Translate

Feb 22, 2010

Rebel News and the libel of Anti-Semitism

 

Dear Reader,

Earlier this morning, I received a message voicing concerns that the Rebel News site respectively of its contents was anti-Semtism. Whoever made that comment obviously has no clue what anti-Semitism actually is. I therefor send out a link to some essential reading on this matter. Some people are trying to avoid being accused of anti-Semitism by restricting their criticism of what I'd call the 'Jewish problem' to 'Zionism'. Needless to say that I consider that approach as flawed, if not hypocritical. Zionism is just a symptom of a much bigger underlying problem, which is Jewish supremacism.

Kind regards,

Your Rebel Team

An Open Word About Anti-Semitism

Accusing an opponent of anti-Semitism is probably the most powerful political weapon that exists in Western society. Its destructiveness equals – if not surpasses - the label of paedophilia. The whole topic has developed over time to such a powerful taboo, that there is hardly an open discussion of anti-Semitism, without the participants scrambling to uncritically condemn it as utterly evil. Anybody suspected – or worse - publicly accused of anti-Semitic views or activities, becomes automatically – without trial and conviction – a societal leper. He can kiss his job and career good-bye, and will loose, more often than not, most of his friends and family, in many cases even his freedom.

Read more....

The Jewish Problem

Jews have a huge problem and it will not go away by ignoring it. Or blaming others. Denial causes the problem only to become bigger. It has been around for more than two thousand years, and if we don't fix it now, the consequences will be catastrophic.

I want to make it very clear: The problem is not anti-Semitism. The latter is just a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The problem is Jewishness itself.

Being Jewish does something to the human brain. It affects how we think, feel and act. It makes us feel both superior to and afraid of non-Jews. It makes us treat other human beings in ways that cannot be reconciled with universal human values.

Read more....

The Jewish Holocaust and the New World Order

Jews are so vain. They think the Holocaust is all about them. Let me assure you it's not. One thing we all should have realised by now is that in history and politics nothing is what it seems.

The 'Battle for the Holocaust' - how the British Channel 4 documentary appropriately called it - is not about honouring the memory of the Jews perished during World War II. It is not about repeating the Jewish mantra of 'Never Again'. And it is certainly not about reminding us of how evil governments can get if they get out of control.

Read more....

Subscription Notice

You have received this email because you are a registered user of Rebel News. To unsubscribe, please use the unregister function under the main menu of the site.

To receive our daily newsletters with the latest articles on the Rebel News site, please enter your email address in the subscription form below the red stop sign on our homepage (www.rebelnews.org).

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Scattered in death as in life

 


Scattered in death as in life

aletho | February 22, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Categories: Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-1vR
By Nadia Hijab, The Electronic Intifada, 22 February 2010
The Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem, 1854. (Wikipedia)

I carried a handful of ashes from my father's cremates into the Occupied Palestinian Territories a few years ago, hoping to take them to his hometown, Nablus. At the border, the only available taxi was driven by an Israeli Moroccan Jew. Delighted I was an Arab, he immediately plunged into conversation and pointed out various landmarks along the way to Jerusalem.

"That road," he said at one point, "leads to Nablus," indicating the tarmac cutting through the rocky soil as we drove through a desolate area. I asked him to stop the car. Israel often kept Nablus under curfew for weeks on end and I didn't know if I'd be able to get there during my short trip. On the road to Nablus, I laid the ashes and paid my respects. Back in the car, the puzzled driver wondered what I had been doing. When I told him he asked hesitantly, "Don't you have rites like ours, including visiting loved ones' graves?"

I stared at the back of his neck, as brown as my own, as I sought a response. We do have similar rites. It is rare for a Muslim to seek cremation, as in our father's case, part of the enforced modernity of exile. In fact, at no time is the loss of Palestine more piercing than at a loved one's passing, reinforcing the realization that, Muslim or Christian, Palestinians are as scattered across the globe in death as in life. But how could one explain 100 years of history in a cab ride? "Yes, but you've made it impossible for us to practice ours."

So it is with special poignancy that I have followed the latest twist in the battle over Jerusalem's Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim cemetery known in Arabic as Maman Allah, where the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center intends to build a Museum of Tolerance, a project stalled by legal and other protests since it began in 2004.

Mamilla is estimated to be over 800 years old and was in continuous use until 1948 when the Western part of Jerusalem was conquered as Israel was created. In the latest Palestinian challenge, representatives of 60 of the oldest and most prominent Jerusalemite families have petitioned several bodies at the United Nations to uphold the international legal obligation to halt the project.

The battle over Mamilla encapsulates many aspects of Israel's approach to Palestinian rights since the conflict began, and it is worth considering five here.

First, the use of legal garb to shroud illegal acts. In this case, for example, Israel's high court ruled in favor of the museum project in 2008. However, it turned out that the Israeli Antiquities Authority had withheld its own Chief Excavator's conclusion that the site should not be approved for construction. Calling the Authority's conduct an "archeological crime" the Chief Excavator noted, among other things, at least four unexcavated layers of Muslim graves dating back to the 11th century. However, the court has refused to reopen the case.

Second, the overreach. The move on Mamilla spotlights not just Israel's occupation of Arab East Jerusalem in 1967, but also its original takeover of West Jerusalem. The international community still does not accept Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem because the basis for the establishment of the Israeli state -- the 1947 United Nations partition plan -- provides for a corpus separatum for Jerusalem, as the European Community reminded Israel in 1999.

