible, Habiru is used interchangeably with "sagaz", meaning "cutthroat". In all of Egyptian literature, wherever the word Habiru appears, it is written with the word "sagaz" written beside it. Thus the Egyptians always wrote of the Jews as "the cutthroat bandits from across the river". For five thousand years, the Egyptian scribes identified the Jews in this manner. Significantly, they are not referred to except by these two characters. "
[/i]

[ahaze]

So now, Ahaze, hopefully you are beginning to see that Jerusalem holds no significance to Christianity.

 :shock: Puhleeeze!  With Golgatha, Gethsemane, the Via Dolorosa, and all the Christian empathy for the Jewish Old Testament sites, Jerusalem holds huge significance for all of Christendom.

Put on your thinking cap and imagine you're speaking with the masses of Christians that make pilgrimages to Jerusalem totally oblivious of the clash of civilizations agenda run by Zionists. :up:

[ahaze]

Oh Gawd, head back to the code pink forums will ya? We've heard this spiel before, constantly, and incessantly.  It's just really outdated  bullshit and damage control. Please, go get some new material from your Yeshiva buddies, come back, and try to convince everyone that Jews and Zionists are not the same thing, and that Zionism is the be all/end all to Jewish criminal behavior. It's laughable at this point and can be debunked with one simple fact: Zionism was invented by Jews in 1897, Jewish crime/terror/perfidy and corrosive influence has been around since the days of Jesus and beyond as evidenced by their complete and total expulsion from over 80 countries 109 times. Why do I have to keep repeating this easily verifiable fact god dammit? Do you know how to use google?

These rebuttals are beginning to sound inane ignoring all basis of the distinction of Zionism drawn above.  The arbitrary dating of the coining of Zionisim is erroneous and ignores the focal point of Zionist intentions - Judaic command of Jerusalem - a fixation permeating all of Jewish history.  So your straw man is in the puddles of your gross generalizations.  

The glaring denial of facts in this discussion makes it exceedingly difficult to follow, and so just in case anyone that got lost truly wants to reorient on what this discussion is all about, in sum:

Zionism distinguishes itself with capricious fixation on Jerusalem applicable for both indoctrinated pilgrims seeking God but also more insidiously for forces concerned with colliding civilizations and most importantly with securing their command of life sustaining resources.  Of the two groups of Zionists - pilgrim vs power-monger - the latter acts in psychopathic manners demonstrating murderous contempt for any persons outside of their agenda keeping whether indoctrinated dupe or those liberated from the belief systems they proffer.  

This core psych-zio-con grouping reverberates in secret sects other than orthodox religions and has foreign counterparts Westerners can't imagine.  The true psych-zio-cons pull the strings most threatening to collective humanity and operate in duplicitous covert manners with as noteworthy examples as attacking the USS Liberty, flying planes into buildings, and assassinating world leaders.  They can dream of atrocities on scientifically advanced scales incomprehensible to active scientific paradigms, they command resource supply chains, rule the airwaves, and actively undermine collective human potential, all carried out with a disturbingly blank stare.  

OK, and so the counter point to all of this is: 'Jews are all secretly in collusion with one another orchestrating all of the worlds atrocities and its because Judaism tells bad stories.  In fact Judaism tells such bad stories that every single person who's ever even heard a Jewish story gets infected so bad they can't think right.  So it stands general human comprehension is so utterly lost that the only proper response is to Jew bash.'     Talk about blaming the Mark.

[The Answer]

Oh Gawd, head back to the code pink forums will ya? We've heard this spiel before, constantly, and incessantly.  It's just really outdated  bullshit and damage control. Please, go get some new material from your Yeshiva buddies, come back, and try to convince everyone that Jews and Zionists are not the same thing, and that Zionism is the be all/end all to Jewish criminal behavior. It's laughable at this point and can be debunked with one simple fact: Zionism was invented by Jews in 1897, Jewish crime/terror/perfidy and corrosive influence has been around since the days of Jesus and beyond as evidenced by their complete and total expulsion from over 80 countries 109 times. Why do I have to keep repeating this easily verifiable fact god dammit? Do you know how to use google?

These rebuttals are beginning to sound inane ignoring all basis of the distinction of Zionism drawn above.  The arbitrary dating of the coining of Zionisim is erroneous and ignores the focal point of Zionist intentions - Judaic command of Jerusalem - a fixation permeating all of Jewish history.  So your straw man is in the puddles of your gross generalizations.  

The glaring denial of facts in this discussion makes it exceedingly difficult to follow, and so just in case anyone that got lost truly wants to reorient on what this discussion is all about, in sum:

Zionism distinguishes itself with capricious fixation on Jerusalem applicable for both indoctrinated pilgrims seeking God but also more insidiously for forces concerned with colliding civilizations and most importantly with securing their command of life sustaining resources.  Of the two groups of Zionists - pilgrim vs power-monger - the latter acts in psychopathic manners demonstrating murderous contempt for any persons outside of their agenda keeping whether indoctrinated dupe or those liberated from the belief systems they proffer.

  Is this the new Jew-spin on "Zionism"? God dang, they have a new definition every week. I know you people think the Goyim are just plain stupid and so forgetful that they can be led to believe one thing one day, and something completely different the next, but seriously I don't even think Joe blow from Idaho would buy this disastrous attempt at obscuring the issue with these kind of lunatic ramblings about intangible bullshit.

OK, and so the counter point to all of this is: 'Jews are all secretly in collusion with one another orchestrating all of the worlds atrocities and its because Judaism tells bad stories.  In fact Judaism tells such bad stories that every single person who's ever even heard a Jewish story gets infected so bad they can't think right.  So it stands general human comprehension is so utterly lost that the only proper response is to Jew bash.'     Talk about blaming the Mark.

And you want to talk about strawmen yet you've used one here and asserted this as my argument when I've never actually said it. The reason Jews have been kicked out of so many countries, and the reason Jews are so intensely disliked by nearly all the peoples among whom they have established themselves is not because the Gentile hosts found out there is some secret conspiracy among jews to take over the world (though I suspect there probably is), but because Jews have lived off of non-Jews as parasites and they give nothing back. They are avaricious and malevolent. They are hateful towards non-Jews because as parasites they cannot think of their host as more than worthless cattle because if even an ounce of compassion entered their hearts they'd cease to be parasites and couldn't live with themselves as such. Therefore, Jews must maintain a deep hatred and disdain for all non-Jews to continue acting as parasites sucking the life-force out of the host and equally hating their benefactor at the same time. Orchestrating atrocities is simply a measure taken by the parasitic Jew to maintain his dominion over the goyim cattle host, the divide & conquer technique, to manipulate the goyim host to do his bidding so that he can continue his parasitic charade of extracting money off of the labor of others, and off the of blood of goyim soldiers who volunteer to fight and die for the Jew. They don't have to orchestrate all the world's atrocities, because they have taken most of the world's wealth in their hands, leaving most of the world desperately poor. Impoverished people will commit the most blood-curdling atrocities at the slightest provocation in the name of money & greed, and in some cases just insanity.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

So now, Ahaze, hopefully you are beginning to see that Jerusalem holds no significance to Christianity.

 :shock: Puhleeeze!  With Golgatha, Gethsemane, the Via Dolorosa, and all the Christian empathy for the Jewish Old Testament sites, Jerusalem holds huge significance for all of Christendom.

Put on your thinking cap and imagine you're speaking with the masses of Christians that make pilgrimages to Jerusalem totally oblivious of the clash of civilizations agenda run by Zionists. :up:

I specifically stated that "Modern" Jerusalem holds no significance to Christianity. I didn't say anything about historical Jerusalem. Israel, specifically Jerusalem, is not a Holy place. Had Jesus not died there, Christians wouldn't give two hoots about it. Those pilgrimages are mainly to feel and see where our Lord was crucified and stood. Next.

Modern day Russia (St. Petersberg), Turkey, and Syria hold more significance to Christianity. Today, Jerusalem is a shit hole full of prostitution, crime, homosexaulity, and perversion. What's Holy about that?

[ahaze]

Is this the new Jew-spin on "Zionism"? God dang, they have a new definition every week. I know you people think the Goyim are just plain stupid and so forgetful that they can be led to believe one thing one day, and something completely different the next, ...

The arduous denial of facts here does leave the conversation wanting a bit but I'll try typing real slow while positing some rhetoricals here for maybe helping knock loose some analytic capacity.

What could compel suppression of the psychological science in the discussion when the psychological science distinguishes the disease?  Why is psychological science describing the psychopathic condition that manifests in human atrocities of no value to deciphering  secret agendas in all their evil manifestations?  How is the psychopathic trait evident in atrocities at hand of no relevance to diagnosing the world's problem condition?  

How is the critical feature of Zionist fixation with securing a specific promised land irrelevant to understanding the compulsion of powers orchestrating atrocities in favor of accomplishing that goal?  How are all Jews culpable of Zionist fixation with a promised land when many Jews actively condemn the notion?  With Zionist fixation ranging across faiths as far from Judaism as Rastafarianism obviously exempt of any benefit to NWO agendas with Jerusalem, how do all Zionist believers deserve condemnation for believing in Zion?

The reason Jews have been kicked out of so many countries, and the reason Jews are so intensely disliked by nearly all the peoples among whom they have established themselves is not because the Gentile hosts found out there is some secret conspiracy among jews to take over the world (though I suspect there probably is), but because Jews have lived off of non-Jews as parasites and they give nothing back. They are avaricious and malevolent. They are hateful towards non-Jews because as parasites they cannot think of their host as more than worthless cattle because if even an ounce of compassion entered their hearts they'd cease to be parasites and couldn't live with themselves as such. Therefore, Jews must maintain a deep hatred and disdain for all non-Jews to continue acting as parasites sucking the life-force out of the host and equally hating their benefactor at the same time. Orchestrating atrocities is simply a measure taken by the parasitic Jew to maintain his dominion over the goyim cattle host, the divide & conquer technique, to manipulate the goyim host to do his bidding so that he can continue his parasitic charade of extracting money off of the labor of others, and off the of blood of goyim soldiers who volunteer to fight and die for the Jew. They don't have to orchestrate all the world's atrocities, because they have taken most of the world's wealth in their hands, leaving most of the world desperately poor. Impoverished people will commit the most blood-curdling atrocities at the slightest provocation in the name of money & greed, and in some cases just insanity.

The negative traits of Jews you designate strafed across all adherents to Judaism and generalized across all contexts lacks a little something in explaining how all of Judaism is in on the NWO gameplan.  Some sort of secret shoe phones or something?  How they all know exactly what to do in concert with one another aside, given all the duplicity you detail it highlights what an actual marvel it is that Jews ascend into the societal leadership roles they adopt while struggling with such flaws.  In fact wouldn't it actually be a good sign if they were truly that narcissistically bumbling because they would be so dysfunctional as to be easily identified and rejected?  And yet that doesn't appear to be the case at all.  Hmmm, could the circumstances be more complex than your model allows for?

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Is this the new Jew-spin on "Zionism"? God dang, they have a new definition every week. I know you people think the Goyim are just plain stupid and so forgetful that they can be led to believe one thing one day, and something completely different the next, ...

The arduous denial of facts here does leave the conversation wanting a bit but I'll try typing real slow while positing some rhetoricals here for maybe helping knock loose some analytic capacity.

What could compel suppression of the psychological science in the discussion when the psychological science distinguishes the disease?  Why is psychological science describing the psychopathic condition that manifests in human atrocities of no value to deciphering  secret agendas in all their evil manifestations?  How is the psychopathic trait evident in atrocities at hand of no relevance to diagnosing the world's problem condition?  

How is the critical feature of Zionist fixation with securing a specific promised land irrelevant to understanding the compulsion of powers orchestrating atrocities in favor of accomplishing that goal?  How are all Jews culpable of Zionist fixation with a promised land when many Jews actively condemn the notion?  With Zionist fixation ranging across faiths as far from Judaism as Rastafarianism obviously exempt of any benefit to NWO agendas with Jerusalem, how do all Zionist believers deserve condemnation for believing in Zion?

    Oh, I'm sorry did you say something?  :eh: :wtf:  

I assume you typed this peculiar disinfo while in the midst of some bizarre and outrageous African voodoo magic, snake worship ceremony, involving hippo dung smeared over your face, and a box of snake skins that have been urinated on placed upon a pedestal and worshiped by gurgling your own spit and releasing it onto your own foot -- all the while making freakish animal noises. By the looks of your avatar, I speculate to guess that you are a witch doctor from the mountains of Ghana?

The negative traits of Jews you designate strafed across all adherents to Judaism and generalized across all contexts lacks a little something in explaining how all of Judaism is in on the NWO gameplan.  Some sort of secret shoe phones or something?  How they all know exactly what to do in concert with one another aside, given all the duplicity you detail it highlights what an actual marvel it is that Jews ascend into the societal leadership roles they adopt while struggling with such flaws.  In fact wouldn't it actually be a good sign if they were truly that narcissistically bumbling because they would be so dysfunctional as to be easily identified and rejected?  And yet that doesn't appear to be the case at all.  Hmmm, could the circumstances be more complex than your model allows for?

Not all of it, but Judaism and a good number of its adherents are the architects, supporters, and the main vessel behind this "NWO" plot, that have forged the path to the destruction of western civilization, and the institution of a one world communist dictatorship where they are the bankers. People like you are boring as hell though and you're all the same. All you jackasses ever do is whine and complain about generalizations, whaaa whaaa :cry:  "you paint with too braod a brush", whaa whaa :cry: , "that's not nice", whaa whaa "they're not all like that", whaa whaa :cry: , "I know some good Jews," whaa whaa  :cry: . I guarantee a year from now, there will be another poster just like you who will come along and try to pawn off the exact same pedantic Sherlock Holmes style rhetoric.

Where is this conversation headed? Up shits creek without a paddle, no doubt.
 

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

ahaze = anarchore btw

[ahaze]

Where is this conversation headed? Up shits creek without a paddle, no doubt.

Well, in the interest of the all inclusive nature of the discussion thread on getting women's feedback here on TIU, and the lacking synopsis definition of Zionism on a "Anti Zionist Think Tank", I presumed the discussion could use some hard facts to work with.  Particularly with regard to the highlighted aspects of Zionist attachment to a promised land and how "psychopathy" distinguishes the actual behavior pattern manifesting atrocities under examination.  I've been schooled by a number of woman who've distinguished the nature of psychopathy evident in power structures operating on the globe, and this human malfunction can be specifically diagnosed.

In tandem with the psychopathic reality, psychological science distinguishes the quandary psychopathic behavior poses for people with conscience.  Due to the empathetic processing a person with a conscience exercises and the act of self-extension required to identify with another person, people with empathetic capacities can be compelled to act in ways at odds with collectively good intentions normally exercised if left to their own devices.  So with this key dynamic of how easily conscience falls victim to unconscionable behavior (and the "dupe" nature of the condition) in contrast to psychopathic conduct (germinating the atrocities under examination) it seems like exceedingly relevant reality for people to ponder.  Especially considering the empathetic faculties actually function in 94% of humanity, the true parasites are the 6% without a conscience.  

Additionally we have the key psychopathic Zionist feature used to justify some sort of clash of civilizations agenda with fixation on Jerusalem vested with seemingly all the worlds resources, and yet this specific compulsion is not shared by all Zionist believers.  As mentioned, Rastafarians singing about delivery from Babylon and returning to Zion would seem to be at the bottom of the list of beneficiaries of the psychopathic Zionist agenda.

So Alan Hart's report of the psychopathic conduct of Moshe Dayan undermining Yitzhak Rabin resulting in the 1967 war and attack on the USS Liberty provides a unique case and point.  Hart spells out the conduct distinguishing true evil.  All of the factors harmonizing with the tragedy make plain the impotency of humanity infected with the poisoned thinking that staged the opportunity.  How many more examples of this tragic pattern become apparent examining the atrocity track record?  Too numerous to mention here.

The counter argument that all Jews collude in the NWO agenda with all the goy helping largely due to the scary stories in the Talmud lacks a certain something in functional detail to explain the madness at hand. :problem:

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Alan Hart is not an authority on the matter. Stop using him to speak. And please answer my question.

[ahaze]

Alan Hart is not an authority on the matter. Stop using him to speak. And please answer my question.

Alan Hart didn't invent psychological science, nor did he invent Zionism, he merely cites a case in history that clearly illustrates psychopathy asserting itself in the context of Zionism.

As for your question about what modern relevancy the Jewish Promised Land has to Christianity (aside from all the historical Holy sites Christians make pilgrimages to), the entire apocalyptic episode that must precede the return of Christ pivots around the kings gathering together at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) or Megiddo to you and me.  This is the key feature that motivates Christian Zionists (along with all their Jewish sentimentality).  While Jewish Zionism focuses on securing the promised land to rebuild the temple so the Messiah can come, Christian Zionism want the promised land secured so all hell can break loose for the Messiah to return.  

The insensibility of all of this is irrelevant to whatever secret agenda the powers that be are driving at Jerusalem for, but its crucial legend to motivate the masses with.  This dynamic of the Jewish Zionists working the Christian Zionists while the Christian Zionists THINK they're working the Jewish Zionists that I find one of the most twisted dimensions of the diseased condition.  All those directly deluded by it are at the mercy of whatever psychopathic element truly drives it.  

Personally I think we'd be all better off if there was a mass conversion to Rastafarian Zionism.  :shh:

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Alan Hart is not an authority on the matter. Stop using him to speak. And please answer my question.

Alan Hart didn't invent psychological science, nor did he invent Zionism, he merely cites a case in history that clearly illustrates psychopathy asserting itself in the context of Zionism.

