Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeU_5YmS_9E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367
What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!
Sep 8, 2010
A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE - Excerpt 2
Five Monkeys in a Cage, or, How Congress Operates [1 Attachment]
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/five-monkeys-cage-or-how-congress-operates
Attachment(s) from Michael
1 of 1 Photo(s)
Murderers Bragged They Robbed and Hurt a “White Boy;” Media Mum | American Third Position
http://american3p.org/?p=1172
Peace.
Michael Santomauro @ 917-974-6367
What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!
Should Saudi King Abdullah invite Netanyahu to Riyadh?
My first response was to say to myself, "That proves Friedman doesn't understand the complexities of the conflict and is at least a little bit bonkers." But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that King Abdullah should do what Friedman suggested.
In a moment I'll get to what I think the Arabs and the Palestinians especially would have to gain without losing anything, but first here's the essence what Friedman wrote.
He noted that eight years have passed since the Arab peace initiative pushed by Abdullah when he was Crown Prince was presented to, and approved by, an Arab League summit in Beirut.
(It offered a full and final peace, including the normalizing of relations between the entire Arab region and Israel, in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugee problem).
Friedman then commented that the plan has been "floating out there in the ether of diplomatic possibilities" ever since its approval in 2002. "It is time to bring it out of the air. King Abdullah should invite Mr. Netanyahu to Riyadh and present it to him personally."
Friedman went on:
"Abdullah need not go to Jerusalem, as Anwar Sadat did, or recognize Israel. He can, though, still have a huge impact on the process by simply handing his plan to the leader for whose country it was intended. I can't think of anything that would get these peace talks off to a better start. It feels to me as though Netanyahu is taking this moment seriously, but he is still very wary. By handing him the Abdullah plan, the Saudi monarch would unleash a huge peace debate in Israel. It would make it more difficult for Netanyahu to continue settlement building – and spur an Israeli public that is also still wary to urge Netanyahu to take risks for peace and support him for doing so. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader today who can deliver a deal.
"The Saudis can't just keep faxing their peace initiative to Israelis. That has no emotional punch. It actually says to Israelis: if the Saudis are afraid to hand us their plan, why should we believe they'll have the courage to implement it if we do everything they suggest? Israelis are isolated. Seeing their prime minister received by the most important Muslim leader in the world in Riyadh would have a real impact.
"Both Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to do something really hard to produce a two-state solution. Saudi officials have developed a reputation in Washington for being experts at advising everyone else about the hard things they must do, while being reluctant to step out themselves. This is their moment – to do something hard and to do something important."Netanyahu has apparently said that he will go anywhere for peace, so let's suppose for the sake of discussion that King Abdullah does invite him to Riyadh and he goes.
Either at his meeting with Abdullah to take personal delivery of the Arab peace plan or afterwards, Netanyahu would say there was one element of it that was completely unacceptable to all Israelis – the proposal that a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem should be on the basis of UN Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948. Its key words are the following:
"… the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."Down the years (and consistent with its Nakba denial), Israel has put two fingers up to Resolution 194 and denied the Palestinians a right of return, on the grounds that conceding the right would be an act of national suicide. As it was put, for example, by Likud spokesman Zalman Shoval in March 2007, "If 300,000-400,000, or maybe a million, Palestinians would invade the country, that would be the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state."
A truth, which all of Israel's leaders have known for many years, is that the Palestinian right of return does not have to be an obstacle to peace unless they want it to be. Under the pragmatic Arafat's leadership, the decision was taken to accept that in the event of a genuine and viable two-state solution, the right of return would have to be limited to the territory of the Palestinian state. Though they could not say so in public, Arafat and his leadership colleagues were completely aware this would mean that probably not more than 100,000 refugees would be able to return and that the rest would have to settle for compensation.
Another truth is that Jerusalem does not have to be an obstacle to peace unless Israel's leaders want it to be. If they don't want Jerusalem to be divided again, the Arabs will say, "Okay. Let it be an open, undivided city and the capital of two states."
My point so far is that if Netanyahu did go to Riyadh, he would discover that the Arab peace plan of 2002, subject only to clarifications of the flexibility of the Arab position on the right of return and Jerusalem, actually offers what a rational Israeli government and people would accept with relief.
