Author Topic: * Gilad Atzmon  (Read 14885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
* Gilad Atzmon
« on: April 27, 2013, 01:15:55 PM »
Jüdische Allgemeine Exposed By Evelyn Hecht-Galinski

Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 12:59AM Gilad Atzmon



Introduction by GA: In the following  article, German author and commentator
Evelyn Hecht-Galinski exposes  Jonathan Scheiner and
the Jüdische Allgemeine as Hasbara  operators.

(Translated by Elisabeth Lauck-Ndayi)

Yet again we have evidence of how the Jüdische Allgemeine (JA) deals with any criticism of Israel. In JA on April 4th, 2013 you can find a peculiar article titled “Self-hatred and Saxophone“(1), written by Jonathan Scheiner.

Scheiner’s article consists of false accusations that indicate that not only has he failed to consider Gilad Atzmon`s writings on music, politics and philosophy but that he also has probably not read Gilad Atzmon`s book. So straightaway, let me recommend each reader and interested person read Gilad Atzmon’s new book: “The Wandering Who”, published in 2012 by Zambon Verlag.

In the first paragraph Scheiner writes “Gilad Atzmon is yet to be denied an entry permit to Germany“ and only then does he mention Atzmon’s current European jazz tour. This alone reveals Scheiner’s true face. Is it not the Israeli regime that punishes critics of Israel  with the denial of an entry permit? Think of Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein or even Gilad Atzmon - all denied entry to Israel. Is there any other lobby except the Jewish one which creates such ‘shit lists’ against its critics?

Jonathan Scheiner admits that Gilad Atzmon is an exceptional saxophonist, one of the greatest jazz artists of our time and that it is no surprise that Atzmon’s current world tour, as he travels from Argentina to Germany with his Orient House Ensemble, is indeed very successful, ..

But after the praise for the genius musician comes the usual poison -  a totally misleading comparison between Atzmon and Richard Wagner - an attempt to equate Wagner’s loathing of Jews with Atzmon’s loathing of Zionism and Jewish politics. .

So, let us ask ourselves why Gilad Atzmon lives in exile in London and why he criticizes Israel. Did he not experience events during the first Lebanon War that opened his eyes and made him a harsh critic of Israel? So would it not have been terrible if, after all he had witnessed, Gilad did not act as he does? Do not all us critics of Zionism and Israel reflect on our experience and draw a lesson from it? Scheiner writes, “His anti-zionism rather often turns to ordinary hatred of Jews.” Here, Scheiner clearly positions himself at the forefront of Hasbara as, in the usual way, he conflates and confuses terms like ‘anti-Zionism’, ‘antisemitism’ and now even the new notion of “hatred of Jews“. And this false portrayal is made deliberately in an effort to silence Israel’s critics. Once again, the JA is proved to be Israel’s “Stürmer”.

I totally agree with Gilad Atzmon when he asks: Why should any Jewish person feel shame for other Jews, actions or thoughts he or she has nothing to do with? Jewish collective fear is far better understood as Jewish projection. And I have a suggestion for Jonathan Scheiner, who was born in France. Why does he not write an article about the French Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, known not only for his attacks on critics of Israel but also for his actions against gay marriage (2). and who resigned this week after being exposed as a plagiarist?

I also want to use this opportunity to oppose the hypothesis that discussion on Judaism is irrelevant to Palestinian resistance. The occupation, colonialism and violation of human rights in Palestine are intrinsically inherent to Jewish politics. The state of Israel is based on Jewish laws and Jewish symbolism. Israel paints Stars of David on the tanks that are used in its operations against Palestinians. Jewishness is at the heart of the Jewish State. And, if this is not enough, the Palestinians are asked to recognize the Jewish state, something many of them just cannot accept.

Can it really be dismissed that Israel’s policies are based on Jewishness? No, it cannot. The Jewish state attempts to speak on behalf of all Jews worldwide and with this in mind, we are constantly warned about growing antisemitism. Israeli Presidents then call on Jews from the Diaspora to return home to the Jewish state. From a Zionist perspective this should be realised as a call for all Jews to return to their Erez Israel, as promised by God himself.

I consider this to be a very dangerous path which could lead to the social exclusion of Jews. On the one hand, more and more Jewish centres and synagogues are being built, on the other hand the Jews of the world are asked by the Israelis to immigrate to the Holy Land. Thus, antisemitism and criticism of Israel are considered inseparable and are lumped together. All Jewish citizens of the whole world should resist these unspeakable tribal ideas which can only cause a sense of false solidarity. But it is shocking how many Jewish people are taken in by this kind of propaganda and blindly identify with Israel. Over and over again, fear of the hostile Gentiles around is generated creating an environment threatening to Jewish people and to Israelis.

Why do we not disseminate the fact that, despite intensive work by the Israeli Lobby, about 60 per-cent of the German population consider the Israeli regime a threat to world peace? Nor did this change after Chancellor Merkel’s recent speech in the Knesset, proclaiming the German commitment to Israel’s security.

I ask myself, how is it possible that this Jewish state, an ethnocratic country treating citizens of varied religions and ethnicities differently, continues setting up settlements, robbing land, arresting at will and killing inhabitants, disregards human rights and International Law, is respected and treated as a friend? The Zionist regime has to be restrained. One cannot allow Israel to continue with its criminal policy - not for strategic reasons, nor because Israel is massively supported by the USA. We simply must now react and boycott this state.

Gilad Atzmon says just that, so why attack him in such a way?

Who now does not understand that the struggle against Zionist Israeli injustice has many facets? Of course, one sees ideological differences in the many activists who struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people but always with the common aim to end the occupation. Only together we are strong. For this reason, I hope that the second Solidarity Conference in Stuttgart serves as a platform for various and different opinions, and that this includes those of Gilad Atzmon.

But finally Gilad can speak for himself as in this comment ranslated by Elisabeth Lauck from the Freiburger Friedensforum (Freiburg Peace Forum):

"Why should any Jew anywhere in the world be concerned in any way with these facts? Why should any Jewish person be concerned with actions or ideas that he or she probably has nothing to do with? Why should my Jewish neighbour, also subject to the financial turmoil and with no connection whatsoever with Madoff, Wolfowitz,  David Aaronovitch or Lord ‘cash point’ Levy, be at all concerned with current financial or imperial blunders for which he has no responsibility? Why should my Jewish musician friends who have no ties to Israel, AIPAC, CFI, CST, Nick Cohen or Alan Greenspan feel guilty for crimes or actions taken by others just because they also happen to be Jewish? Would a Frenchman or an Irishman in America feel threatened or potentially discriminated against because of revelations that a few of their expatriates had been involved in a major colossal scandal?

So, the question I raise here is a simple one: why should any Jew feel guilty for crimes that are committed by other people – people he or she does not know and is not affiliated with? And the answer is equally simple – Jewish individuals have no reason to assume responsibility for actions committed by other Jews. But the truth of the matter is, that many Jews are extremely concerned about the current blunders: some feel guilty, and many – potentially at least – feel threatened. I would say that such a reaction merits our attention….

(1) http://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/article/view/id/15687


I have read the “The Wandering Who”, well written and with our background, very easy to understand.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2013, 01:34:35 PM »
Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics



Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open many of these issues up for discussion. Since Israel defines itself openly as the ‘Jewish State’, we should ask what the notions of ’Judaism’, ‘Jewishness’, ‘Jewish culture’ and ‘Jewish ideology’ stand for. Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the ‘holocaust religion’; the meaning of ‘history’ and ‘time’ within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left.

He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.

Endorsements:

“Gilad Atzmon decided to open Pandora’s Box, and ignite a debate that has been frustratingly dormant for too long. His experiences are most authentic, views are hard-hitting, and, at times, provocative. It must be read and discussed.”  Ramzy Baroud,  Palestine Chronicle

"A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely." Professor Richard Falk

"Fascinating and provocative" Professor John J. Mearsheimer

“Gilad’s book constitutes an excellent critique of Identity Politics in general and Jewish Identity Politics in particular from a humanistic perspective. These hysterical attacks upon Gilad only reveal the weaknesses, insecurities, double-standards and hidden agendas of those who attack him. Gilad’s humanism and plea for humanism shine through every page of this book—obviously influenced by his Jazz. A Love Supreme!” Professor Francis A. Boyle

"Atzmon addresses in The Wandering Who?  important issues that deserve careful consideration by everyone—Jews, Palestinians and others—who are concerned with the interrelated topics of Zionism, the Jewish state, Palestinian oppression and Jews." Professor Norton Mezvinsky ( Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2012)

"Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement is explosive." Professor William A. Cook


"A superb and necessary book that demystifies some "undeniable truths" about Jewish identity -
Gauden Sarasola, El Pais
          

"I see in Atzmon writings a number of memes that are seeping into the common discourse.  A meme is a persuasive idea that spreads in a population like a useful gene spreads in a population. Some of those memes include:
-The now well-established fact that Jews are not a racial group but an ideological religious belief that spread many centuries ago among people of diverse background (this meme came from studies of the Khazars and others by authors like Arthur Koestler, Kevin Alan Brooks, Shlomo Sand, and now Atzmon)
-The idea of a conflict between chauvinistic nationalism and universal humanism.
-The weird mix of religious heritage/belief with tribal notions in Jewish political discourse
-The distorted recruitment of archaeological and other studies to support the political ideology of a connection between Jews of today and Israelites of the bible
-The recruitment of the ideology of suffering as a quasi-religious belief that is no longer subject to normal historical examinations (and in fact shielded from such historical examination via laws)." Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh

"Atzmon’s essential contribution to solidarity with Palestine is to help non-Jews realize that they are not always in the wrong when conflicts with Jewish organizations arise." Jean Bricmont
Gilad's "The Wandering Who" entertains, pushes and irritates us. His painful journey through what it means to be Jewish, what the consequences are of carrying that realization around, and his ultimate acceptance of who he is makes me awfully glad I was raised a Methodist. Not to be missed and not to be put down for later, his book is one of the best reads of 2012."

Greta Berlin - Co-Founder, the Free Gaza movement

"Gilad Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who? is as witty and thought provoking as its title.  But it is also an important book, presenting conclusions about Jews, Jewishness and Judaism which some will find shocking but which are essential to an understanding of Jewish identity politics and the role they play on the world stage." Karl Sabbagh

"A pioneering work that deserves to be read and Gilad Atzmon is brave to write this book!" Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo

“Gilad's escape from spiritual claustrophobia towards a free and open humanitarianism is fearless” Robert Wyatt

"It is excellent from beginning to end.  very well-organized and well-articulated arguments." David Rovics

“In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” Eric Walberg, Al Aharam Weekly

"It shows a sincerity and courage that is lacking in many Jewish intellectuals." Jonathan Moadab

“It is more than an academic exercise. It is a revelation!” Lauren Booth, Press TV

“The Wandering Who is a philosophical masterpiece that liberates us from the zionist superstitions that enslave us. It should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand the human condition in our irrational times.” Greg Felton

"It is an exhilarating read, from the atemporality of immoral action to the temporality of morals, from Jewish suffering to supremacy and expansionism to the categorical imperative, and from guilt feelings to responsibility." Dr Anthony Löwstedt

"A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable." Jeff Blankfort

 "Atzmon has the courage - so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals" Professor James Petras

“Having known Gilad for 25 years, I read the book in English, I heard it in Hebrew and reflected on it in Arabic. Gilad Atzmon is astonishingly courageous” Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool

"In many ways, Atzmon’s book is a cri de couer addressed to Jews, specifically, but to humanity, generally, to grow up! To reach beyond tribalism and the politics of fear and vengeance." Gary Corseri

"Like a surgeon's knife cutting through crap to the kernel of truth! Courageous and exhilarating!"  Inge Etzbach

"Gilad Atzmon reflects on his transforming journey from an IDF “Israeli”, a racist tribalist, self-ghettoized Zionist, with exclusionist mentality, who was greatly influenced as a child by his “veteran Zionist terrorist” grandfather, into simply a Universalist and Humanist." Nahida Izzat, Uprooted Palestinians

“A fascinating achievement” Dr Oren Ben Dor

“Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice

“Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time, calling all of us out of the Egypt of our boneheaded nationalisms and racialisms and exceptionalisms and chosen-people-isms toward some form of humanistic universalism.”  Dr. Kevin Barrett

 "Perhaps only a musician could have written this sensitive, perceptive lament over how so many Jews, believing themselves to be doing 'what is good for the Jews,' have managed to carve the heart out of the Palestinian nation and make this tragedy look like the natural order of things." Kathleen  Christison

“Gilad's The Wandering Who? would have been a welcome delight to Albert Einstein just as it will be the irritating nemesis for Abe Foxman ideologues.” Dr. Paul Balles

“A book that will shake up a few people….” Gordon Duff

“Engaging, provocative and persuasive.’ Jeff Gates

“When you finish reading this book, you may likely as well see a different face in the mirror.” Professor Garrison Fewell

 “The Wandering Who deconstructs the unique political identity that shapes the reality of the Jewish Nation and the crimes committed in its name. As a non-Jew, I found it illuminating!” Sameh Habeeb, Palestine Telegraph
 

"Gilad Atzmon probes the dilemmas Zionism has created for its adherents" Neil Berry, Arab News

"It is a very moving account that should be read by everyone." Silvia Cattori

“The Last Jewish Prophet”  Professor William T. Hathaway

"Atzmon is an iconoclast.” Dr.  Paul Larudee

"A brilliant, courageous study as well as critical reflection on Jewish ethnocentrism" Rainlore's World of Music

“Like all truth tellers of any merit Atzmon can expect the wrath of the powers that be and their minions as a reward for what he is exposing.   People like Atzmon will have played a vital role in saving us from ourselves if indeed we do manage to survive.  Love and respect to my brother Gilad Atzmon.” Ken O’Keefe

“The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journeys in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment.” Shahram Vahdany, MWC News

 “Atzmon's writing respects no sacred cows. His wit is biting, his insight and logic compelling.” Richard A. Siegel

“Sometimes a brash, abrasive provocateur is what is required as a catalyst for genuine debate.” Sunny Singh

"This is a very perceptive and instructive book"  Roy Ratcliffe

"I commend this book to anyone interested in Palestine/Israel, the Middle East in general, or Jewish identity issues." Sheldon Richman

"The most accurate assessment to date on Jewish identity and political drive" Today's Jewsih Heroes

Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who?

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2013, 11:13:38 AM »
In Bed With Bibi

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 9:20AM ~ Gilad Atzmon

Once again we see a familiar pattern: our united 'progressives' -- a veritable synagogue, a collective of great humanists -- lend their support to the oppressed.  This time it is the ‘Syrian people’ whom they wish to liberate and their enemy is obviously Bashar Al-Asad.

It is a pattern we know only too well by now. Ahead of the ‘War Against Terror’ we witnessed years of intensive progressive Feminist and Gay’s rights groups campaigns for women’s rights in Afghanistan.  The Progressive type also disapproves of the current state of the Iranian revolution. Too often he or she would insist that we must liberate the Iranians.  This week, once again, we see a united front made by Tariq Ali, Ilan Pappe, Fredric Jameson, Norman Finkelstein and other very good people. They clearly want us to ‘liberate the Syrians’.

They campaign openly to topple Bashar al-Asad’s regime.  They call the ‘people of the world’ to pressure the Syrian regime to end its oppression of and war on the ‘Syrian people.’ “We demand,” they say, that Bashar al-Asad leave immediately without excuses so that Syria can begin a speedy recovery towards a democratic future.”

So here we are. Ali, Jameson, Pappe, Finkelstein & Co, in light of recent Israeli attacks on Syria, will you be kind enough, gentlemen, to tell us whom you support? Is it Asad or Netanyahu you side with?

One may wonder how it can happen that our progressives, in spite of their good will and humanist credentials, have managed once again to end up in bed with Bibi?

The answer is actually embarrassingly simple. The progressive philosophy is the latest and most advanced form of ideological choseness. Calling yourself a progressive obviously entails that someone else must be  a ‘reactionary’. It is a self-appointed elitist standpoint that is inherently intolerant and supremacist.

Progressiveness is a precept devoted to the Tikun Olam (fixing the universe) ideology.  It is premised  on the idea that those who uphold progressive ideas ‘know better.'  They know what is right and who is wrong. The Progressive knows how to differentiate between the Kosher and the Taref.  The progressive voices in this case  somehow turn a blind eye to the embarrassing fact that it is actually the Syrian army, largely Sunnis, that is fighting the so-called ‘Syrian rebels’ who are a motley gathering of foreign mercenaries.

Perhaps our progressive interventionists could do with reading Robert Fisk more often -- after all, Fisk may as well be the only reliable English-speaking reporter in the region. “The word ‘democracy’ and the name of Assad do not blend very well in much of Syria.” Fisk reports, but he continues,   “I rather think that the soldiers of what is officially called the Syrian Arab Army are fighting for Syria rather than Assad. But fighting they are and maybe, for now, they are winning an unwinnable war.”

Bearing that in mind, I would expect progressive intellectuals, amongst them respected historians and political scientists, to be slightly more sophisticated and ponder a bit more before providing Israel with a moral green light to launch a new global conflict.

I would tend to believe that it is about time our progressive humanists engaged in a preliminary ethical investigation. They should find out, once and for all, what is it that constitutes moral grounds for any form of intervention. I believe that before you preach 'Tikun Olam' and  claim to 'fix the world' in the name of  the usually cited ‘civil society’ and ‘international law,’  you may want to consider fixing yourselves first.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2013, 11:47:48 AM »
The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans (read it & spread it!)



Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 9:24AM Gilad Atzmon

This report was produced by 'If Americans Knew' and Pamela Olson in particular

http://ifamericansknew.org

Israel has a population of approximately 7.7 million, or a million fewer than the state of New Jersey. It is among the world's most affluent nations, with a per capita income similar to that of the European Union.[1] Israel's unemployment rate of 6.3% is much better than America's 8.2%,[2] and Israel's net trade, earnings, and payments is ranked 146th in the world while the US sits at a dismal 193rd.[3]

Yet, Israel receives more of America’s foreign aid budget than any other nation.[4] The US has, in fact, given more aid to Israel than it has to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined—which have a total population of over a billion people.[5]

And foreign aid is just one component of the staggering cost of our alliance with Israel.

Given the tremendous costs, it is critical to examine why we lavish so much aid on Israel, and whether it is worth Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. But first, let's take a look at what our alliance with Israel truly costs.
Before the Iraq War in 2003

Direct Foreign Aid

According to the Congressional Research Service , the amount of official US aid to Israel since its founding in 1948 tops $115 billion, and in the past few decades it has been on the order of $3 billion per year.[6] (In 2013, for example, this amounted to over $8.5 million every single day.)

But this money is only part of the story. For one thing, Israel gets all of its aid money at the start of each year, rather than in quarterly installments like other countries.[7] This is significant: It means that Israel can start earning interest on the money right away – interest paid by the US since Israel invests these funds in US Treasury notes. In addition, because the US government operates at a deficit, it must borrow money in order to give it to Israel and then pay interest on it all year. Together these cost US taxpayers more than $100 million every year.

Israel is also the only recipient of US military aid that is allowed to use a significant portion annually to purchase products made by Israeli companies instead of US companies. (The costs to Americans caused by this unique perk are discussed below.)

In addition, the US gives roughly $1.6 billion per year to Egypt and Jordan in aid packages arranged largely in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. The treaties don’t include justice for Palestinians, and are therefore deeply unpopular with the local populations.[8]

On top of this, the US gives more than $400 million to the Palestinian Authority each year,[9] much of it used to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by Israel and to bolster an economy stifled by the Israeli occupation.[10] This would be unnecessary if Israel were to end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to build a functioning and self-sustaining economy.

Yet, there’s still much more to the story, because parts of US aid to Israel are buried in the budgets of various US agencies, mostly the Department of Defense. For example, since at least 2006, the American Defense budget has included between $130 and $235 million per year for missile defense programs in Israel.[11]

In all, direct US disbursements to Israel are higher than to any other country, even though Israelis only make up 0.1% of the world’s population. On average, Israelis receive 7,000 times more US foreign aid per capita than other people throughout the world, despite the fact that Israel is one of the world’s more affluent nations.[12] And that number rises significantly when one considers disbursements to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority and Defense spending on behalf of Israel.

Additional Ad hoc support for Israel

Dr. Thomas Stauffer, a Harvard economist and Middle East studies professor who twice served in the Executive Office of the President, wrote a comprehensive report about all components of the relationship with Israel’s cost to American taxpayers for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2003. He wrote:

    "Another element is ad hoc support for Israel, which is not part of the formal foreign aid programs. No comprehensive compilation of US support for Israel has been publicly released. Additional known items include loan guarantees... special contracts for Israeli firms, legal and illegal[13] transfers of marketable US military technology, de facto exemption from US trade protection provisions, and discounted sales or free transfers of 'surplus' US military equipment. An unquantifiable element is the trade and other aid given to Romania and Russia to facilitate Jewish migration to Israel; this has accumulated to many billions of dollars."[14]

Israel has often used its privileged access to US military technology against both the US government and US corporate interests. According to the Associated Press in 2002,

    "In France, Turkey, The Netherlands and Finland, Israeli companies have edged such U.S. firms as Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics out of arms deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years. The irony, experts say, is that tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars and transfers of American military technology helped create and nurture Israel's industry, in effect subsidizing a foreign competitor."

The AP article quoted a vice president at the Aerospace Industries Association of America, who bluntly said, "We give them money to build stuff for themselves and the U.S. taxpayer gets nothing in return."[15]

Meanwhile, according to the Christian Science Monitor , Israel has also "blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years."[16]

Even worse, Israeli weapons "buttress the arsenals of nations such as China that the United States considers strategic competitors, alarming US military planners," the Associated Press article went on to report. "[In 2001] US surveillance planes flying along China's coast were threatened by Chinese fighter jets armed with Israeli missiles... Had Chinese fighter pilots been given the order to fire, they could have brought down the US planes with Israeli Python III missiles... US defense chiefs say Israel sold China the missiles without informing the United States."[17]

Lost jobs, trade, and standing

One of the most devastating indirect costs of the US alliance with Israel was the Arab oil boycott of 1973. The Arab states imposed the boycott in protest of US support of Israel during the 1973 war, in which Arab countries attacked Israel to try to reclaim lands Israel had invaded and occupied in 1967.

"Washington's intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which cost the U.S. doubly: first, due to the oil shortfall, the US lost about $300 billion to $600 billion in GDP; and, second, the US was saddled with another $450 billion in higher oil import costs," wrote Stauffer in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.[18]

Then there's the cost in lost jobs. "US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs," Stauffer estimates. "Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs."[19]

But perhaps the most damaging cost to the US has been its loss of standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where US largesse towards Israel as it commits human rights violations[20] provokes deep resentment. "To many of the world's Muslims, it places the US taxpayer on the Israeli side of its conflicts with Arabs," observed the Associated Press article.[21]

According to Harvard professor Stephen Walt, "The 9/11 Commission reported that 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 'animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel.' Other anti-American terrorists—such as Ramzi Yousef, who led the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center—have offered similar explanations for their anger toward the United States."[22]

There are many more potential categories of costs that are even more difficult to quantify. All in all, Stauffer estimates that Israel cost the US about $1.6 trillion between 1973 and 2003 alone—more than twice the cost of the Vietnam war.[23]

Costs since Stauffer's study in 2003

Israel's cost to American taxpayers has remained high since Stauffer's 2003 study. The US currently gives Israel an average of $3 billion a year in military aid, under an agreement signed by the Bush administration to transfer $30 billion to Israel over ten years, starting in 2009.[24]

All of the other extras and costs remain and in some cases have increased since 2003. For example, "Despite a tough economic climate and expected US budget cuts—including drastic cuts to the US military budget—US lawmakers will provide $236 million in fiscal 2012 for the Israeli development of three missile defense programs," reported Israeli newspaper Haaretz.[25]

In addition, the US government "has provided $205 million to support the Iron Dome, manufactured by Israel's state-owned Raphael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The system uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up in midair Katyusha-style rockets with ranges of 3 miles to 45 miles, as well as mortar bombs… Legislation moving through the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives would give Israel additional $680 million for the Iron Dome system through 2015."[26]

And if, as many experts believe, the US would not have invaded Iraq without intense and sustained pressure from Washington insiders who advocate actively on behalf of Israel,[27] this adds yet another dimension of staggering cost to the equation: "hundreds of billions of dollars, 4,000-plus U.S. and allied fatalities, untold tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and many thousands of other US, allied, and Iraqi casualties," according to retired US foreign service officer Shirl McArthur.[28]

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes put the cost of the Iraq War at over $3 trillion, and incalculably more if you take into account the opportunity costs of the resources spent on this unproductive war. For example, higher oil prices due to the war have had a devastating impact on America's economy, and so have the surging federal debt and the servicing of that debt. Without the war, the 2008 financial crisis almost certainly would not have been as severe, and the Afghanistan war most likely would have been shorter, cheaper, and more effective.[29]

The Israel lobby and partisans are currently gunning for a war with Iran with the same zeal they showed in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[30] By all estimates, the costs of a war with Iran will be much higher than the Iraq war. In addition to the loss of life, analysts predict, for example, that if Iran's oil production were taken out of the world market, gas prices would rise 25-70 percent.

If the Straits of Hormuz (straits adjacent to Iran through which 20% of the world's oil production passes on a daily basis) were attacked or blockaded, the cost of oil would skyrocket to a level never seen before, and the economic recession or depression that followed would be nothing short of "apocalyptic," according to Matthew Yglesias writing for Slate .[31]

Reasons and Consequences

So now we are back to the question of why America continues to pour money into a state that commits daily human rights violations, defies US strategic interests,[32] provokes rage and resentment among billions of people,[33] competes with and crowds out US interests using technology subsidized by US taxpayers, and sells America's military secrets to its enemies.[34]

The answer is simple and summed up well by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their ground-breaking article in the London Review of Books , "The Israel Lobby,"[35] and their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy .[36]

    "Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" the article asks. "One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

    "Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.' Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country—in this case, Israel—are essentially identical."[37]

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is consistently ranked in the top two most powerful lobbies in Washington.[38] And it is only one arm of the much larger, multi-faceted, and well-financed Israel lobby.[39]

According to Congressman Jim Moran, "AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it's a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every [Congress] member knows it's the best-organized national lobbying force."[40]

Senator Joseph Lieberman proudly stated, "Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel to the negotiating table by denying Israel support, will not pass in Congress… Congress will act against any attempt to do that."[41]

It's true: The US Congress, along with the executive branch, overwhelmingly support virtually any action or wish of the Israeli government, no matter how at odds with US national interest or security,[42] primarily because of the power of the Israel lobby.[43]

Even when two AIPAC employees were indicted on espionage charges in 2005, and it was determined that they had obtained classified US government information illegally and passed it to Israeli agents, the charges were quietly dropped on technicalities.[44] AIPAC fired both employees and issued a statement that they were fired because their actions did not comport with AIPAC standards.[45] One of the fired employees, Steven Rosen, filed a lawsuit for defamation, claiming his actions were, in fact, common practice at AIPAC.[46]

When Israel attempted to sink a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty , in 1967, killing 34 Americans and injuring over 170, it still failed to put a dent in aid to Israel.[47] Indeed, aid quadrupled the following year.[48]

Though Congressmen receive payments and support from the lobby in exchange for their loyalty, the American taxpayer is left footing the bill. As detailed above, the total cost has run from a bare minimum of $115 billion since 1948 (the cost of foreign aid alone) to $1.6 trillion or more, factoring in Defense appropriations, oil crises, the sinking of the USS Liberty , the heightened risk of terrorism, lost trade and co-opted technology, and countless other factors. If the Iraq war and the increased risk of a war with Iran are factored in, the cost skyrockets even higher.

Critics point out how much brighter our future would be if we had invested these billions or trillions in veteran rehabilitation and care, education, job creation, social security, housing, environmental clean-up and prevention, roads, bridges, health care, and scientific and health research. Or if Americans had simply held onto their tax dollars and used them as they saw fit, in our own economy. If some of the higher estimates are closer to the mark, our support for Israel could easily have covered the $700 billion TARP bailout with a great deal left over for massive stimulus spending and/or tax breaks.

If Israel were using these funds for a good purpose, one could debate whether the price was worth it. But Israel uses most of the money to prolong a 45-year military occupation (which regularly involves gross violations of international law),[49] commit egregious human rights violations,[50] and destroy billions of dollars worth of Palestinian homes and infrastructure[51] (resulting in still more U.S. tax money being sent to Palestinians to rebuild demolished homes, hospitals, and schools), while building illegal, Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land.[52]

It makes the prospect of peace ever more distant, creates dangerous hostility to the US, placing Americans in peril, and puts the US Congress in violation of the Arms Export Control Act,[53] all for the sake of campaign contributions.

There is no good reason to keep throwing good money after bad in a failed, ill-founded policy. It's long past time for a fundamental rethinking of the American government's blank check to Israel.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon ~ LAND OF PALESTINE
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2013, 11:21:23 AM »
My response to Salvador López Arnal and Santiago Alba Rico



Date of publication at Tlaxcala: 10/05/2013

My piece “In Bed With Bibi” was published in English a few days ago. It was circulated and posted by a vast majority of Western dissent, online magazines. It has been praised by many and, as far as I am aware of, no one took the trouble to criticise or deconstruct the article.
Interestingly enough, two days ago, the Spanish translation of “In Bed With Bibi” was published online by Tlaxcala and reproduced by the Rebelión website. Within a few hours, all hell broke loose: Salvador López Arnal and Santiago Alba Rico were remarkably quick to criticize the piece. On the face of it, the meaning of it to me seems simple and positive. The Spanish-speaking left is still engaged in an intellectual and ideological debate.
 
I have now read both López Arnal and Alba Rico’s papers, and my response will be short and to the point. I am afraid that both Salvador and Santiago failed categorically in understanding my article.
 
To start with, in my piece, I refrain from taking either side of the debate. I am neither pro-Assad nor pro the ‘rebels’. I am not taking either side for two reasons.
 
First, I question the notion of ‘moral intervention’ and I ask, what would create an ethical ground for any form of intervention whatsoever? When is it right and when is it wrong to intervene? What is it that makes it right for ‘person A’, who lives in ‘place B’, to interfere with the reality of ‘person C’, who lives in ‘place D’? And if intervention can be justified ethically how do we distinguish between a Neocon’s call and a ‘righteous progressive’ one?
 
Second, I feel that the war we are witnessing in Syria is extraordinarily complicated. We should all remember that, in it’s early phase, it was led by non-violent Syrian protesters who were faced with the regime’s brutality. However, I believe that the situation on the ground has changed radically, and it is not the Syrian people or their interests that shape this conflict anymore. I think we are witnessing an odd alliance between Qatar, foreign mercenaries, the USA and Israel.
 
The question I am raising in my piece is simple:

  How is it possible that some of our leading political scientists are blind to the devastating probability that their calls for intervention provide Israel with a green light to attack an Arab country?
 
I also feel that both López Arnal and Alba Rico have failed to answer this question. Instead they criticise my language and the manner in which I choose to deal with the term ‘allies’. In this respect, they are right, and I don’t choose my words to appease any readers. Quite the opposite, I much prefer to intrigue people to think critically, ethically and out of the box.
 
Also, I am interested in creating a vibrant discussion that may at last bring real change.
 
But, still it goes on further, because I am actually in a transition period, and don’t think any more in terms of ‘allies’ or ‘leagues’. I’m not an activist or a politician. I am a philosopher and an artist. My allies are truth and integrity. I don’t claim to know the truth, but I am allergic to ‘spinning the truth’ and ‘righteous spinning’ in particular.
 
I am guessing that López Arnal, and Alba Rico are offended by my recent writings and perhaps their instincts are correct. I am indeed drifting away, because I believe that the contemporary Western left – and its progressive discourse – is a complete disaster. It has failed on every possible front. It did not liberate the people of Palestine, and it engaged solely with diverting attention from the real issues. It has planted incorrect and misleading terminology in our midst, and it has subverted a metaphysical quest into issues of choseness, tribalism and Jewish power in particular.

If I am correct, my approach will certainly bring a change.

Read “In Bed With Bibi” by Gilad Atzmon

Read “Fallacies in an (improper) ‘critique’ by Gilad Atzmon”, by Salvador López Arnal

Read “Gilad Atzmon, Syria and the ‘chosen people’” by Santiago Alba Rico
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2013, 12:12:16 PM »
Alnakba English P1



Alnakba English P2


    Top Comments

    J888HNT 1 year ago

    The Western backed dictators and Royals in the Arab world you mean. The West fear democracy in the middle east because if the people could choose their leaders the Zionist State of Israel would cease to exist and there would be PEACE through out the Middle East. Israel is a war and terror machine!!
   
    Mehmet Ersen 6 months ago

    Of course the Palestinians rejected the colonization of the land they loved and lived on by European Zionists. Palestinian Muslims,Christians and even a small population of native Jews got along just fine before the Europeans came to colonize in the late 1800's. Who are the UN or Balfour to determine the fate of a people thousands of miles away? They have no right morally at least, but they seem to have engineered themselves a legal right. Still doesn't make it right.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2013, 02:51:37 PM »
Contributions by / Beiträge von

Elias Akleh, Gilad Atzmon, Paul Balles, Ramzy Baroud, Hubert Bergmann, Arthur F. Billy, Lauren Booth, Lynda Burstein Brayer, William A. Cook, Finian Cunningham, Richard Falk, Annette Groth, Joachim Guillard, Alan Hart, Patrick Higgins, Ghada Karmi, Franklin Lamb, Paul Larudee, Anthony Lawson, Christof Lehmann, Norton Mezvinski, Ken O´Keefe, James Petras, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Nahida the Exiled Palestinian, Clemens Ronnefeld, Ismail Salami, Einar Schlereth, Hans-C. von Sponeck, Roy Tov, Eric Walberg, Barb Weir, Kourosh Ziabari
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2013, 05:16:27 PM »
Take It From the Rabbi’s Mouth



Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 12:33AM Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

Every so often we come across a secular Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist’  who argues that Zionism is not Judaism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, I have just come across an invaluable text that illuminates this question from a rabbinical perspective. Apparently back in 1942, 757 American Rabbis added their names to a public pronouncement titled ‘Zionism an Affirmation of Judaism’. This Rabbinical rally for Zionism was declared at the time “the largest public pronouncement in all Jewish history.”

Today, we tend to believe that world Jewry’s transition towards support for Israel followed the 1967 war though some might  argue that already in 1948, American Jews manifested a growing support for Zionism. However, this rabbinical pronouncement proves that as early as 1942, the American Jewish religious establishment was already deeply Zionist. And if this is not enough, the rabbis also regarded Zionism as the ‘implementation’ of Judaism. Seemingly, already then, the peak of World War two, the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regarded Zionism, not only as fully consistent with Judaism, but as a “logical expression and implementation of it.”

In spite of the fact that early Zionist leaders were largely secular and the East European Jewish settler waves were driven by Jewish socialist ideology, the rabbis contend that “Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism.

Those rabbis were not a bunch of ignoramuses. They were patriotic and nationalistic and they grasped that “universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism.” The rabbis tried to differentiate between contemporaneous German Nationalism and other national movements and they definitely wanted to believe that Zionism was categorically different to Nazism. “Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil.” But as we know, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the new Jewish State launched a devastating racially driven ethnic-cleansing campaign. Zionism has proven to be militaristic and chauvinistic.

Shockingly enough, back in 1942 as many as 757 American rabbis were able to predict the outcome of the war and they realised that the suffering of European Jewry would be translated into a Jewish State . “We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society (a Jewish State).”

Some American patriots today are concerned with Israeli-American dual nationality and the dual aspirations of American Jews. Apparently our rabbis addressed this topic too. According to them, there is no such conflict whatsoever. All American Jews are American patriots and all American decision makers are Zionists. “Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance--and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.”

Back in 1942 our American rabbis were bold enough to state that defeating Hitler was far from sufficient. For them, a full solution of the Jewish question could only take place in Palestine. “Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe. “

But there was one thing the American rabbis failed to mention – the Palestinian people. For some reason, those rabbis who knew much about ‘universalism’ and in particular Jewish ‘universalism’ showed very little concern to the people of the land. I guess that after all, chosennss is a form of blindness and rabbis probably know more about this than anyone else.

Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism

http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/03/zionism-affirmation-of-judaism.html

ZIONISM
AN AFFIRMATION
OF JUDAISM

A Reply by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and Reform
Rabbis of America to a Statement Issued by Ninety
Members of the Reform Rabbinate Charging That
 Zionism Is Incompatible with the Teachings of Judaism.

THE SUBJOINED REPLY was prepared at the initiative of the following Rabbis who submitted it to their colleagues throughout the country for signature: Philip S. Bernstein, Barnett R. Brickner, Israel Goldstein, James G. Heller, Mordecai M. Kaplan, B. L. Levinthal, Israel H. Levinthal, Louis M. Levitsky, Joshua Loth Liebman, Joseph H. Lookstein, Jacob R. Marcus, Abraham A. Neuman, Louis I. Newman, David de Sola Pool, Abba Hillel Silver, Milton Steinberg, and Stephen S. Wise.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RABBIS of all elements in American Jewish religious life, have noted with concern a statement by ninety of our colleagues in which they repudiate Zionism on the ground that it is inconsistent with Jewish religious and moral doctrine. This statement misrepresents Zionism and misinterprets historic Jewish religious teaching, and we should be derelict in our duty if we did not correct the misapprehensions which it is likely to foster.

We call attention in the first place to the fact that the signatories to this statement, for whom as fellow-Rabbis we have a high regard, represent no more than a very small fraction of the American rabbinate. They constitute a minority even of the rabbinate of Reform Judaism with which they are associated. The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.

Our colleagues concede the need for Jewish immigration into Palestine as contributing towards a solution of the vast tragedy of Jewish homelessness. They profess themselves ready to encourage such settlement. They are aware of the important achievements, social and spiritual, of the Palestinian Jewish community and they pledge to it their unstinting support. And yet, subscribing to every practical accomplishment of Zionism, they have embarked upon a public criticism of it. In explanation of their opposition they advance the consideration that Zionism is nationalistic and secularistic. On both scores they maintain it is incompatible with the Jewish religion and its universalistic outlook. They protest against the political emphasis which, they say, is now paramount in the Zionist program and which, according to them, tends to confuse both Jews and Christians as to the place and function of the Jewish group in American society. They appeal to the prophets of ancient Israel for substantiation of their views.

TREASURING the doctrines and moral principles of our faith no less than they, devoted equally to America and its democratic processes and spirit, we nonetheless find every one of their contentions totally without foundation.

Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism. Scripture and rabbinical literature alike are replete with the promise of the restoration of Israel to its ancestral home. Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion. Nothing in the entire pronouncement of our colleagues is more painful than their appeal to the prophets of Israel—to those very prophets whose inspired and recorded words of national rebirth and restoration nurtured and sustained the hope of Israel throughout the ages.

Nor is Zionism a denial of the universalistic teachings of Judaism. Universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism. Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil. The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time not when all national entities would be obliterated, but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord, live by His law and learn war no more.

Our colleagues find themselves unable to subscribe to the political emphasis "now paramount in the Zionist program." We fail to perceive what it is to which they object. Is it to the fact that there are a regularly constituted Zionist organization and a Jewish Agency which deal with the mandatory government, the Colonial office, the League of Nations and other recognized political bodies? But obviously, even immigration and colonization are practical matters which require political action. The settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate.

There can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action. Or is it that they object to the ultimate achievement by the Jewish community of Palestine of some form of Jewish statehood? We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society.

Certainly our colleagues will allow to the Jews of Palestine the same rights that are allowed to all other peoples resident on their own land. If Jews should ultimately come to constitute a majority of the population of Palestine, would our colleagues suggest that all other peoples in the post-war world shall be entitled to political self-determination, whatever form that may take, but the Jewish people in Palestine shall not have such a right? Or do they mean to suggest that the Jews in Palestine shall forever remain a minority in order not to achieve such political self-determination?

PROTESTING their sympathy both for the homeless Jews of the world and for their brethren in Palestine, our colleagues have by their pronouncement done all these a grave disservice. It may well be that to the degree to which their efforts arc at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one. The enemies of the Jewish homeland will be strengthened in their propaganda as a result of the aid which these Rabbis have given them. To the Jews of Palestine, facing the gravest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace, this pronouncement comes as a cruel blow.

We do not mean to imply that our colleagues intended it as such. We have no doubt that they are earnest about their fine spun theoretical objections to Zionism. We hold, however, that these objections have no merit, and further that voicing them at this time has been unwise and unkind.

We have not the least fear that our fellow Americans will be led to misconstrue the attitudes of American Jews to America because of their interest in Zionism. Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance--and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe.

An Allied peace which will not frankly face the problem of the national homelessness of the Jewish people will leave the age-old tragic status of European Jewry unchanged. The Jewish people is in danger of emerging from this war not only more torn and broken than any other people, but also without any prospects of a better and more secure future and without the hope that such tragedies will not recur again, and again. Following an Allied victory, the Jews of Europe, we are confident, will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship. But they possessed these rights after the last war and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position. In any case, even after peace is restored Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jews will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.

Indeed, for most of these there may be no other substantial hope of economic, social and spiritual rehabilitation.

THE freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a plane of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as such, restored in its homeland, where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.
 
Of the 757 Rabbis listed below, 214 are members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform); 247 are members of the Rabbinical Assembly of America (Conservative); and the rest are affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) or the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. The total represents the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history.

To see the scanned image in PDF format with the list of signers, click on Gilad's link above.
 
Note: A version of the above statement was released to the press on November 20, 1942. By that time 818 rabbis had signed on. It appears in Samuel Halperin's The Political World of American Zionism. (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1961) 333.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2013, 11:13:15 AM »
Bill Maher shredded by Glenn Greenwald on US intervention in Muslim countries

Monday, May 27, 2013 at 3:47AM Gilad Atzmon ~ source




Bill Maher is taken apart by Glenn Greenwald for trying to absolve the US from any responsibility for the mass slaughter and destruction in Muslim countries, blaming it on Islamic fundamentalism, as if the Afghanistan and Iraq wars never happened, as if the US wasn't pushing for more war in Iran, as if it isn't intervening in Somalia and Yemen.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline dominique

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 4107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2013, 06:21:21 PM »
Bill Maher shredded by Glenn Greenwald on US intervention in Muslim countries
Jew vs. jew. Yawn.

I happen to agree with most of Glenn's positions (anti-war, etc) but at the end of the day, he's still a jew.

By the way, what's this got to do with Gilad Atzmon?
"Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of the corruption of American liberty by the organized lobby of a foreign power."  ~ WindRiverShoshoni

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2013, 06:37:55 PM »
Jew vs. jew. Yawn.

I happen to agree with most of Glenn's positions (anti-war, etc) but at the end of the day, he's still a jew.

By the way, what's this got to do with Gilad Atzmon?

If you can open your eyes long enough, you may click on the 'source' which will reveal the website this came from.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline dominique

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 4107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2013, 09:30:32 AM »
If you can open your eyes long enough, you may click on the 'source' which will reveal the website this came from.

It's still off-topic.

Again, what's up with all the insults? Menstruate much?
"Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of the corruption of American liberty by the organized lobby of a foreign power."  ~ WindRiverShoshoni

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2013, 10:39:35 AM »
It's still off-topic.

Again, what's up with all the insults? Menstruate much?

Any further disrespect and you are out of here.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2013, 10:48:26 AM »
Judaism Today!!!
Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 3:42PM Gilad Atzmon

Weird Al Yankovich: Pretty Fly for a Rabbi Lyrics

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2013, 11:34:25 PM »
Any further disrespect and you are out of here.

Before David Lynch became famous as the quirky/spooky filmmaker he did an alt-newspaper comic, The Angriest Dog in the World.  Intro & panels never changed, just the absurd dialogue.  A bit like Matt Groening's Life in Hell strip featured in the same papers, before he became The Simpsons gazillionaire.

Text in image might not be very clear, the constant opening blurb read thusly:
"The dog who is so angry he cannot move. He cannot eat. He cannot sleep. He can just barely growl. Bound so tightly with tension and anger, he approaches the state of rigor martis.


Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2013, 11:19:42 AM »
CrossTalk on BDS: Sanctioning Israel (ft. Gilad Atzmon)


What goals has the BDS movement achieved so far? Does it aim for a constructive solution to the conflict?
How should Israel react to it? Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky agree that the goal of the movement
is to destroy Israel - how valid is this judgment? Can the movement reinvent itself and win support from
those who criticize it today? CrossTalking with Gilad Atzmon, Eric Walberg and Omar Baddar. (older video)

Jewish Supremacist Rabbi David Bar-Hayim Talks About The "Nature of Islam"
Sunday, June 2, 2013 at 12:26AM Gilad Atzmon

You better listen to it and make up your mind.

This horrid ethnic cleansing Rabbi preaches to us about the 'West' and Western values.

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2013, 04:23:55 PM »
Ben-Ari: Israel Caused "Slaughter" in Africa for Money

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 4:36PM Gilad Atzmon


Right-wing Israeli politician Michael Ben-Ari accuses the Israeli government of causing the "slaughter" of African people, and of doing so because the state financially benefitted from it. He then accuses other world super-powers of the same crimes, of selling weapons that are used to destroy the lives of millions of innocent African people. Ben-Ari is one of the Israeli politicians that has led a campaign to vilify and expel the tens of thousands of African asylum-seekers who have migrated to the country in recent years, fleeing the armed conflict in their home countries that he here admits Israel is at least partially responsible for.

Source
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Rudi Jan

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 15099
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • aka LoneWolf
    • View Profile
    • FauxWorld
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2013, 05:03:16 PM »
This horrid ethnic cleansing Rabbi preaches to us about the 'West' and Western values.

For the real story just substitute 'judaism' whenever your hear him say 'islam'. It's a much better fit.
Suspend all belief. Get the facts ~ Rudi
No one rules if no one obeys ~ Lao Tzu

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2013, 06:46:57 PM »
For the real story just substitute 'judaism' whenever your hear him say 'islam'. It's a much better fit.

Indeed.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * Gilad Atzmon
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2013, 01:26:20 PM »
Ben Fellows on the run after reporting MP Ken Clarke
Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 2:42PM Gilad Atzmon



Journalist Ben Fellows has gone missing after writing several articles accusing Ken Clarke of touching him up when he was 15 years old. People persecuted for political reasons must be defended.

Monday, 3 June 2013 source Ben Fellows article about Police Corruption and VIP Pedophiles resulted in death threats.

Last Month Ben Fellows wrote  as article entitled "Ken Clarke MP Is Above The Law And Cannot Be Questioned Says Metropolitan Police Pedophile Unit". Following this Ben received a death threat. Ken Clarke MP Is Above The Law And Cannot Be Questioned Says Metropolitan Police Pedophile Unit. Is it acceptable for anyone to sexually assault, grope, fondle, touch up, abuse, rape and murder your children?

Well, according to the Specialist Crime Directorate Child Abuse Investigation Command or the Pedophile Unit, if you are a member of parliament then it is acceptable to do just that.

For the record it was officers from the Pedophile Unit who approached me for information on Kenneth Clarke not the other way around. I did not go to the Police, the Police came to me. I have the tapes to prove it if that is ever an issue.

Detectives from Operation Fairbridge, (can they hide behind anymore names?) educated me into how the law actually works. This is quite complicated so bear with me. Politicians and "others" are above the Law. Got it! So stop complaining about pedophile rings in Westminster and prepare to have you sons, bent over and buggered by any politician who chooses to fancy your child.

If you are Kenneth Clarke MP or any living serving politician then you cannot be arrested, questioned under caution or charged, etc., by the Police. This dramatic information by the Police explains why Kenneth Clarke's pedophile politician friends never get caught — as they are above the law. This was according to Senior Detective Ben Lambskin of the now, not fit for purpose, Pedophile Unit.

Sorry I was under the mistaken impression that the Metropolitan Police Pedophile Unit was created to hunt down and catch pedophiles and not protect them.

The Police, in the their "Dixon of Doc Green," mode have just given every single potential charged celebrity the ammunition to win their cases on technical grounds. I have proven that there are some members of our society who will be charged by the Police such as common people whilst the elites, Royals and politicians are, in fact, above the laws of England. Every barrister representing those already charged should petition the court to have their cases dropped due to Police incompetence. How can Max Clifford et al. get a fair trail when the jury know for a fact that politicians are not being arrested and charged or even questioned? Its hypocrisy of the highest order or I should say of the lowest order.

Who's side is the Metropolitan Police Force on? Obviously the Pedophiles! So, if we are going to be naming names like Kenneth Clarke's et al. it is only correct that the Police who have been in charge of this purposefully bungled investigation are also named.

Starring: Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle, Detective Constable Nathan Jones (who openly threatened me over the telephone to give the Police a statement regarding Kenneth Clarke), Detective Sergeant James Townly, Detective Constable Ben Lambskin, Andy and Julia-Anne who took an eight hour statement from me which was pretty detailed. These officers need to be suspended pending a detailed and thorough review of their actions and also the actions of "others" around them including the management up to senior officers and Tom Watson MP to find out exactly why they have decided not to question, under caution, Kenneth Clarke MP over serious allegations that I have made and committed to a Police statement.

On the 30th April 2013 Detective Constable Ben Lambskin, with his colleague who called himself Andy, turned up at my front door wishing to speak with me about my case. An up date if you will.

The up shot was that Ben Lambskin, who is the Police's sacrificial lamb in this case, informed me that they'd spoken to four people from The Cook Report and none of them had backed up my version of events. What a surprise? Media people who still work for the media and intelligence service have not agreed with me. I do believe that I said that in the first place. However, to be clear none of those people were in the room with Kenneth Clarke, Ian Greer or myself and the tape which recorded the incident has mysteriously gone missing.

DC Ben Lambskin, a Serpico wannabe but without the integrity, said after speaking with Sylvia Jones, Clive Entwhistle and two others — "After speaking to these people, that perhaps the conspiracy view isn't such a bad one." He then went on to talk about the video tape showing Kenneth Clarke sexually assaulting me by stating "the possible location for that tape is that it was taken by a lawyer who was dealing with The Cook Report and that is the most likely the last time it was seen" he went on " That particular Cook Report investigation appears to be quickly cut down and ended. By some of the people we've spoken to they are of the opinion that is was the company who was running it changed hands to people who were particularly involved with 'Cash for Questions.'" At least the Police have proven political corruption within the Conservative Government as the "Cash for Questions" scandal re-emerges. We must call for a full and transparent re opening of the "Cash for Questions" case to find out the truth.

The up shot of The Cook Report investigation into Ian Greer and John Major's corrupt government is that it was discovered that The Cook Report had indeed uncovered a major scandal leading all the way up to the Prime Minister John Major. The politicians involved along with Ian Greer et al. arranged, as far as I understand it, for Greer's client Carlton Television to buy Central Television to stop the program from airing. This program was and still is in the public's interest as all the political decisions which have happened subsequently have been linked directly to the Cash for Questions scandal.

I guess this is a case of murder will out. The scandal that ended the Major Government is set to do exactly the same thing to David Cameron's corrupt government because it wasn't properly investigated and dealt with at the time, it's now worse.

The fact that Kenneth Clarke MP was seen in Ian Greer's office at the very time of Cash for Questions is suspicious within itself. Why was a Cabinet Minister in the office of a political lobbyist? Isn't that breaking some kind of Parliamentary law? When I asked about the tape and the convenient fire at Iron Mountain storage facility Ben Lambskin and colleague just looked at me blankly — they didn't know. These people who call themselves Detectives have failed to detect what even the average journalist has been able to find out. Jack "I haven't got a pad" Malvern of The Times found out about the Iron Mountain fire. Why didn't the Police? What about the Dolphin Square flat? Back in November Sylvia Jones said to Jack "one cup of tea" Malvern that yes she saw the tape, she saw me and Kenneth Clarke but she didn't see the grope. Now after six months to get her story straight she suddenly didn't see anything when she was talking to the Police.

The Police also admitted that when it comes to investigating corporations they are indeed powerless there as well. Ben Lambskin proudly stated about any further enquiries about the tape — " That's corporate and there's not much we can do about that, is there?" So the Metropolitan Police on official police business state that so far Politicians and Royalty are above the law and also corporations. It seems that true and tangible feudalism has returned to England's green and pleasant land.

Ben Lambskin also said when referring to my statement — "I'm sorry but we're not going to go galavanting into the House of Commons. There's protocol which has to be observed." Allow me to merely suggest that they follow the correct protocol and ask to question Kenneth Clarke MP under caution. What's the problem? Lambskin continued "Clarke didn't get to where he is today without being very smart!!!" If I was Kenneth Clarke I wouldn't like that implication one bit and would probably sue the Police but I'm not Kenneth Clarke so I don't care.

We then went on to talk about the Police questioning Ian Greer, the other person in the room and the man who introduced me to Kenneth Clarke. Detective Ben Lambskin states " We're not entirely sure whether he's in the country or not". Of course I informed them that Greer was in South Africa. Unfortunately he's protected by protocols as well. But he's just an ex political lobbyist. Or is he? Is Greer more important than he first appears? I imagine Greer will soon turn up six feet under with a mystery heart attack whilst wearing stocking and suspenders, which is the usual British modus operandi. Although putting people into bags is a quirky invention of the security services, Greer better throw out any large luggage he might have around. So it's just British citizens who aren't protected by any protocols, just to be clear, and we are now at the whim of any elite Politician, Lord or Member of the Royal family.

Who are these Detectives? Do they actually do any detecting? Have they actually been to deceptive school, sorry, I mean detective school?

To clarify Kenneth Clarke has stated, in a Cabinet Office correspondence, that his appearance in Ian Greer's office must have been a case of mistaken identity. But who is he referring to? I didn't introduce myself to Kenneth Clarke? So Kenneth Clarke is clearly calling his best friend's memory into question, suggesting that perhaps Greer didn't know who was standing in his office and accidentally introduced this mystery gentleman as Kenneth Clarke MP to me.
Really? That's as a ridiculous a stand point as the big bang theory.

Kenneth Clarke is a barrister and Queens Council. Does he really think that answer is good enough? Is that really the best argument that he, the Cabinet Office and Prime Minister David Cameron can come up with?

Ben Lambskin said that, "Ken Clarke is likely to lie about being in Greer's office" and he went on to say that, — "Greer is probably going to say he didn't see anything". Well, that's okay isn't it. I thought that being a Police Detective meant, at the very least, you want to question the actual people being accused and have them lie to your face — if needs be. But silly old me I assumed the wrong thing. The Police just assume that various people will lie and so therefore after an imaginary conversation with themselves decide not to talk to them. Is it any wonder that murders, rapists, muggers, child abusers, etc, etc,. get away with their crimes if this is any indication of how the Police investigate serious allegations.

Detective Ben Lambskin said, and I thought this was said in all honesty, that, "The Police can't investigate historic cases".

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle stated back in November, "That child abuse has become an industry standard in the entertainment industry." All these Pedophile detectives know this, more importantly do nothing about it and sleep soundly at night. Surely you would be disgusted to find out that your husband or wife who you thought was a hero for working in the pedophile unit was protecting pedophiles. What would you do with that information?

The Police do themselves no favors. They are about to get completely taken over by G4S and they are handing the finest police force in the world over to them. Why? Is there really this much corruption or is there a deeper darker agenda at play here.

Systematic Police failures is how this investigation will be viewed by history, not to mention all the other investigations which will now collapse because of the Police's own admittance of a feudal society. There have been systematic failures to follow an investigation through to the end even when you have a detailed statement from a credible member of the public, me in this case, who makes serious allegations against a senior member of parliament.
It is now obvious to us all that the very unit tasked with investigating pedophiles and their crimes against children have failed on every level. I said at the beginning of this process that I was the test case for all those people who have been abused by politicians. Who could, had I had my day in court, have felt confident to know that now in this time society was grown up enough to act responsibly and to investigate these matters fully. But no, I'm sorry to say that I was wrong.

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle said, " I'd like to think I could talk to anyone," when I asked if he would talk to Prince Charles about his relationship with Jimmy Savile. He said, "Yes". He said if he found out that that wasn't the case he would resign. Clearly just another broken promise and Police half truth from people who don't keep their word to anyone. Why can't the Police just be straight and give you a straight answer. Dealing with the Police is worse than dealing villains in many respects. So in light of this I am going to release my dealings with the Police on YouTube so everyone can hear the excuses as to why Kenneth Clarke cannot be arrested, questioned or interviewed under caution like any other member of our society. As a society we should insist on no more secrets or lies from our public servants and the mere impropriety of grey areas should immediately raise our suspicions.

There is indeed a pedophile ring operating in Westminster and it includes No 10 Downing Street and David Cameron who's known about the Kengate scandal from the start and has failed to act. Obviously being abused as a child at Eton College has clouded his own judgement because as we all know Eton College are well known for abusing children. In fact the Police were planning a raid on Eton but surprise, surprise the investigation was halted by "powerful interests". Eton College is producing future child abusers either willfully or ignorantly it doesn't matter which the place is rife. Those who are abused become abusers, we all know this and yet we allow Eton College to continue producing pedophiles because it's traditional. I know the government has got everyone in the country living all in council wards, presumably of the psychiatric variety, but truly have we all gone raving mad. When is enough enough! Tom Watson MP, who's performance in the House of Commons when he insisted that Operation Fairbridge be set up to investigate a potential pedophile ring in Westminster, can only be described as a ham and cheese sandwich but without the bread and cheese. I've seen better performances with the Epsom Players.

Operation Fairbridge was clearly set up to retrieve modern day information on the active Westminster Pedophile ring and to cover up allegations and intimidate witnesses into remaining quiet in order for the politicians to go about their disgusting business as usual.

With another Police botching of a pedophile cases it's Jimmy Savile all over again. Perhaps when men and women like Kenneth Clarke are finally laid to rest the insidiousness will finally come out. Too late for the victims of course, again.

The Metropolitan Police have sent a clear message to all powerful pedophiles. It's okay you will not be even talked to by the Police and you are free to continue abusing children. So say the Child Protection Command which should be renamed to the Pedophile Protection Command.

Kenneth Clarke is a Freemason, the Police officers on the investigating team for Fairbridge are all Freemasons, the courts are Freemasons. Is it any wonder that victims don't get any justice. When individuals cannot be questioned or talked to regarding child abuse and pedophile accusations because of their apparent position in society then there is a two tier system, which for any democracy is very wrong.

If you are Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson or some soap star then rest assured that your names will be leaked by the Police to the press. You will be humiliated and embarrassed and probably sent to jail. But if you are a member of the Cabinet or Royal Family you are clearly free to continue abusing. As a business manager surely David Cameron has a duty to his own party to have these matters investigated. Any manager in any company upon learning that a member of his close staff had had allegations made against them would have to suspend that person from their job pending a full investigation. However, David Cameron hasn't got the balls to do that so instead he protects his pedophile friends.

The only answer is to call an election and replace the entire parliament, with more MP's not less. We, the people, are not being represented or even listened to by our politicians or public servants, so what are we all doing? Why are we even tolerating these people for an instant? Those members of parliament and their staff who know what goes on and choose to look the other way are just as culpable and as guilty as any of the pedophile perpetrators in Westminster.

In closing I say to you the reader - What does life matter if our children are not safe from predators who are in positions of power in our society. When witnesses perjure themselves by changing their stories as often as their underwear. If a Criminal Prosecution Service will throw a poor man to the mob

Where is the justice? Justice is simply the laws which we have all agreed to live by in this country. The laws apply to everyone from the Queen on down. Nobody is exempt or we are all exempt. These laws are man's feeble attempt to set down the principles of living in a civilized society. Being civilized is an art form which has to be practiced and it is not easy. Being civilized and decent with each other isn't a hustle, a scheme or scam. Decent cannot be bargained for sold, rented or mortgaged. Being civilized is what our ancestors taught us and decency is what our grandparents taught us. Being civilized and decent is in our DNA and all we have to do is choose to be decent people. The choice is ours.

The one absolute truth which has come out of all of this is that the children in Great Britain are not safe. Pedophiles are running around out of control in our schools, nurseries, playgroups, leisure centers and sports grounds. Anywhere you find children you find pedophiles. Especially in the entertainment industry, why are children even on television? Children shouldn't be advertised to they are not commodities. They deserve a childhood because they as sure as hell are not going to enjoy their adult life. Unless of course you like being in debt to criminal bankers!

Kenneth Clarke MP has to be arrested, interviewed under caution and charged. If the Police wish to have any credibility or power left after this then why not let a jury decide. I'll go one step better, why don't I meet Kenneth Clarke MP I can then make sure that he was the person in Greer's office and we can have the opportunity to be questioned by the press and public. We could even do it as a Question Time Special - now that's a ratings winner. On second thoughts I have an SIA license after the whistle blowing the Olympics last year I should use it and arrest Kenneth Clarke myself.

Let's for a moment put the politicians to one side. What on earth was HRH Prince Charles doing having known pedophile Jimmy Savile as his unofficial social secretary? What was Prince Charles doing when he went up to Scotland to Jimmy Savile's cottage? If we can not question a Member of Parliament, what hope is there of asking Prince Charles, or any member of the Royal family, about their relationship with known pedophile and abuser Jimmy Savile. Let us not forget, that it was the very same Kenneth Clarke MP who allowed Jimmy Savile the keys to Broadmoor in order for him to be able to abuse and associate with imprisoned pedophiles. Of course as we all know where you get one pedophile…

Again I invite Kenneth Clarke MP or any celebrity, producer or any Hollywood movie stars, who will be mentioned in the forth coming release of my Police tapes, to sue me.

When Senior Detective Ben Lambskin and his colleague, known as Andy, left my home, Andy warned me to stay off the internet…Ooops!

If you need any more information please let me know

All the best

Ben Fellows

info@thebenfellowsradioshow.com
www.thebenfellowsradioshow.com
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.