Third, the ongoing creation of facts on the ground to erase evidence of the indigenous inhabitants. As former Israeli leader Moshe Dayan told Technion University students back in 1969, "There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

Fourth, the Orwellian use of language to mean the direct opposite of what is intended: for example "tolerance" for "discrimination." Indeed, the plans for the Museum of Tolerance are replete with irony. At one point, it was suggested that a horizontal barrier be built to separate the museum and the graves to show "respect" -- a horizontal separation of the dead comparable to Israel's vertical separation barriers in the West Bank and Gaza.

Fifth, the delegitimization -- not of Israel, which is a secure member state of the UN -- but of the Zionist ideology that resulted in Israel's creation. These actions remind the world that one people was displaced by another. The project architect, the renowned Frank Gehry, has since withdrawn his plans. Further international attention to the Mamilla case can only add to the growing global campaign to boycott Israel until it upholds international law.

Mamilla is not just about family history but also a nation's history, as Dyala Husseini-Dajani -- who comes from one long-established Jerusalem families and married into another -- told a journalist while at the cemetery to say a prayer to her forebears. She added, "One day I want to be buried here. And I want my grandchildren to come and say this prayer for me." As I read those words, I wished the Moroccan Jewish taxi driver would read them too.

Nadia Hijab is an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

Source

Add a comment to this post

--


The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website!

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED

 

Blog Writer Richard Silverstein

July 2009

THE ISRAEL PROJECT'S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED

tip hasbara project screenshotImagine for a moment you're a general about to embark on a decisive military campaign and your intelligence service secures a copy of your opponent's entire campaign strategy. You open it and you see his battle plans laid out before you, key forces, weaponry, lines of attack, points of weaknesses, etc. You suddenly understand just how weak his forces are and precisely how to mercilessly attack and eviscerate him. The plan makes you understand that his forces are largely based on artifice and sham.  It gives you confidence that you are entirely on the right course and tells you how to stay on that course.  Victory is assured, your enemy's defeat certain.

Douglas Bloomfield and Newsweek have done pretty close to that against the Israel lobby. Specifically, they've exposed a secret hasbara handbook written for The Israel Project by star Republican marketer, Frank Luntz. The oddly-named Global Language Dictionary (pdf) is a veritable goldmine of arguments, strategy, tactics. At 116 pages, it's not for the faint of heart.  But anyone who wants to get inside the head of the Israel lobby must read this document.

I want to devote at least two or three posts to it so I hope you, dear reader, will bear with me.  I know my enthusiasm will mark me as a real wonk, but this is the real deal and worth spending some time parsing and deconstructing.

The first thing to say is that the entire document is a pathetic piece of propaganda.  While it ostensibly is addressed to TIP's leaders and advises them how to shape a pro-Israel message when they lobby Congress, the media and other critical power brokers, the entire thing reeks of desperation and a lost cause.  It goes without saying that the arguments offered are not only devoid of truth, they're devoid of rigor or credibility.  There is literally no substance to the claims offered on Israel's behalf.  It's an empty exercise in every sense of the word.  Reading this makes you realize that the entire Israel lobby edifice is a house of cards.

Perhaps I'm letting my shock at the shabbiness of the Dictionary get the better of me and overstating the case it reveals against the Lobby.  After all, any political network that exists for six decades and achieves as much as this one has doesn't topple overnight.  But I'll just have to let you be the judge.

One aspect of this I find extraordinary and entirely dubious is the choice of the Republican campaign pollster Frank Luntz to write this report.  This indicates, as I've always maintained, that the Lobby is totally tone deaf to the political environment.  We have a democratic president and two Houses of Congress under Democratic control for the first time in a few decades.  Pragmatic liberalism is ascendant.  Neo-conservatism and Bushian Republicanism are in retreat.  And who does TIP chose to make the case for Israel?  A right-wing Republican spinmeister.  Remarkable.  But one thing I must say is that this is a good sign for our side.  If our opponents are as wooden as they appear, then they will topple themselves without needing much help from us.

The first chapter, 25 Rules for Effective Communication opens with:

The first step to winning trust and friends for Israel is showing that you care about peace for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians and, in particular, a better future for every child.  Indeed, the sequence of your conversation is critical and you must start with empathy for BOTH sides first. Open your conversation with strong proven messages such as:

"Israel is committed to a better future for everyone – Israelis and Palestinians alike. Israel wants the pain and suffering to end, and is committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful, diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future. Let this be a time of hope and opportunity for both the
Israeli and the Palestinian people."

The first thing we learn is that this passage, as with everything else printed in the handbook, is empty meaningless drivel.  It's a perfect example of political three-card monty in which there appears to be a card which isn't there at all.  It's all a sham.  There is no substance.  The rhetoric here is even worse than that offered by spokespeople like Mark Regev on behalf of the Israeli government.

In the following passage, we can see that Luntz has lifted shamelessly lifted arguments from MEMRI and former Mossad officer, Itamar Marcus' Palestine Media Watch.  Others before me have demolished these tawdry arguments, but it's instructive to read the lies and distortions that TIP instructs its representatives to parrot.

Throughout, the document drips noblesse oblige and fake concern for Palestinian children:

"As a matter of principle, we believe that it is a basic right of children to be raised without hate. We ask the Palestinian leadership to end the culture of hate in Palestinian schools, 300 of which are named for suicide bombers.  Palestinian leaders should take textbooks out of classrooms that show maps of the Middle East without Israel and that glorify terrorism."

As a matter of principle, children should not be raised to want to kill others or themselves. Yet, day after day, Palestinian leadership pushes a culture of hate that encourages even small children to become suicide bombers. Iran-backed Hamas's public television in Gaza uses Sesame Street–type programming to
glorify suicide bombers.

As a matter of principle, no child should be abused in such a way. Palestinian children deserve better."

As a matter of principle I believe that no child (Israeli or Palestinian) should be raised in fear that their mother, father, sister, brother, grandmother or grandfather could be killed for no other reason than they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a frightened, trigger hungry 18 year army recruit decides to make an example of them.

As for maps, before Frank Luntz or Itamar Marcus make their specious claims about Palestinian textbooks, I'd like them to show me a single Israeli textbook that features a map of Palestine.  You will certainly find Judea and Samaria.  But will you find any acknowledgement of the millions of Palestinians who live in the Territories?

Further, the arguments are entirely dated.  Suicide bombings were a serious phenomenon in years past.  But Palestinian militants have largely abandoned this tactic, at least in part due to its unpopularity among average Palestinians.  You certainly wouldn't know this from Frank Luntz's agitprop.  It's like he's living in a time warp and its still the first Intifada (circa 2000).

Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support.

Another characteristic of the Dictionary is the dubious distinctions it draws, as in this example.  There is no way to distinguish between the Palestinian people and their leadership.  In effect, the passage concedes the illogic of its argument with this phrase: "even though they elected Hamas."  Of course they elected Hamas.  That's precisely the point.  They had an election and chose who they wanted to represent them.  So for the lobby to say they sympathize with Palestinians, but not with the leaders they chose is an empty statement.

Yet another example of noblesse oblige (and it's entirely dubious to claim that these words "work"):

WORDS THAT WORK

We know that the Palestinians deserve leaders who will care about the well being of their people, and who do not simply take hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance from America and Europe, put them in Swiss bank accounts, and use them to support terror instead of peace. The Palestinians need books, not bombs. They want roads, not rockets."

Clearly passages like this are designed to score debate points but are entirely devoid of accuracy.  The claims of embezzlement, of course, go back to the days when Yasir Arafat ran things and tolerated rampant Fatah corruption.  But Arafat has been dead for lo these many years.  Someone ought to roll over and tell Tchaichovsky and Frank Luntz the news.

As for Palestinians wanting roads, they do.  They'd like some of those wonderful Israeli bypass roads that run directly through former Palestinian farmland and whisk settlers from their settlement homes to their jobs inside Israel proper.  The same apartheid roads which are off-limits to Palestinians.

One thing you've got to give Luntz, he's not above stealing ideas from anyone, even Israeli peace activists (see italics):

MORE WORDS THAT WORK

"The obstacles on the road to a peaceful and prosperous Middle East are many.  Israel recognizes that peace is made with one's adversaries, not with one's friends. But peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you.  Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?"

There is an amazing insularity in the arguments presented here, with absolutely no conception that Palestinians feel precisely the same emotions as Israelis.  In other words, they too ask how and why they should negotiate with a state of Israel that would just as soon kill them as live with them in peace.

More obliviousness, with no awareness of the dark irony of this statement:

"We may disagree about politics…But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death."

Do I hear any concern here for the "innocent women and children" of Gaza who were slaughtered in their hundreds during the Gaza war?  No, of course not.

Of course, there is unintentionally comic discourse:

Don't pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault. It's not true and no one believes it. Pretending Israel is free from errors does not pass the smell test. It will only make your listeners question the veracity of everything else you say.

Admit Israel make mistakes.  Don't specify them.  Change the subject as quickly as possible and hope no one notices what you've just conceded.  And then point out how much more guilty the Palestinians are than the Israelis for the conflict.

Use humility. "I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know it, and I'm sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for launching rockets at America, what would America do?

Use fake humility.  Pretend that Israel is the U.S. and that there has been no Occupation and no injustice perpetrated against Palestinians.  Pretend their lands have not been stolen.  Pretend they have not been turned into refugees in the hundreds of thousands.  Pretend that Israel has a right to expect Palestinians to behave like Canadians or Mexicans, who have not had a border dispute with the U.S. in 150 years.

Here is more fakery in the guise of concern.  And note the conflation of American Jews with Israelis as if we are them (a little identity confusion?):

WORDS THAT WORK

"Are Israelis perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But we want a better future, and we are working towards it.

And we want Palestinians to have a better future as well. They deserve a government that will eliminate the terror not only because it will make my children safer—but also because it will make their children more prosperous. When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence."

There is virtually no terror on the West Bank, yet 500 checkpoints remain there.  Why?  Tell me why, Mr. Luntz.

If there is a money quote in this document that reveals that the lobby is now running scared it is this:

We're at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences—sophisticated, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences—Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending.

More unintended irony:

WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

"We are prepared to allow them to build……"

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

What is the Occupation if not "subordination" personified??

Here's right back at ya, buddy:

WORDS THAT DO WORK

"Achieving peaceful relationships requires the leadership…of both sides. And so we ask the Palestinians … Stop using the language of incitement. Stop using the language of violence. Stop using the language of threats. You won't achieve peace if your military leadership talks about war. You won't achieve peace if people talk about pushing others to the sea or to the desert."

Israel's military and political leaders speak the language of violence, incitement and war virtually every day.  No acknowledgement of that, of course, by Luntz.  As for "pushing Jews into the sea," I haven't read a real live Palestinian resident of the Occupied Territories make such a statement in several decades.  So this argument is circa 1970 or so.  Nice try though, Frank.

"Israelis know what it is like to live their lives with the daily threat of terrorism.

As do Palestinians.

Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace. Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace—if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud"—Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their President's clout on helping Israel.

Bingo.  Here Luntz inadvertently speaks the truth. Israel wants peace in the same vague way that a 13 year old girl may want to be whoever the teen idol of the moment happens to be. Israel has no plan. No means of getting to peace. So to say that Israel wants peace is, once again, meaningless.

And the fear lurking in the hearts of the lobby is that some day Israel will be exposed and Americans will abandon it because they will come to understand that whatever Israel may claim it wants, there will never be peace under terms acceptable to Israel.  That will be a day of reckoning that the lobby wants to avoid at all costs.

To be continued…See part 2 in yellow highlight below:



Related posts:

  1. Comment is Free on The Israel Project's Hasbara 'Fictionary'
  2. Republican Pollster Crafts Secret Handbook for Israel Lobby (Part 2)
  3. Israel Project, Bought and Paid For by Israeli Government
  4. Frank Luntz's Hasbara 'Fictionary' (Part 3)
  5. Gay Porno Hasbara

--

The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website! 

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED

 

July 2009

THE ISRAEL PROJECT'S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED

tip hasbara project screenshotImagine for a moment you're a general about to embark on a decisive military campaign and your intelligence service secures a copy of your opponent's entire campaign strategy. You open it and you see his battle plans laid out before you, key forces, weaponry, lines of attack, points of weaknesses, etc. You suddenly understand just how weak his forces are and precisely how to mercilessly attack and eviscerate him. The plan makes you understand that his forces are largely based on artifice and sham.  It gives you confidence that you are entirely on the right course and tells you how to stay on that course.  Victory is assured, your enemy's defeat certain.

Douglas Bloomfield and Newsweek have done pretty close to that against the Israel lobby. Specifically, they've exposed a secret hasbara handbook written for The Israel Project by star Republican marketer, Frank Luntz. The oddly-named Global Language Dictionary (pdf) is a veritable goldmine of arguments, strategy, tactics. At 116 pages, it's not for the faint of heart.  But anyone who wants to get inside the head of the Israel lobby must read this document.

I want to devote at least two or three posts to it so I hope you, dear reader, will bear with me.  I know my enthusiasm will mark me as a real wonk, but this is the real deal and worth spending some time parsing and deconstructing.

The first thing to say is that the entire document is a pathetic piece of propaganda.  While it ostensibly is addressed to TIP's leaders and advises them how to shape a pro-Israel message when they lobby Congress, the media and other critical power brokers, the entire thing reeks of desperation and a lost cause.  It goes without saying that the arguments offered are not only devoid of truth, they're devoid of rigor or credibility.  There is literally no substance to the claims offered on Israel's behalf.  It's an empty exercise in every sense of the word.  Reading this makes you realize that the entire Israel lobby edifice is a house of cards.

Perhaps I'm letting my shock at the shabbiness of the Dictionary get the better of me and overstating the case it reveals against the Lobby.  After all, any political network that exists for six decades and achieves as much as this one has doesn't topple overnight.  But I'll just have to let you be the judge.

One aspect of this I find extraordinary and entirely dubious is the choice of the Republican campaign pollster Frank Luntz to write this report.  This indicates, as I've always maintained, that the Lobby is totally tone deaf to the political environment.  We have a democratic president and two Houses of Congress under Democratic control for the first time in a few decades.  Pragmatic liberalism is ascendant.  Neo-conservatism and Bushian Republicanism are in retreat.  And who does TIP chose to make the case for Israel?  A right-wing Republican spinmeister.  Remarkable.  But one thing I must say is that this is a good sign for our side.  If our opponents are as wooden as they appear, then they will topple themselves without needing much help from us.

The first chapter, 25 Rules for Effective Communication opens with:

The first step to winning trust and friends for Israel is showing that you care about peace for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians and, in particular, a better future for every child.  Indeed, the sequence of your conversation is critical and you must start with empathy for BOTH sides first. Open your conversation with strong proven messages such as:

"Israel is committed to a better future for everyone – Israelis and Palestinians alike. Israel wants the pain and suffering to end, and is committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful, diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future. Let this be a time of hope and opportunity for both the
Israeli and the Palestinian people."

The first thing we learn is that this passage, as with everything else printed in the handbook, is empty meaningless drivel.  It's a perfect example of political three-card monty in which there appears to be a card which isn't there at all.  It's all a sham.  There is no substance.  The rhetoric here is even worse than that offered by spokespeople like Mark Regev on behalf of the Israeli government.

In the following passage, we can see that Luntz has lifted shamelessly lifted arguments from MEMRI and former Mossad officer, Itamar Marcus' Palestine Media Watch.  Others before me have demolished these tawdry arguments, but it's instructive to read the lies and distortions that TIP instructs its representatives to parrot.

Throughout, the document drips noblesse oblige and fake concern for Palestinian children:

"As a matter of principle, we believe that it is a basic right of children to be raised without hate. We ask the Palestinian leadership to end the culture of hate in Palestinian schools, 300 of which are named for suicide bombers.  Palestinian leaders should take textbooks out of classrooms that show maps of the Middle East without Israel and that glorify terrorism."

As a matter of principle, children should not be raised to want to kill others or themselves. Yet, day after day, Palestinian leadership pushes a culture of hate that encourages even small children to become suicide bombers. Iran-backed Hamas's public television in Gaza uses Sesame Street–type programming to
glorify suicide bombers.

As a matter of principle, no child should be abused in such a way. Palestinian children deserve better."

As a matter of principle I believe that no child (Israeli or Palestinian) should be raised in fear that their mother, father, sister, brother, grandmother or grandfather could be killed for no other reason than they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a frightened, trigger hungry 18 year army recruit decides to make an example of them.

As for maps, before Frank Luntz or Itamar Marcus make their specious claims about Palestinian textbooks, I'd like them to show me a single Israeli textbook that features a map of Palestine.  You will certainly find Judea and Samaria.  But will you find any acknowledgement of the millions of Palestinians who live in the Territories?

Further, the arguments are entirely dated.  Suicide bombings were a serious phenomenon in years past.  But Palestinian militants have largely abandoned this tactic, at least in part due to its unpopularity among average Palestinians.  You certainly wouldn't know this from Frank Luntz's agitprop.  It's like he's living in a time warp and its still the first Intifada (circa 2000).

Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support.

Another characteristic of the Dictionary is the dubious distinctions it draws, as in this example.  There is no way to distinguish between the Palestinian people and their leadership.  In effect, the passage concedes the illogic of its argument with this phrase: "even though they elected Hamas."  Of course they elected Hamas.  That's precisely the point.  They had an election and chose who they wanted to represent them.  So for the lobby to say they sympathize with Palestinians, but not with the leaders they chose is an empty statement.

Yet another example of noblesse oblige (and it's entirely dubious to claim that these words "work"):

WORDS THAT WORK

We know that the Palestinians deserve leaders who will care about the well being of their people, and who do not simply take hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance from America and Europe, put them in Swiss bank accounts, and use them to support terror instead of peace. The Palestinians need books, not bombs. They want roads, not rockets."

Clearly passages like this are designed to score debate points but are entirely devoid of accuracy.  The claims of embezzlement, of course, go back to the days when Yasir Arafat ran things and tolerated rampant Fatah corruption.  But Arafat has been dead for lo these many years.  Someone ought to roll over and tell Tchaichovsky and Frank Luntz the news.

As for Palestinians wanting roads, they do.  They'd like some of those wonderful Israeli bypass roads that run directly through former Palestinian farmland and whisk settlers from their settlement homes to their jobs inside Israel proper.  The same apartheid roads which are off-limits to Palestinians.

One thing you've got to give Luntz, he's not above stealing ideas from anyone, even Israeli peace activists (see italics):

MORE WORDS THAT WORK

"The obstacles on the road to a peaceful and prosperous Middle East are many.  Israel recognizes that peace is made with one's adversaries, not with one's friends. But peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you.  Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?"

There is an amazing insularity in the arguments presented here, with absolutely no conception that Palestinians feel precisely the same emotions as Israelis.  In other words, they too ask how and why they should negotiate with a state of Israel that would just as soon kill them as live with them in peace.

More obliviousness, with no awareness of the dark irony of this statement:

"We may disagree about politics…But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death."

Do I hear any concern here for the "innocent women and children" of Gaza who were slaughtered in their hundreds during the Gaza war?  No, of course not.

Of course, there is unintentionally comic discourse:

Don't pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault. It's not true and no one believes it. Pretending Israel is free from errors does not pass the smell test. It will only make your listeners question the veracity of everything else you say.

Admit Israel make mistakes.  Don't specify them.  Change the subject as quickly as possible and hope no one notices what you've just conceded.  And then point out how much more guilty the Palestinians are than the Israelis for the conflict.

Use humility. "I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know it, and I'm sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for launching rockets at America, what would America do?

Use fake humility.  Pretend that Israel is the U.S. and that there has been no Occupation and no injustice perpetrated against Palestinians.  Pretend their lands have not been stolen.  Pretend they have not been turned into refugees in the hundreds of thousands.  Pretend that Israel has a right to expect Palestinians to behave like Canadians or Mexicans, who have not had a border dispute with the U.S. in 150 years.

Here is more fakery in the guise of concern.  And note the conflation of American Jews with Israelis as if we are them (a little identity confusion?):

WORDS THAT WORK

"Are Israelis perfect? No. Do we make mistakes? Yes. But we want a better future, and we are working towards it.

And we want Palestinians to have a better future as well. They deserve a government that will eliminate the terror not only because it will make my children safer—but also because it will make their children more prosperous. When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence."

There is virtually no terror on the West Bank, yet 500 checkpoints remain there.  Why?  Tell me why, Mr. Luntz.

If there is a money quote in this document that reveals that the lobby is now running scared it is this:

We're at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences—sophisticated, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences—Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending.

More unintended irony:

WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

"We are prepared to allow them to build……"

If the Palestinians are to be seen as a trusted partner on the path to peace, they must not be subordinated, in perception or in practice, by the Israelis.

What is the Occupation if not "subordination" personified??

Here's right back at ya, buddy:

WORDS THAT DO WORK

"Achieving peaceful relationships requires the leadership…of both sides. And so we ask the Palestinians … Stop using the language of incitement. Stop using the language of violence. Stop using the language of threats. You won't achieve peace if your military leadership talks about war. You won't achieve peace if people talk about pushing others to the sea or to the desert."

Israel's military and political leaders speak the language of violence, incitement and war virtually every day.  No acknowledgement of that, of course, by Luntz.  As for "pushing Jews into the sea," I haven't read a real live Palestinian resident of the Occupied Territories make such a statement in several decades.  So this argument is circa 1970 or so.  Nice try though, Frank.

"Israelis know what it is like to live their lives with the daily threat of terrorism.

As do Palestinians.

Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace. Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace—if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud"—Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their President's clout on helping Israel.

Bingo.  Here Luntz inadvertently speaks the truth. Israel wants peace in the same vague way that a 13 year old girl may want to be whoever the teen idol of the moment happens to be. Israel has no plan. No means of getting to peace. So to say that Israel wants peace is, once again, meaningless.

And the fear lurking in the hearts of the lobby is that some day Israel will be exposed and Americans will abandon it because they will come to understand that whatever Israel may claim it wants, there will never be peace under terms acceptable to Israel.  That will be a day of reckoning that the lobby wants to avoid at all costs.

To be continued…See part 2 in yellow highlight below:



Related posts:

  1. Comment is Free on The Israel Project's Hasbara 'Fictionary'
  2. Republican Pollster Crafts Secret Handbook for Israel Lobby (Part 2)
  3. Israel Project, Bought and Paid For by Israeli Government
  4. Frank Luntz's Hasbara 'Fictionary' (Part 3)
  5. Gay Porno Hasbara

--

The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website! 

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com


__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Clinton avoided nuke question - student

 


Clinton avoided nuke question - student

aletho | February 22, 2010 at 1:28 pm | Categories: "Hope and Change", Deception, Wars for Israel | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-1vA

AFP | February 22, 2010

A SAUDI student blasted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for skirting her question on Israel's nuclear arsenal during a "town hall'' meeting at a Jeddah college.

"I did not get a straight answer,'' Mariyam Alavi said in a letter published in Arab News on her question to the top US diplomat last Tuesday. "My question was simple and direct enough,'' she wrote, but Ms Clinton's response "was very unsatisfying.''

Alavi, a 12th grader at the International Indian School in Jeddah, attended the meeting at the elite Dar al-Hekma College with six classmates. She had asked Ms Clinton about Washington's stance on the existence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If the Americans "so vehemently oppose Iran's nuclear programme,'' she had asked, "then why isn't the US asking Israel to give up their nuclear weapons?''

Ms Clinton gave a lengthy answer detailing the US case against Iran, but did not mention Israel. She did, however, say that "we want not only a world free of nuclear weapons, we want a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, including everyone.''

Alavi's Arab News letter assailed US "hypocrisy'' over the issue, reflecting a widely held sentiment in in the region.

"Clinton said that the United States, under the able leadership of President Barack Obama, was trying to repair and strengthen its ties with the Muslim world.

"It is high time she realised it couldn't be done without answering the questions uppermost in the minds of the Middle East people.''

Alavi said she had been nervous about asking such a "politically provocative question'' but was then encouraged by strong applause from the audience when she addressed Ms Clinton.

Ms Clinton had been on a three-day trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia to discuss, among other things, how to confront Iran's alleged programme to develop nuclear weapons.

Source

Add a comment to this post




--


The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website!

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

It’s Not the Arguments

 

Anti-WhiteCrusader Tim Wise

It's Not the Arguments

Alex Kurtagic

February 22, 2010

Looked at from a purely rational perspective, it seems incredible that, despite maintaining a sensible position, deploying logical arguments, and having the data on our side, when it comes to the small matter of White people's right to exist, we find ourselves fighting a losing battle. How can this be? The simple answer is that in attempting to win a debate "scientifically", the White advocacy movement has been concentrating its efforts on aspects of the debate that are, ultimately, comparatively unimportant. The triumph of the Left during the 20th century has proven conclusively that having a sensible position, logical arguments, and a mass of substantiating data is not what wins a debate: They have none of these and yet it is the Left who occupies the positions of power, who comprise the established order, and whose ideas enjoy the status of legitimate orthodoxy. The reason is that the Left, for all its abstract theory and its idealized conceptions of humanity, not only understands human nature as well as the best sociobiologist, but also knows better than we do how to apply  and are indeed more ruthless in applying  that knowledge to achieve practical aims. The Left understands that humans are more strongly motivated by status than by rational persuasion, and that, therefore, it is status that offers the key to winning a debate, not science or logic or reasonableness: They know that an argument linked to high status will succeed, while one linked to low status  no matter how correct will fail.

Sigmund Freud: although a fraud, his status was assiduously cultivated. Images of Freud are calculated to signal his eminence. His terminology has become part of everyday parlance

The irony is what the authors on our side have known this for decades, as the process is explained in the scientific literature that informs their writing and general worldview. Status is a cultural invention that responds to a biological need to maximise life chances and reproductive success. Status signifies power, for status both derives it and confers it, and power affords access to resources. The greater the power, the greater the access to more and better resources. Included among the latter is, of course, women. The evolutionary explanation of sexual selection in humans is that females will tend to be drawn to powerful, high status males, as power and status are indicators of fitness, and mate quality. In complex societies this primal process is sublimated in many different ways, and becomes encoded in social norms, social organization, institutions, and so forth. Often, the process will become obscured, even distorted, by intellectual activity. But it is always there, underlying the entire structure of society, language, and knowledge.

Of course, the Left did not always enjoy high status. They were fiercely persecuted by a conservative, elitist establishment that sought to ban, criminalize, and suppress the their ideas. Unfortunately, that establishment suffered from the common human malady of egotism and short-sightedness, while the Left benefited not only from their pitiless revolutionary energy, but also from gifted intellectuals who found the way to exploit the characteristics of Western culture to advance the Leftist cause.

It is difficult to portray Susan Sontag in a flattering manner. Nevertheless, images of she who once said "the white race is the cancer of human history" convey status and prestige: she is photographed against book-lined walls, often deep in thought; her younger and older portraits are highly stylised, and she appears serious, distant, iconic.

The Left relied heavily on a very elaborate body of theory, which, because of its radical aims, on the surface differs greatly from that upon which the Left's inegalitarian opponents tend to rely. Yet, a close study of Leftist theories uncovers surprisingly numerous correspondences of insight between the egalitarian and the inegalitarian factions. The former's recipes for solving world problems may differ, the former's concepts and terminology may differ, and the former's explanations may differ. But when it comes human nature and the order of things, a number of fundamental verities are found in common with the inegalitarian view beneath the masses of verbiage. That the Left share a number of our key insights with regards to humans and human societies is silently but eloquently demonstrated by the Leftists' typical choice of neighbourhood: They tend to preach multiculturalism, yet live in all-White communities.

This alone would have been insufficient to guarantee the triumph of the Left. There is no doubt that they benefited from events not entirely in their control, such as the outcome of a number of European wars. However, there is also no doubt that they fought a degenerate establishment: where the conservative, elitist establishment was egotistical, short-sighted, and focused on the past, the radical Left was idealistic, long-sighted, and focused on the future. Antonio Gramsci's "march through the institutions" did not assume thinking in terms of the next quarterly profit report or the next general election.

Once the Left began gaining acceptability and ascending in status, Leftist activists and intellectuals devoted a great deal of effort to the conferring of social prestige to their luminaries, their vision, and their ideals, while disprivileging  radically critiquing  the luminaries, the traditions, and the ideals of the establishment they sought to replace. In other words, they waged a war of status, and if they became proficient debaters and persuaders in the media, in universities, or in the political campaign trail, they remained focused on the status of their opponents and their opponents' ideas. Hence, the liberal use by the Left of degrading, shut-up words like "racist", "Nazi", and "anti-Semite"; the creation of negative White identities in educational textbooks; and the outrageous promotion of anti-White stereotypes in advertisement and Hollywood films. These words, identities, and stereotypes do not constitute evidence or logical proof of anything: They are simply an attack on an opponent's status.  

The Case of Kevin MacDonald 

The $PLC's campaign against Kevin MacDonald is well known in White advocacy circles. Is it a surprise, then, given what has been said above, that said campaign has focused purely on his status of university professor? It will be noted that Professor MacDonald's opponents have been less worried about his theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy than about his professional position and title. It will be noted also that the generalized refusal to debate Professor MacDonald is based on the fear that the latter's status may be enhanced by (a) his being attacked by, or pitted against, a prestigious opponent; (b) his putting himself across as an honest, sensible, and intelligent academic; (c) his proving to have a charismatic or sympathetic character; and (d) his being successful. They fear this because they know that the data are too abundant and complex for most laymen to be able accurately to evaluate it: Sides on a debate are chosen usually on the basis of who the spectator would rather associate with; and, for all practical purposes, the side that is right on a debate is the side that looks better and makes the spectator feel better about himself. A professorship tends to make a spectator more receptive, as an argument articulated by a professor then appears to emanate from an authoritative, high-status source, which in turn infuses the argument with high status. Adopting the intellectual positions of high-status individuals is a proxy method for laymen to signal their own high status.

The demonization of Kevin MacDonald: the enemy have attacked his status — never sought to debate him.

The ideal outcome for Professor MacDonald's detractors would be, therefore, to have him fired. Their main source of frustration is the fact that his tenured status protects him from their politically motivated efforts to silence him. (That is what tenure was meant to do, incidentally). And as long as he continues to hold the title of tenured professor, employed by a large state university, enjoying a middle class lifestyle, residing in a respectable part of town, and having high status friends and associates, Kevin MacDonald cannot be dismissed as a crank, a conspiracy theorist, a dysfunctional reprobate, an idiot, or a paranoid nut.

Unable to have him fired and relegated to the dole queue, Professor MacDonald's enemies have, consequently, attempted to undermine his personal status by traducing him in the media, embarrassing his employers, scaring his colleagues, and sowing antagonism and distrust among his students. Professor MacDonald's enemies hope that if they create around him visible signs of marginalization and ostracism, of his having a low social status, his ideas will become déclassé, and will therefore scare people off associating themselves with them. No one wants to be scorned.

Professor MacDonald has combated these efforts by defending his position as well as going on the offensive, and escalating that offensive each time his opponents have renewed their campaign against him. His courage and fortitude in the face of adversity, being admirable and difficult qualities, have largely frustrated his attackers. Indeed, judging from the ever-growing internet traffic passing through his website, and the fact that he has even been immortalized in popular fiction, he appears to have increased his readership and support base, and therefore his status as a man. No doubt Professor MacDonald's enemies are exasperated by his energy. So they should. Personally, I enjoy imagining their fury as they notice how his website thrives, publishing ever more articles, by ever more authors, at an ever increasing pace, to an ever growing audience; I enjoy imaging their banging their heads against stone walls, over and over again, until their foreheads crack open and bleed, as they see their anti-MacDonald campaigns backfire; I enjoy imagining them blasted into lunacy every time they see The Occidental Observerdisseminating information they would rather suppress, in articles that bear hallmarks of high social status: erudition, sophisticated syntax, educated diction, tasteful style, and nuanced argumentation.  

Money Matters 

Professor MacDonald's The Occidental Observer does occupy a unique place on the internet. It has attracted a high quality roster of authors and it has consistently presented an intelligent alternative perspective to current social, cultural, and political issues and events. But this alone is not enough. While it is true that the information and arguments presented on this website are as accessible to the cybernaut as the disinformation and sophistry presented on establishment internet media, more important than the accessibility and the quality of the information and the arguments is the ability to confer upon these an aura of prestige  the ability to present them in a manner that signals high social status. If the reason we have failed to make progress despite having the arguments and the data on our side is the fact that our side has overlooked the truly crucial role of status, then it is clear that a focus on projecting an aura of prestige while undermining that of the enemy ought to be one of the keys to success. Nothing succeeds like success, the saying goes.

This, however, requires funds.

Modern technology makes it possible for The Occidental Observer to be run on a shoestring, so long as the authors and the technical personnel are able and in a position to donate their labor. I believe that all of them are willing to continue to do so. There comes a point, however, when, in order to take things to the next level, and increase the website's effectiveness as a weapon of cultural war, additional resources are needed. Establishment internet media typically boast cutting-edge design and features; they run dozens of articles on a daily basis; they are able to pay, and therefore attract and employ, the best, the most ambitious, and the most talented writers; they are fully interactive; they are able to attract corporate advertisers and sponsors, and charge top dollar for a collection of pixels; and they are able to fully staff their operation with the qualified specialists that make it all run smoothly and seamlessly.

1925 Rolls Royce Phantom

All of this both derives from, and confers power to, establishment internet media, enabling them to attract and hold the attention of millions of readers, whose opinions and attitudes they form on a daily basis, year after year, decade after decade. "It was published in mainstream sources," a reader will often say, knowing that the prestige of establishment media is sufficient to cause the average interlocutor to believe the information. If we are going to do more than bemoan the power of the establishment media, we have to raise our game and compete on the same level. Otherwise, the public will continue to see us as marginal, unimportant, fringe, weird, low status, embarrassing, and best avoided. This is why the Left wages a war of status: by preventing dissidents from attaining qualifications or obtaining gainful employment, and by stripping qualified and gainfully employed dissidents of their sources of status, they limit dissidents' access to power, and therefore to the resources they need to wage a decisive war.

I have argued before that intellectual honesty is only possible where there is financial security and independence. There are millions of people out there, including thousands of highly accomplished writers and professionals, who privately agree, or at least sympathize, with the positions argued on this website. Most dare not make their opinions public, because they fear that associating themselves with obviously disprivileged ideas may lead to loss of employment and therefore to loss of status. An enormous amount of talent is being wasted this way  wasted, because it is not being put in the service of a good cause (our cause), and is, by default, put in the service of a bad one (the enemy's cause). If we are to change this, we have to make our side financially secure and financially independent.

Reliable access to funds would make it possible to improve the design of this website (a professional design firm could be hired); it would make it possible to add a variety of modern, interactive features that would keep visitors interested for longer, such as video and audio; it would make it possible for Kevin to give his writers added financial independence (I have my own business ventures, so I do not need to write under a pseudonym, but others do not have that luxury, and yet others will not write even under a pseudonym); it would make it possible for Kevin to hire one or two staff, who can assist him with editorial and other tasks, freeing time for him to devote to writing and campaigning; it would make it possible to line up an able successor (the editor is already 66); it would make it possible to attract new writers and, in time, even create career opportunities, like analogous mainstream websites. Would it not be nice to have a journalistic career where you get paid to kick the enemy and make him squeal day after day? Where pounding the enemy and exposing his perfidy leads to a nice car and a huge house and awards and a high quality mate? (That is how the Left lives! They have it good.)

Most importantly in relation to my discussion of status, it would make it possible for this website not only to be important, but to lookimportant, thus conferring added legitimacy and prestige to our side of the cultural argument. Consider that a great number of those visiting a website will stay for less than one second: it takes that long for them to make up their minds. Status is apprehended very rapidly. From this it follows that whatever those visitors see during that fraction of a second is absolutely vital. Let us not look like losers for lack of pennies. Let us look like winners, and make mainstream types look up at us and drool with envy, and exclaim to themselves, their eyes rolling out of their sockets, "WOAH… I want to be like them!"

The enemy would really hate that. 

 

Alex Kurtagic (email him) was born in 1970. He is the author ofMister (published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.

Permanent link:http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-Fundraiser.html 

--

The World's Most Important Visual Holocaust Revisionist Website! 

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com


__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___