What would the Arabs and the Palestinians especially have to gain if King Abdullah did invite Netanyahu to Riyadh and he went?
In one scenario, and assuming that most Israelis are not beyond reason (an assumption I do not make), it might unleash what Friedman described as a "huge peace debate in Israel." And that just might open the door to peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could just about accept.
In another scenario – continued Israeli rejection of the Arab peace plan of 2002 – it would enable King Abdullah and all of his Arab brothers at leadership level to say to the world, and America especially, something like: "Now you cannot be in any doubt about what the obstacle to peace is – Zionism. If you really want peace, you must now play your part and use the leverage you have to call and hold Zionism to account for its crimes."
If that didn't mobilize support in the Western world for an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all, nothing ever will.
Footnote:
Some readers will say that a genuine and viable two-state solution, even if it was possible, is unacceptable because it would not provide the Palestinians with enough justice. My response is quite simple. One state for all is by far the best solution for all; but because of the reality of the existence of a nuclear-armed Zionist entity, the two-state solution is the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to get.
--
The secret to happiness–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro
DR KEVIN MACDONALD, AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN...
DR KEVIN MACDONALD, AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN, is a Professor of Psychology at the California State University.
As the author of several books, Dr MacDonald outlines Jewry's quest to destroy White Christian culture through intellectual and political movements.
Brother Nathanael: The Jewish journalist, Jonah Goldberg, wrote an article last week for the LA Times titled "Glenn Beck's Ecumenical Moment" in praise of Beck's rally in DC. What are your thoughts on this?
Kevin MacDonald PhD: First of all, before I get to Goldberg, the massive crowds of White people that came to Beck's rally who are worried about their future as "Whites" are being lulled to sleep by this new Elmer Gantry.
All that implicit Whiteness showed up with no place to go. When Whites put on a rally for an overwhelmingly White constituency, they feel a need to pledge allegiance to America as not really having an ethnic identity.
Hence the need for a flood of non-White speakers that Beck waltzed out onto the stage.
As for Goldberg, he displayed his true Jewish intent by being thrilled that Beck isn't hitting on the real issues that are causing deep anxiety and anger among Whites.
Br Nathanael: How so?
Kevin MacDonald: Goldberg highlighted the fact that although crowd was "preponderantly white" - the message was "racially universal."
This is the Jewish dream of a multicultural America where everyone gets along as one big happy family. It's the impossible dream that ignores racial realities, such as IQ differences that inevitably result in racial stratification in the absence of enormous, resentment-inducing government efforts.
This Jewish fantasy also ignores the reality of multicultural societies: Less social cohesion and increased social conflict.
The pathetic thing is that Beck is leading the charge into this impossible harmonious future under the banner of Tea Party conservatism.
Br Nathanael: Getting back to Goldberg, does he have any sympathy for White interests?
Kevin MacDonald: As a Jewish `intellectual,' Goldberg is horrified at any suggestion that Whites will define themselves as `Whites' and seek to advance their interests.
In his article, Goldberg wrote: "I find Beck's populism terrifying. But his basic message, flaws notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people regardless of race, religion or creed."
What Goldberg is not admitting is that Jews refuse to be thrown into this "people-pudding" — they remain a people apart — but relish the fact that Whites will lose their identity and their consciousness by being tossed into this multicultural mush.
Thus, our new Elmer Gantry is praised by Goldberg and the Jewish crowd he represents since Beck preaches the proposition nation gospel that assigns Whites, not Jews, as water boys of slogans and cliches rather than bearers of blood and soil.
FOLLOW THE LEADER? Br Nathanael: It was Fox News that sponsored the Beck rally and its message. How can we break through the media control of discourse on racial issues?
Kevin MacDonald: I don't have any easy solutions. That's what makes the Glenn Beck phenomenon so pathetic.
Here's a guy who has an immense following of angry White people yearning for leadership that would really help their plight. And all he can come up with is a vague commitment to traditional values and the Constitution.
What matters to Whites is that they are becoming a minority and seeing their cultural and political power disappearing — in spite of Beck calling the rally "non-political" and stopping the attendees from bringing "political signs." That's part of the treachery.
And all of Beck's talk about the Constitution is just another strain of the serenade. The Constitution will be completely irrelevant when Whites become a minority.
Br Nathanael: What about Beck's appeal to religion and the founding fathers? Isn't this part of White tradition?
Kevin MacDonald: Beck's altar call to "turn back to God" is red meat for the Tea Partiers — guaranteed to bring tears to the eye.
But the pleas to religion and the founding fathers are just another version of the proposition nation creed: All will be well if we accept a certain set of universal ideas with no ethnic content.
Br Nathanael: But isn't turning back to God a good thing for America?
Kevin MacDonald: Which "god?" In what "history?"
During Beck's "turn back to God" speech, he placed behind him a rabbi, a Native American, and a White.
Turning to them with arms outstretched, Beck proclaimed: "Here are God's chosen people, the Native Americans, and the pilgrims. When people came together of different faiths, the first thing they did was to pray together."
Rewriting history and remaking `god' to suit media dogma is certainly not the mark of the kind of leader Tea Party Whites are craving for.
Br Nathanael: Do Whites realize they are being betrayed by Beck?
Kevin MacDonald: I think for now Whites only realize that they are coming up empty but are not sure why.
Beck's attendees were overwhelmingly White because Whites are angry and deeply anxious about their future as other groups expand their power and as Whites are increasingly victimized as Whites, in everything from affirmative action to violent crime.
But Whites can't explicitly state that this is a war against them. So they end up pledging allegiance to the very things that are dispossessing them.
The worst part is that it gives Beck's gullible audience hope that there are easy, painless solutions. We can do it if we just BELIEVE.
Br Nathanael: What can White Americans do to salvage their plight?
Kevin MacDonald: Whites have first of all got to clearly define for themselves and then as a bloc what their concerns are and insist that `leaders' specifically articulate their issues.
But at present, they just can't seem to break with the ruling ideology, of which, Beck is the leading pulpiteer.
Until they do, Whites will just keep on losing and getting more and more desperate.
And that, in a nutshell, is the argument of the American Third Position Party, of which, I am on the Board of Directors. I invite your readers to check us out.
See Dr MacDonald's American Third Position Party Here
"STOP SLANDERING THE JEWS" ; FIDEL CASTRO TO AHMADINEJAD
"STOP SLANDERING THE JEWS" ; FIDEL CASTRO TO AHMADINEJAD desertpeace | September 8, 2010 at 09:11 | Categories: Cuba, Holocaust denial, Iran | URL: http://wp.me/pahWK-4fY |
Fidel Castro tells Ahmadinejad: Stop bashing the Jews
"The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust," ageing revolutionary tell U.S. journal The Atlantic.
Cuba's former leader Fidel Castro has urged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop slandering the Jews, according to an article published on the U.S. website The Atlantic on Tuesday.
The ageing revolutionary devoted much of a five-hour conversation to the issue of anti-Semitism, wrote Jeffrey Goldberg, who interviewed Castro in the Cuban capital Havana.
Castro told The Atlantic that the Iranian government should understand the consequences anti-Semitism.
"This went on for maybe two thousand years," he said. "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything."
He added: "The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust."
Asked by Goldberg if he would repeat his comments to Ahmadinejad, Castro said. "I am saying this so you can communicate it."
Ahmadinejad has publicy called the Holocaust "a myth", claiming Jews exaggerated the Nazi genocide to win sympathy from European governemnts.
--
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
Tikun Olam : Mossad Recruiting U.S. Muslims, CIA Poll Ranks Israeli Intelligence Most Aggressive of Those Within U.S.
Mossad Recruiting U.S. Muslims, CIA Poll Ranks Israeli Intelligence Most Aggressive of Those Within U.S.
Jeff Stein, writing about intelligence matters at the Washington Post, notes a recent poll of CIA personnel ranking U.S. allies from best to worst in terms of the nature of their coöperation and relationship with our spy agency. Here's the result:
"Israel came in dead last," a recently retired CIA official told me the other day.
Not
--
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
The Awful Price for Teaching Less Than We Know
|