As for your question about what modern relevancy the Jewish Promised Land has to Christianity (aside from all the historical Holy sites Christians make pilgrimages to), the entire apocalyptic episode that must precede the return of Christ pivots around the kings gathering together at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) or Megiddo to you and me.  This is the key feature that motivates Christian Zionists (along with all their Jewish sentimentality).  While Jewish Zionism focuses on securing the promised land to rebuild the temple so the Messiah can come, Christian Zionism want the promised land secured so all hell can break loose for the Messiah to return.  

The insensibility of all of this is irrelevant to whatever secret agenda the powers that be are driving at Jerusalem for, but its crucial legend to motivate the masses with.  This dynamic of the Jewish Zionists working the Christian Zionists while the Christian Zionists THINK they're working the Jewish Zionists that I find one of the most twisted dimensions of the diseased condition.  All those directly deluded by it are at the mercy of whatever psychopathic element truly drives it.  

Personally I think we'd be all better off if there was a mass conversion to Rastafarian Zionism.  :shh:

No, that wasn't my question. You have already demonstrated you know very little about Orthodox Christianity. And for the record, Christians don't make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. That is a Muslim thing.

the entire apocalyptic episode that must precede the return of Christ pivots around the kings gathering together at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) or Megiddo to you and me.  

Can you explain this to me in greater detail? What is the general Christian belief on the apocalypse, keeping in mind that Christian Zionism is a sect.

[ahaze]

No, that wasn't my question. You have already demonstrated you know very little about Orthodox Christianity. And for the record, Christians don't make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. That is a Muslim thing.

"Christians don't make pilgrimages to Jerusalem".  Go tell that to the innumerable  Christians that have made pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  Well, you are.  Back in days of my Christian naivete, I made a pilgrimage.  I have numerous friends and acquaintances that have made the pilgrimage.  For a Christian, walking the steps of Jesus is the most tangible way of identifying with Christian suffering (in fact most prefer it over enduring true spiritual suffering).  Visiting Gethsemane, walking the Via Dolorosa, and touching the Stone of Unction in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (among many other activities) can be enormously empowering to Christian spiritual inclinations.  In Google go type "Christian holy land pilgrimage" and then enjoy perusing all of the opportunities to make a Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. :up:

the entire apocalyptic episode that must precede the return of Christ pivots around the kings gathering together at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) or Megiddo to you and me.

Can you explain this to me in greater detail? What is the general Christian belief on the apocalypse, keeping in mind that Christian Zionism is a sect.

Do you know anybody that can explain the psychotic ramblings of the writer of Revelations?  The fundamental hope of the Zionist Christians in all their "Left Behind" titillation with the Apocalypse is to experience Rapture and see Christ return.  Nevermind that WWIII must ensue for these ecstatic experiences to be achieved.

Which brings us back to the psychopathic nature of Zionist beliefs - in all their purposeful denial of humanity in favor of their legends - and how unwitting believers are compelled to endorse atrocities carried out by true psychopaths.  Like Moshe Dayan exploiting the entire Israel charade to initiate fronts on Egypt and Syria while attacking its closest ally.

[ahaze]

Filling in the back-story on the strategic advantage of attacking the USS Liberty, in his recent article "Munich and the Five '9/11's'", Gordon Duff recently reports

GORDON DUFF: MUNICH AND THE FIVE "9/11's"
_http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/04/gordon-duff-munich-and-the-five-911s/

{...]

Our second 9/11 was the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.  Israeli aircraft, initially without markings, bombed and strafed the state of the art American communications ship in international waters.  The attack was, initially, made to appear as though it was Egypt attacking America, conveniently prior to the Israeli sneak attack that started the 1967 Six Day War.  The idea was to force the United States into attacking Egypt and its partner, Syria, aiding Israel in seizing land it couldn't get during the Lavon fiasco or the ill fated invasion of Egypt during the Suez Crisis of 1956.

The problem was, the ship didn't sink.  The deal between President Johnson and Israel was simple.  All 296 crew members had to die, no survivors, and the ship had to hit the bottom.  The operation failed when Israeli torpedo boats couldn't sink the Liberty.  Strafing lifeboats coudn't kill the crew.  Eighty five crew members remained at their posts during the hours of napalm, torpedos, rockets and the tens of thousands of rounds fired into the ship.   The war against Egypt and Syria was to save Israel from having to do her own dirty work and was to cost America thousands of lives.

[...]

So not only did the attack on USS Liberty black-out communications with the U.S. strategic command (per Alan Hart), but if it had actually succeeded would've sent the United States into war on Egypt.  

Duff's entire article well elucidates the pattern of luring an ally to exploit them in betrayal that the mind-gamers  :twisted:  master.