Saturday, 21 May 2011

The Apartheid Bread and Circus Show in Washington

By Richard Edmondson

Times are tough in America, for sure—but never too tough for a bread-and-circus spectacle such as that set to get underway Sunday in Washington. I’m talking about the AIPAC Policy Conference, of course. If the the Lobby’s website is anything to go by, this year’s conference promises to be one of the biggest ever, with more than 10,000 delegates from all 50 states in attendance, and of course it should make a nice diversion for millions of out of work Americans as they watch the evening news while eating their macaroni and cheese dinners, their elected officials, one by one, coming forward, groveling and pledging their undying devotion to Israel.

As we see from AIPAC’s list of scheduled speakers, the lineup will include a speech from this somewhat dubious character:

Meet Steny Hoyer, congressman from Maryland. Aside from having the facial features of a bordello keeper par excellence, Steny, surprise surprise, is an avid supporter of Israel, who last year, along with numerous other members of Congress, signed a letter calling for an end to public criticism of the Zionist state. Sounds like a real champion of free speech, doesn’t he? The letter was circulated after a brief spat between the Obama administration and Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel’s ongoing policy of settlement building on Palestinian land, and included the following line: “Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence.” Among Steny’s other stellar accomplishments on behalf of his Maryland constituents is support for granting immunity to telecom companies who participated in the Bush era’s warrantless surveillance program against millions of unsuspecting Americans.

Also taking the podium will be this somewhat muculent little creature who oozed out of the political mud in the state of Virginia:

Eric Cantor has been a congressman from Virginia’s seventh district since 2001. The year after taking office, he voted in favor of the Iraq war, and more recently has called for “crippling sanctions” on Iran—a nation he views as “the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.” As for domestic issues, Cantor voted in favor of bailing out banks (the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program), this occurring immediately after he had opposed an increase in the minimum wage the previous year. Money for the rich, but not for the poor, as it were. (Sigh.) Neither does he seem kindly disposed toward the idea of American workers having union representation. The AFL-CIO has given Cantor a 0% approval rating. Ah! But this Jewish Republican, who became House Majority Leader in January, does love Israel with a glowing passion! Last year, shortly after the midterm elections, Cantor assured a visiting Netanyahu that he and his fellow Republicans in Congress would “serve as a check” on the Obama administration in the event of any possible disagreements with the Zionist state. Cantor was in effect stating that should policy disputes break out, he, Cantor, would side with Israel against his own government.

And of course the AIPAC crowd anticipates its due homage from this lovably surprising chap:

In 2008, Obama managed to convince large numbers of antiwar leftists to vote for him in the belief he would end the wars and bring the troops home. Well, of course, we now know that didn’t happen. He also didn’t keep his promises to close Guantanamo or to fight for a “public option” in his health care initiative, but then spinelessness, waffling, and disingenuousness have long been traits of Democrats. Indeed. On the key issue of the Palestine-Israel conflict, the president’s record has been one of vacillation and docility in the face of Zionist pressure. In the first year of his administration, Obama called for a halt to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, while his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, even went so far as to declare the settlements “illegitimate.” But then both incurred the disfavor of the pro-Israel crowd and immediately retreated from their positions—and earlier this year Obama ordered his U.N. ambassador to veto a resolution condemning the settlements as illegal. Oh yes, and last Thursday, in his “major speech” on the Middle East, our flint-eyed, steel-jawed leader expressed the view that it might be perhaps sorta kinda nice if Israel would withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. Well, well! you might say—and certainly we could theorize, given the political capital he has accrued from the “bin Laden assassination,” that this time around Obama might—yes he just might—conceivably throw caution to the wind and stand his ground! Oooo! Wouldn’t that be something! I don’t look for it to happen, however. When AIPAC flexes its muscles in response to this cheeky affront, as inevitably it must, Obama, I fear sadly, will revert to his true character: a simpering, limp-wristed Israeli puppet. Moreover his “major speech” last Thrusday, as also Hillary’s swollen and fustian introduction, contained impolite eruptions of the sort of flatulent hypocrisy the world has come to expect from America in the era of Zionist domination of Washington.

Other speakers at the Israel Apartheid Fest will include House Majority Leader John Boehner, who wants to cut programs that benefit the poor (what few such programs there are left that is, and there aren’t many) uh, but not of course war spending; Jim Woolsey, a former director of the CIA who within hours of the 911 events appeared on national TV suggesting that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were behind the attack; Dan Senor, of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former chief spokesperson for the “Coalition Provisional Authority” in occupied Iraq; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; plus two other U.S. senators, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and John Thune of South Dakota, among others. And of course, last but not least, in the role of godfather-consigliere, his ring most certainly to be kissed, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel.

In a recent post I speculated on the possibility that apartheid and political repression might become Israel’s chief exports to the world. Apartheid of course comes from the Dutch word, apart, or “separate,” and is a system under which separate laws are applied to different groups of people based upon their race, caste, or the like. Consider the case of Javed Iqbal and you begin to see signs that the United States has already begun to move in that direction. In 2006 Iqbal, a Pakistani immigrant who operated a business as a satellite TV provider in Staten Island, New York, was arrested and charged with providing material support for terrorism. His crime? Including broadcasts of Al Manar, a television station operated by Hezbollah, among the channels he offered his customers (along with various and sundry other channels, including Christian evangelists).

“Are you aware of Al Manar’s relationship to Hezbollah?” Iqbal was asked by his Jewish judge, Richard Berman. The defendant replied in the affirmative, whereupon Berman informed him he could be facing 15 years in prison. The punishment ended up being not quite that harsh, however. Under a plea bargaining agreement reached with his Jewish prosecutor, Lev L. Dassin, of the Southern District of New York, Iqbal entered a guilty plea in return for a lesser sentence of five and a half years. The sentence was formally handed down in April of 2009. Mr. Iqbal, who had immigrated to America some 20 years prior to his legal troubles, is presumably at this moment serving his time behind bars.

So how is it, we might ask, that in America, where we supposedly have “freedom of speech,” a man can go to prison for the “crime” of airing a TV channel? The railroading of Iqbal was sharply criticized by David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, who likened it to a McCarthy-era witch hunt. “Mr. Iqbal is being penalized for doing nothing more than facilitating speech, and is being punished not because the speech itself is harmful, but because it is associated with Hezbollah,” he said. Others compared it to a hypothetical case of China trying to block CNN, or the government of Iran, say, banning the New York Times. But Berman rejected such arguments, claiming the case was about nothing more than a defendant who “ran afoul of legitimate laws designed to protect against terrorism.”

Now compare Iqbal’s case to that of Ben-ami Kadish, who was arrested in 2008 and charged with spying for Israel. Kadish, like Iqbal, pled guilty to the charges against him, but unlike Iqbal, this Zionist, who grew up in British mandate Palestine and fought with the Haganah , was not sentenced to prison; instead, he was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. You read that right. For actively working as a spy for a foreign nation, Kadish was fined rather than imprisoned.

After his immigration to the U.S., our Zionist spy, Mr. Kadish, secured employment at the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center at Dover, New Jersey, where he held a job from 1963 to 1990. According to Wikipedia, it was during this time—specifically the years 1979-85—he served as an agent for Israel, taking documents from the military facility and handing them over to an Israeli hander, documents which included information about nuclear weapons, Patriot missiles, and a modified F-15 jet fighter. Kadish’s activities apparently became known to the government as early as 1985, but incredibly charges were not brought against him until 2008—something the judge in the case raised as a point of contention. “The offense is a grave one that implicates the national security of the United States,” said Judge William H. Pauley in a ruling on the case on May 29, 2009. “Why it took the government 23 years to charge Mr. Kadish is shrouded in mystery,” he added.

In handing down his light sentence, Pauley also cited Kadish’s advanced age (85 years old at the time), but made clear his opinion that “the government could have charged Mr. Kadish with far more serious crimes.”

What can we make of these two respective cases other than that they stand as a symptom, an indicator, of a sort of “creeping apartheid.” In America, a land founded upon justice and equality under the law, spying for Israel will now get you less of a sentence than airing a TV station. It is sad but true: in American jurisprudence, spying for Israel has essentially been reduced to a simple misdemeanor.

The gala Apartheid event in Washington will also include, we are told, a “Seudah Shlishit,” a “Mincha,” a “Maariv,” and a “Kiddush.” Not sure what these words mean? Below is a helpful guide.

Seudah Shlishit—a “third meal” customarily eaten by Jews on Saturdays, or Sabbath.

Kiddush—a blessing recited over a cup of wine or over bread on the Sabbath or on a festival

Mincha—an afternoon service—the second of three periods of daily prayer in Judaism.

Maariv—evening service

Those who belong to the vast, goyim underclass might want to start familiarizing themselves with terms such as these. In apartheid America, your life, or at any rate staying out of prison, may one day depend on it.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

No comments: