Salem-News.com reader responds to article, Why We Criticize Israel by Tim King.
A growing trend that national mainstream media always ignores; a whole lot of really awesome Jewish people who know the harm Israel represents, and are anti-Zionist. Courtesy: KABOBfest
|
(SALEM, Ore.) - I read ‘Scott’s” comment of January 23, 2011 10:41 am (Pacific time) and a few other pro-Zionist ones and wish to respond as an American citizen.
I haven’t yet heard a good reason as of YET to why post-World War II Zionists (which includes politicians and others who weren’t/aren’t even Jewish) wanted NON-Germans who were then living around the lands of Palestine [including what is now Israel] to pay the price of dispossession from their property for what the Germans & Hitler did during the holocaust of World War II to Jews in Eastern Europe.
I think Tikva Honig-Parnass explains quite well in a variety of interviews the Jewish-Zionist mind-think in 1948, and how she was personally involved in seeing that Palestinians were dispossessed of their lands.
One interview with transcript is found here:
Additionally, a website out of the U.K. is quite historically accurate on how Israel ‘came to be” [in 1948] only after decades of behind the scenes international Zionist advocacy. My comment; a few Irgun bombings were in part responsible also, it could be argued. The website is out-front in that it was produced: “To expose the Zionist lies which, for far too long, have been presented and accepted as the true scenario of how Israel came about in 1948.” The website url: http://www.1948.org.uk/our-statement/
Let me add my thoughts to others comments: It is estimated between 10 and 28 million Africans were kidnapped and shipped overseas during the international slave trade. We will never know the exact number of persons who were kidnapped, many never even made it to their proposed destinations and died at sea. I will describe the descendants (now outside of Africa) of their 'kidnapped' ancestors as the ‘African Diaspora’. North America, South America, the West Indies are still the primary locations of the African-slave ‘Diaspora’, and Europe and India also, of course.
 This map shows the new colonies created by European nations between 1885 and 1914. Your teacher will download and distribute copies of this map. |
As a side note regarding he Balfour Declaration copy given to British Lord Rothschild, signed by Balfour. It is since known [facts were exposed in the British House of Commons in 1939] to have not been written by Balfour, but instead by a onetime prior-named trustee of Lord Rothschild’s estate.
Perhaps the British should have had given the same considerations for the disposed descendants of Africans kidnapped from Africa, and therefore issued a special ‘Balfour Declaration’ styled for the African- slave ‘Diaspora’ as the British did for the Jewish Diaspora? I think not, but it can certainly be argued that the African Diaspora deserved similar irrational consideration as the Jewish Diaspora Zionists.
Take a look at a map of Africa from 1914; it is heart-sickening to see the areas of Africa still controlled by European colonial powers on the African continent in 1914; I suppose one could say that the areas of Africa were also ‘the spoils of war’ for Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, et al.
Of course descendants of African slaves weren’t much involved in the managing of many of international banking houses of Europe and the United States during World War I. Money was loaned for Britain to prevail in World War I, loans so Britain could succeed in gaining that ‘Spoil of War’ (namely areas of Palestine); the chunk of geography which would be then promised to a Jewish-Zionist member of the British House of Lords, Rothschild.
Additionally, I am not convinced that what the Romans did 2,000 years ago should be visited upon innocent people 2,000 years later by stealing their lands. African civilizations pre-date the ‘twelve tribes’ by at least a few millennium or more, so I would say slave descendants have a stronger claim to Africa than Zionists do to the lands of Israel. Additionally, the treatment of kidnapped Africans and Africans killed to 'imperialize' Africa was certainly a Black ‘holocaust’. (Yes, I know about Liberia. Two World Wars weren’t needed to secure a return to Africa by American-slave descendants.)
I think Zionism and especially American Zionists are absolutely intellectually dishonest. American Zionists were (and are) acting completely un-American to have in the past (or present) brought support a policy of ethno-religious centrism as a basis for politically “creating” another country for a distinct ethno-religious group. This type of behavior was and is absolutely against the precepts of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; and is therefore purely antithetical for any U.S. citizen to support.
I know, I know; mostly white, Christian Americans did something similar to the Native Americans while bandying about a ‘Manifest Destiny’ ideology (excuse) which was as morally dishonest (then) as Zionist ideology (excuse) is today. It was and is all about aggression, greed and political conniving under fanatical banners of enforcing oppressive ideologies upon others by TAKING THEIR LANDS as if by some kind of “divine” right, which of course is totally illegitimate and immoral. No human speaks for anyone’s God.
Also, African-slave descendants didn’t start terrorist cells (like the Irgun) after World War I so as to force a geopolitical “Mandate” based on their African-ethnic unity; they didn’t seek a “Law of Return” so as to dispossess other ‘Blacks” in Africa for geography as Zionist Jews did to dispossess other Semites from lands in the Middle East.
After all, Arabs are Semites too, and everyone knows this, especially Helen Thomas who pays a price at ninety years of age for Zionist fanaticism that has enveloped the United States. I am not anti-Arab, nor anti-Jew, but I am certainly anti-American Zionists whether they be Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi or whatever religion or no religion, because their politics of supporting Zionism and therefore Israel is fundamentally immoral. We can’t roll back the clock, but we can use the power of the purse and the ballot box to diminish the permeation of the un-American ideology of Zionism in the U.S. [an effort which should also include outing the planned influence of Hillel chapters within U.S. colleges as they seek to control discourse about Israel’s right to exist and silence dissenting opinions regarding the same].
Indicative of an aspect of Jewish-American discourse with a Christian-American during the interwar era in America is a notable comment (from around 1927) by a famous Jewish-American Louis Marshall (and onetime head of the “American Jewish Committee”).
Referencing Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and Israel Zangwill (a Jewish-British playwright whose play “The Melting Pot” had been performed for President Theodore Roosevelt years earlier at Zangwill’s insistence), Marshall repeated what Zangwill had once said: “(W)e Jews are after all the only Christians.”
Marshall then added immediately after quoting Zangwill, “that it is because essentially the spirit of forgiveness is a Jewish trait.” Zangwill himself eventually rejected Zionism. Marshall was an avowed anti-Zionist. Tikva Honig-Parnass (mentioned above) also regrets what she perpetrated in the name of “Zionism”.
Another example of a mind-set shift away from Zionism is Peter Bergson (his alias), the primary Irgun emissary to the U.S. before and during World War II. In 1978 during a filmed interview Bergson explained: “There was a period, in order to understand (sic) what happened when the massacre was known, after Rabbi Wise’s press conference…(sic) of course ‘the’ Jews could not have been saved because by the time I heard about it, for instance, there were already 2 million dead, supposedly. I say ‘Jews’ could have been saved, a lot of Jews were saved. The fact is that not every single Jew in Europe was killed. There were Jews left, even in the camps, even next to the crematoria. ”
“There were hundreds of thousands of Jews saved, and by a few steps (sic) there could have been 2 or 3 million Jews saved. (sic) if you go back PRIOR to the extermination, between ’33 and ’41, the Jews – and this is what became clear to me; I ceased being a Zionist in 1943 when I realized what was going on, and I didn’t get into any arguments or fights, but inside to me, to stop being a Zionist was like the Pope being converted to Judaism."
“To me it was a traumatic experience because I was born a Zionist, and I have bitter feelings toward Zionism, because Zionism with its confusion of identity as a political movement failed because it did not clarify the national identity of those Jews who needed Palestine against those Jews who don’t need it. (sic) Hitler was not killing American Jews, Hitler was killing European Jews who had a different characteristic and a different political existence.” (End Bergson quote excerpts)
Of further historic interest (certainly if you are an American) is the U.S Congressional action regarding Palestine, significantly predating the 1947 U.N. vote. Tony Judt (recently deceased) was a cousin of former U.S. Congressman Meyer London (now long-deceased). Judt wrote in a July 2010 book review: “Our cousin Meyer London had emigrated in 1891 to New York from a nearby village; there he was elected in 1914 as the second Socialist congressman before being ousted by an ignominious alliance of wealthy New York Jews disturbed by his socialism and American Zionists aghast at his well-publicized suspicion of their project.”
Indeed, in 1918, with the Democratic and Republican parties united behind a single "fusion" candidate and his own supporters fragmented, London narrowly lost reelection. However, two years later, in 1920, New York’s Lower East Side sent London back to Congress. During London’s second term in Congress, on June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it read: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected."
On September 21, 1922, then U.S. President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
London was defeated for reelection to Congress two months later. However, London had distinguished himself in Congress during his first term (1915-1919), in that he was one of 50 representatives and six senators to vote against entry into World War I.
Once America was at war, London felt obliged to support the nation's efforts in the conflict, however, he strongly opposed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which made criticism of the a U.S. President (or the war) a crime.
When the Sedition Act of 1918 came to a vote in the U.S. House, Meyer London cast the ONLY VOTE AGAINST the Act.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment