Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
Stanford University study reveals: “Some 80% of (Jews of colour) respondents said that they had ‘experienced discrimination’ within Jewish settings, including synagogues, congregations, and Jewish spiritual communities.”
By Gilad Atzmon
People who are familiar with the history of Zionism are aware of the rich history of White Jewish (AKA Ashkenazi) abuse towards Arab and Sephardi Jews in Israel. In the years after the creation of the Israeli state hundreds of babies went missing. Their parents, mostly Jewish immigrants from Yemen, were told their children had died, but suspicions linger that they were secretly given away to White Jewish childless families. The Israeli government approved earlier this year a NIS162 million settlement with the families of these ‘vanishing’ children.
Volunteering the Israeli population as guinea pigs wasn’t invented by Netanyahu or/and Pfizer. Blood samples drawn from Yemenites Jews in the 1950s were tested to determine whether they had “Negro blood.” According to the Times of Israel “60 hearts were harvested from the bodies of new immigrants from Yemen post-mortem for purposes of medical research, in a project purportedly funded by the US.” Also in the same period, the Jewish state irradiated children who arrived from North Africa and the Middle East en masse in an attempt to fight ringworm. In the years to follow many of these children died from cancer. In 1995 the Israeli government decided to compensate the victims and families of the Ringworm Affair.
In the late 1950-1960s Jewish immigrants from Morocco were sprayed with DDT as soon as their feet touched the ‘promised land.’ For them, this bitter departure was merely an introduction to decades of abuse and humiliation that is still taking place.
It took the Israeli Government more than a few decades to lift its 1977 ban preventing Jews from Ethiopia donating blood. This late immigration wave of African Jews sent their children to serve in the army and to die for Israel but apparently their blood wasn’t as good as their fellow Israelis.
The Yemenites, Moroccans and Ethiopians have something in common. They are ‘Jews of colour,’ not exactly the most privileged Jews in Israel. Just slightly above the Palestinians and the African non-Jewish immigrants. Some anti-Zionists may insist that this is exactly what we should expect from a racist criminal State. However, the fate of American Jews of colour isn’t any better, in fact it is far worse.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday on a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University that delved into the experiences of American Jews of Color. The new report titled Beyond the Count revealed large and systemic discrimination and scrutinization based on race in the Jewish Society.
The data was gathered at Stanford University by a multi-racial team of researchers, with over 1,118 respondents participating. It revealed that “Some 80% of respondents said that they had ‘experienced discrimination’ within Jewish settings, including synagogues, congregations, and Jewish spiritual communities.”
“Additionally, respondents indicated that they had previously experienced an increased sense of awareness regarding how others perceive them because of either their race or their Jewishness.” Some participants admitted they found it “more difficult for their identities to co-exist in predominantly white Jewish spaces than in Black indigenous people of color spaces.” Furthermore, 44% said they had changed how they dress or speak in white Jewish spaces, and 66% reported feeling “disconnected from their Jewish identities at times.”
I wouldn’t dare to ask Jews or anyone else to morph, to become more tolerant or harmonious, as that is not my task in life. I wouldn’t expect anyone who upholds racist and/or white supremacist views to change their spots. I just expect Jews in general and Jewish institutions (such as the ADL or AIPAC) in particular, to look in the mirror twice before they preach to us about ‘race’ in general or white privilege in particular.
Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid spoke on Wednesday at the seventh Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism. He said that antisemitism was part of a broad family of hatreds, and that antisemites start by attacking Jews but “always” move on to focus their hate and violence on other groups as well.
Lapid insisted that antisemitism was akin to other hatreds, such as ones held by those “who participated in the slave trade.” Presumably the ignoramus isn’t aware that some historians assert that there were Jews prominent in the African slave trade. Lapid also pointed at the “Hutu massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda.” Someone should mention to him that the 1948 Palestinian Nakba was launched with a manifold of Jewish paramilitary massacres of indigenous people. These horrendous actions led to an orchestrated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Lapid maintained that “Antisemitism isn’t the first name of hate, it’s the family name.” I would advise the Israeli foreign minister that if racism is the appropriate family name for most forms of bigotry towards the Other, then chosenness (racial supremacy) should be considered its definitive first name.
If you allowed yourself for a second to believe that Lapid was motivated by a genuine humanist and a universalist agenda to fight racism and hatred, you were obviously wrong. Lapid devised a plan for the goyim: “Jewish people need allies and to enlist everyone who believes it is wrong to persecute people just because of their faith, sexuality, gender, nationality, or the colour of their skin…We need to tell them that antisemitism never ends with the Jews. It will always move on to the next target.”
According to Lapid, the survival of the Jewish nationalist project is dependent on the of the breaking up of the universe into identarian segments, while making sure they all adhere to the Jewish state and the Jewish people’s interests. While the old Jewish Left pushed for a cosmopolitan agenda that removed barriers and borders between people regardless of their race, gender or nationality, the new Jewish progressive agenda is the complete opposite. It is there to divide us by means of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, etc. We are basically witnessing a globalized version of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
Lapid reckons that “the fight isn’t between antisemites and Jews: The fight is between antisemites and anyone who believes in the values of equality, justice and liberty.” But the truth of the matter is that not many states in the world are as removed from ‘values of equality, justice and liberty’ as the Jewish state. Look how Israel treats its African asylum seekers or the black Hebrews. Can you think of any other state that locks millions of people in open air prisons for decades and make them subject to endless brutal blockades?
Many in Israel didn’t approve of Lapid’s speech. Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu has accused the Foreign Minister of “minimizing” the concept of antisemitism and diminishing its uniqueness. Lapid was basically accused of trivializing the Holocaust. He isn’t the first; the ADL accuses yours truly of pretty much the same ‘crime.’
“Even though antisemitism, hatred of Jews, is part of the general human phenomenon of hatred of the foreigner, it is different from that in its strength, its durability over thousands of years and its murderous ideology that has been nourished throughout the generations in order to pave the way for the destruction of Jews.” Netanyahu argued. For a change, I agree with Netanyahu. Jewish history is indeed a chain of catastrophes. Jews have been experiencing rejection and abuse throughout their entire history.
Early Zionism, as such, was indeed a unique and refreshing movement that was destined to change the Jewish path and destiny. It vowed to ‘amend’ the Jews, to make them beloved and respected. No one understood this revolutionary intellectual and spiritual shift in the Jewish mindset better than Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, who wrote what I believe to be one of the best historical dissections of the Early Zionist project. But the truth on the ground and the rise of antisemitsm are probably the best indication that Zionism failed catastrophically. Over time, it is clear that Zionism achieved the complete opposite.
If there are any true Zionist thinkers left in the Jewish world, they should look in the mirror and ask what Israel does to provoke antisemitism. What is it that Jewish lobby groups do that alienate so many people? Such an approach may prove to be more helpful on the long run than Lapid’s tactical offering to make identitarians worldwide into a new league of Zionist mercenaries.
Documentary examines anti-Semitism, and its affect on Israeli and U.S. politics.
Defamation (השמצה) is a 2009 documentary film by award-winning filmmaker Yoav Shamir. It examines antisemitism and, in particular, the way perceptions of antisemitism affect Israeli and U.S. politics. Defamation won Best Documentary Feature Film at the 2009 Asia Pacific Screen Awards.
See also
“I’m hopeful now, and I haven’t been hopeful in a long time. What’s happening now is putting a check on Israel. They have a problem now.”
Jewish-American political analyst Dr Norman Finkelstein speaks to MEE about his views on Israel’s latest offensive in #Gazapic.twitter.com/Xw3ZOwT7on— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 16, 2021
VT: The term “offensive” has jumped a notch. Israel’s most powerful voice in the US has always been Fox News, owned by Israeli Likudist Rupert “Greenbaum” Murdoch. Christopher Bollyn’s work on Murdoch is below.
Then we note that the article we are referencing from the Daily Beast is also curious. They are part of the Newsweek organization, part of a foundation owned by the Harmon family of JBL/Harman Kardon audio group.
The controlling interest there is Jane Harman, former member of congress who tried to have infamous Soviet-Israeli superspy Jonathan Pollard released. She was also accused of using her influence to allow Israeli spies to escape prosecution during the infamous AIPAC espionage trial, now erased from history. See Appendix I. Appendix II will be Kevin McDonald’s parallel article on these same issues. McDonald is a critic of Israel and supports “white identity” which is quite different than “supremacist.”
So, let’s get it straight;
The ADL wants Tucker Carlson fired
Rupert Murdoch is the most important member of the ADL board
Rupert Murdoch employs Tucker Carlson
Rupert Murdoch politically supports white supremacists continually, in the US, in the UK, in Australia and around the world.
Rupert Murdoch is a Jew (outlined below with slam dunk facts) and a Zionist extremist close to Netanyahu…perhaps his “boss”
The article we cite is owned by a similar organization, tied directly to Israeli intelligence and now complaining about Tucker Carlson who many feel is a tool of both Russian and Israeli intelligence.
Tucker Carlson’s reports, when analyzed, direct parallel, based on daily analysis, with RT and Sputnik, cited by DHS as Russian influence organizations targeting the US, making Tucker Carlson extremely suspect
What does that make Rupert Murdoch?
We begin with an article written by Christopher Bollyn in 2011 for the American Free Press:
Murdoch’s Deeply Hidden Jewish Roots — A Biography
By Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press
Christopher Bollyn is an investigative journalist who has written extensively on the events of September 11, 2001 in the Washington-based American Free Press. He has researched different aspects of the 9/11 attacks and uncovered facts and evidence that challenge the official version of events. tried to smear Bollyn as an “anti-Semite” in order to discredit him and diminish the significance of his work. At the helm of both organizations, the ADL and Fox News, is an Australian-born Zionist named Keith Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch’s Jewish Roots
Murdoch “became an American citizen for business reasons,” according to Richard H. Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Keith Rupert was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. “Rupert’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew,” Curtiss wrote, “although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies.”
Murdoch’s father married Elisabeth Joy Greene, daughter of Rupert Greene in 1928. They had one son, Keith Rupert and three daughters. Later in life, Keith Rupert chose to use Rupert, the first name of his Jewish maternal grandfather.
The young Keith Rupert was educated at Australia’s fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England, according to Candour (UK) magazine.
“Rupert’s father Sir Keith Murdoch attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife’s connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town,” Candour wrote in 1984. “For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew.”
While Murdoch may have “tried to hide” his Jewish roots, he has been quite forthright about his support for extreme right-wing Zionists, such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon.
Netanyahu, who wrote a book entitled The War on Terror: How the West Can Win in 1986, is a frequent commentator on Murdoch’s Fox News.
Murdoch’s support for Zionism extremists is well known and a matter of record. As New York Governor George Pataki said, “There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel than the [Murdoch’s] New York Post.”
It is through a network of Zionist organizations, in which Murdoch plays a central role, that Murdoch is connected to the individuals who arranged the privatization – and obtained control of the World Trade Center – shortly before its destruction.
These key individuals are: Larry Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy, the lease holders of dubious repute who gained control of the WTC property six weeks before 9/11, and Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg, who authorized the transfer of the leases.
Murdoch belongs to, and has been honored by, a number of leading Zionist organizations in which Silverstein, Lowy, and Eisenberg all hold senior positions. These organizations include the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), and the New York-based Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust.
Fifty days before 9/11, Silverstein Properties and Lowy’s Westfield America secured 99-year leases on the WTC. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey turned control of the World Trade Center over to the private hands of Silverstein and Lowy on July 24, 2001.
Silverstein and Lowy then took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot complex, which included the twin towers office buildings and two nine-story office buildings. Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Lowy then controlled all access to the World Trade Center.
Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the World Trade Center, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.
“Six weeks before the WTC towers were destroyed, the Port Authority completed the process of leasing them for 99 years to Larry Silverstein, the developer who had built 7 World Trade Center [which mysteriously self-demolished at 5:25 p.m. on 9/11].
“Simultaneously, the retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America, the US division of an Australian company that is one of the world’s largest operators of shopping malls.” Paul Goldberger wrote in New Yorker, May 20, 2002.
“Silverstein and Westfield were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and Westfield has the right to expand the retail space by 30 percent,” Goldberger wrote.
Silverstein is suing for some $7.2 billion in insurance money for the loss of the destroyed World Trade Center – and his expected earnings – for property he had leased with a down payment of $100 million – of borrowed funds.Murdoch the Zionist
“Murdoch is a close friend of Ariel Sharon,” Sam Kiley, The Times (UK) veteran journalist on the Middle East wrote about the man who took over the once famous British paper. Kiley said Murdoch’s friendship with the Israeli prime minister had caused senior staff at the paper to rewrite important copy.
“Murdoch’s executives were so afraid of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop of tracking down and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece ‘without mentioning the dead kid.’” Kiley wrote. “After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit.”
Sharon and Murdoch are old friends. On Oct. 15, 1982, a month after the massacres of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps of Beirut, war crimes which occurred under Sharon’s direct command, the Israeli defense minister held meetings with Rupert Murdoch and others, reportedly in order to advance his “West Bank real estate grab.”
The visit with Sharon included a trip for Murdoch and his editors from New York and London that “took them on a bird’s-eye tour of Israel aboard a helicopter gunship, flying over the Golan Heights, West Bank and settlements.”
“I have always believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community,” Murdoch said at a spring fund-raiser for the Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust on April 29, 2001.
From the beginning, News Corp., his global media company, “has been supportive of the Jewish national cause,” Murdoch said.
Larry Silverstein, who had not yet acquired the lease on the World Trade Center, attended the fund-raiser with Murdoch and reportedly said about museum chairman Robert Morgenthau’s plans to expand the museum: “I’ll support you…as long as you keep it under 110 stories.”Murdoch and the ADL
“Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch and Mortimer Zuckerman are on the [ADL] dinner committee,” according to a recent New York Times report on the ADL’s recent fund-raiser in which the controversial Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi received the ADL’s Distinguished Statesman Award.
Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist “charity” organization, to which Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA’s award for “Humanitarian of the Year.”
Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel. Eisenberg, who was instrumental in obtaining the lease for Silverstein, is on the Planning Board of UJA.
Eisenberg in his role with the Port Authority was the key person who negotiated the 99-year leases for Silverstein and Frank Lowy’s Westfield America, who were in fact the low-bidders for the lease on the 110-story towers and the retail mall.
Murdoch and the Czechoslovakian-born Israeli commando Frank Lowy, a former fighter in Israel’s Golani Brigade, who emigrated to Australia in the 1950s, have had a long friendship, which Murdoch recounted during an American Australian Association fund-raising dinner in honor of Frank’s son, Peter S. Lowy, in New York on November 20, 2002. Larry Silverstein and his wife also attended the American Australian event.
Some reporters refer to the American Australian Association, whose membership includes James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, who raised cash for Rupert Murdoch when he first expanded into the United States, as “the kangaroo mafia.”
“Frank was a brave and determined fighter,” Rafi Kocer, Lowy’s former commander, said. Lowy has donated some $350,000 to build a memorial museum in Israel for his former brigade.
Today, Lowy and his three sons control Westfield Corporation, one of the largest operators of shopping centers in the United States – and the world.Insured Against Terrorist Attacks
On September 12, 2001, The Jerusalem Post reported: “Frank Lowy, who emigrated to Australia from Israel in 1952, owns the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of the destroyed World Trade Center…Westfield said today that it has insurance cover against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected.”
Lowy, is described by the Sydney Morning Herald as “a self-made man with a strong interest in the Holocaust and Israeli politics.”
Jewish Groups Blast Carlson for Openly Endorsing White Supremacist Theory: ‘Tucker Must Go’
‘RACIST AND TOXIC’
The Fox News star on Thursday evening defended the “white replacement theory,” which has served as inspiration for white-supremacist murderers in the U.S. and abroad.
.@TuckerCarlson: “replacement theory” is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites.
It is antisemitic, racist and toxic. It has informed the ideology of mass shooters in El Paso, Christchurch and Pittsburgh.
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) April 9, 2021
The Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups on Friday morning blasted Fox News host Tucker Carlson after the TV talker offered up a passionate defense of the racist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory the night prior.
The theory is a “white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-white,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted on Friday morning, noting that the concept has also served as motivation for several high-profile mass murders.
“It is antisemitic, racist and toxic. It has informed the ideology of mass shooters in El Paso, Christchurch and Pittsburgh,” the ADL leader wrote, adding a call for the TV star’s ouster: “Tucker must go.”
Later on Friday, the ADL released a letter addressed to Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott, listing off other examples of anti-semitic Carlson commentary. “We believe in dialogue and giving people a chance to redeem themselves, but Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far,” the organization wrote.
During a Thursday evening guest appearance on Fox News Primetime, ostensibly to promote his new daytime show on streaming service Fox Nation, Carlson inevitably began to talk about one of his favorite topics: immigration.
Speaking with guest-host Mark Steyn, who has previously touted the white supremacist novel The Camp of the Saints, Carlson rallied to the defense of those who believe the white race is under threat of being replaced and eradicated by immigrants and minorities. read more..
Disloyalty is an age-old issue with Jews, and for a simple reason: Jews often have interests as Jews that stretch beyond national boundaries. Even before the existence of Israel, Diaspora Jews often could be said to have a “foreign policy” in the sense that there was a general consensus among Jews to favor some nations and disfavor others.
For example, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Jews who pretended to be Christians, with the result that Jews in other countries sought Spain’s downfall. From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews. As a result, the organized Jewish community in other countries often opposed Russian interests. Jacob Schiff, the preeminent Jewish activist of the period, financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and he financed revolutionaries in Russia.
At times, Jewish foreign policy interests were in conflict with those of the wider society. In 1908 Schiff also led the successful effort to abrogate the Russian Trade Agreement which was opposed by the Taft Administration as not in the interests of the United States. Schiff’s motive for helping Jews in Russia conflicted with US national interests as understood by the US government.
Questions of disloyalty are by no means unique to Jews. Loyalty issues are common for minority groups living as a Diaspora, as with Overseas Chinese and Indian groups living as minorities abroad. In the US, issues of divided loyalties arose among pre-1965 immigrants who retained attachments to their countries of origin. During World War I, many German-Americans were reluctant to support the Allied cause against Germany because of their ties with their homeland.
The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans. However, assimilation is unlikely for post-1965 immigrant minorities given their racial dissimilarities to the traditionally dominant people and culture of America. This is even more so because of the rise of multiculturalism as a paradigm for Western societies. As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby,
dual loyalty has become legitimate because of the rise of multiculturalism in America — a phenomenon that is due in no small part … to Jewish activism. … Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. … Within the multicultural perspective, there is tolerance for different groups but the result is a tendency to deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity. If there is no national identity, it’s hard to see how there can be a concept of national interest.
However, until the multicultural utopia legitimizes all loyalties in the name of world citizenship, divided loyalties will likely be a chronic issue. For example, ethnic Chinese who are American citizens have been convicted of spying for China. An April, 2008 Washington Post articlelisted 12 cases of ethnic Chinese spying on the United States.
We should not, therefore, be surprised that at least some American Jews may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. Unlike the German-Americans who assimilated to America, Israel remains a powerful source of identity for the great majority of American Jews. Chi Mak, the Chinese spy who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for sending information on military technology to the Chinese, has as his counterparts Jonathan Pollardand Ben-Ami Kadish, convicted of spying on behalf of Israel.
Besides Pollard and Kadish, there is a bumper crop of neoconservatives who have been credibly accused of spying for Israel: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.
None of the neocons were convicted, and now we have the AIPAC espionage trial in which former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have been accused of providing information to Israeli Embassy employees. Jewish Congresswoman Jane Harman has allegedly been caught agreeing to “waddle in” to help get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.
As part of her defense in the media, Harman pointedly noted that “anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States.”
This is the multicultural defense par excellence. Harman was talking to an American about the business of AIPAC, an American organization that has not been required to register as an agent of a foreign government. What could possibly be wrong with that?
One problem with that is that the American citizen that Harman may well have been talking to was Haim Saban who is not only an American citizen but also a citizen of Israel. Saban’s commitment to Israel seems almost a caricature of a nut case Zionist — someone who makes Alan Dershowitz and Martin Peretz seem lukewarm by comparison.
Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretz in 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.
You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?
“You can’t explain love.”
It’s really love?
“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”
Please explain.
“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”
Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?
“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10’s evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.
“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”
Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman. A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.
Nevertheless, I suppose that if we asked these people whether they are more loyal to Israel than the US, they would deny it and they may be utterly sincere in their denial.
But how could any reasonable person believe what they are saying? Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations. They may well believe that their recommendations also benefit the United States, but they might not even be aware of how their commitment to Israel can bias their judgment.
The big picture here is that the Israel Lobby has managed to create a climate in which issues of the loyalty of American Jews are off limits at the highest reaches of government. However, this sensitivity to Jewish concerns (and susceptibility to Jewish pressure) has not filtered down into the intelligence and military establishment, especially at the lower echelons.
Commenting on the Harman case, “an official with an American Jewish organization,” stated that suspicion of the loyalties of American Jews is “rooted deep in the system and it comes from the bottom up.” An Israeli official is paraphrased as claiming that “suspicion toward Israel [is] prevalent in the military and intelligence establishments but [is] not common at the political and diplomatic levels.”
These lower-level people are less susceptible to public pressure because they represent an institutional consensus that has not yet embraced multiculturalism and the slavish American commitment to Israel. Instead, they seem committed to the quaint view that America is a nation state with interests that are different from other nations, including Israel.
This in turn suggests that the powers that be may eventually get the charges against Rosen and Weissman dropped. As a result of court rulings in favor of the defense, this certainly looks to be the case. Elite culture is far more influenced by Jewish sensibilities and far more on board with the multicultural zeitgeist than those responsible for initiating these investigations.
Rosen and Weissman may be exonerated, but the lower-level people still have quite a bit of power. The American intelligence community is doubtless the only reason Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison despite huge public relations campaigns proclaiming the injustice of his sentence. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were strongly pressured to pardon him so that he can return to a hero’s welcome in Israel. However, as an Israeli commentator has noted, “Each time, over the last 2 decades that there has been some sense that a commutation or a pardon might be in the offing, there have been official leaks to the media, creating such devastating press about Jonathan that it made it difficult for the president to proceed with commutation.”
The notorious Mark Rich received a pardon by throwing enough money at Bill Clinton. But there was no powerful constituency opposing Rich. It’s different with Pollard. No president dare release Pollard, even though Bill Clinton, at least, would have loved to do so. Clinton agreed to release Pollard but changed his mind when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign if Pollard was released.
It’s noteworthy that the Israeli official quoted above exempts the diplomatic service from the charge of being insufficiently sensitive to Israel. This was not always the case. The State Department was famously an anti-Israel bastion beginning with Secretary of State George Marshall in the Truman Administration. Jewish foreign policy activists — most notably the neocons — viewed the State Department, and particularly the Near East Desk, as dominated by Protestant Ivy Leaguers who were insensitive to Jewish concerns and particularly Israel.
But all of that is long gone — an early casualty of the demise of the East Coast Yankee Protestant elite and Jewish ascendancy in those same circles. But the intelligence and military establishments have still not capitulated entirely. As a result, we see little flare-ups of rebellion from time to time, like the current AIPAC case, the investigations of so many neocons, and the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard.
It is doubtless noteworthy that the Whites who remain influential in the intelligence and military establishments are relatively unlikely to be East Coast Ivy Leaguers. They are more likely to be Southerners or have other White identities. As the co-author of a recent academic reportnoted, “Politically and economically, the South remains the heart of our country’s military.” The FBI remains a whipping boy of liberals unhappy because it is insufficiently diverse.
The concern of the Israeli official that suspicions of Israel remain prevalent in the US military and intelligence establishments is particularly interesting. The attraction of White Southerners for the military is on a par with the attraction of White descendants of Puritans to moralistic aggression. The Southern military tradition is a legacy of the Scots-Irish Celtic culture so well described in David Hackett Fisher’s classic Albion’s Seed, Kevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars,and James Webb’s Born Fighting.
As I have noted elsewhere, this is the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”
This is implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture.
The current angst about the obvious examples of Jewish disloyalty is part of a larger cultural struggle. The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable. But there are still some holdouts. And therein lies the hope.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.
The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:
“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.
Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.
“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.
This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?
Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”: read more…
VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff
Facebook, Google and Twitter are not neutral platforms.
They control the digital public square to aid the powerful – and can cancel any of us overnight
Palestinian critics say Facebook has become ‘another face of occupation’ (AFP/File photo)
There is a growing unease that the decisions taken by social media corporations can have a harmful impact on our lives. These platforms, despite enjoying an effective monopoly over the virtual public square, have long avoided serious scrutiny or accountability.
In a new Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, former Silicon Valley executives warn of a dystopian future. Google, Facebook and Twitter have gathered vast quantities of data on us to better predict and manipulate our desires. Their products are gradually rewiring our brains to addict us to our screens and make us more pliable to advertisers. The result, as we are consigned to discrete ideological echo chambers, is ever greater social and political polarisation and turmoil.
Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them
As if to underline the ever-tightening grip these tech corporations exert on our lives, Facebook and Twitter decided this month to openly interfere in the most contentious US presidential election in living memory. They censored a story that could harm the electoral prospects of Joe Biden, the Democratic challenger to incumbent President Donald Trump.
Given that nearly half of Americans receive their news chiefly via Facebook, the ramifications of such a decision on our political life were not hard to interpret. In excising any debate about purported corruption and influence-peddling by Biden’s son, Hunter, carried out in his father’s name, these social media platforms stepped firmly into the role of authoritarian arbiter of what we are allowed to say and know.
‘Monopoly gatekeeper’
Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them. But if we wish to understand where this ultimately leads, there is no better case study than the very different ways Israelis and Palestinians have been treated by the tech giants.
The treatment of Palestinians online serves as a warning that it would be foolish indeed to regard these globe-spanning corporations as politically neutral platforms, and their decisions as straightforwardly commercial. This is to doubly misunderstand their role.How Facebook threatens vulnerable Muslim communities Read More »
Social media firms are now effectively monopolistic communication grids – similar to the electricity and water grids, or the phone network of a quarter of a century ago. Their decisions are therefore no longer private matters, but instead have huge social, economic and political consequences. That is part of the reason why the US justice department launched a lawsuit last week against Google for acting as a “monopoly gatekeeper for the internet”.
Google, Facebook and Twitter have no more a right to arbitrarily decide who and what they host on their sites than telecoms companies once had a right to decide whether a customer should be allowed a phone line. But unlike the phone company, social media corporations control not just the means of communication, but the content too. They can decide, as the Hunter Biden story shows, whether their customers get to participate in vital public debates about who leads them.
The Hunter Biden decision is as if the phone company of old not only listened in to conversations, but was able to cut the line if it did not like the politics of any particular customer.
In fact, it is even worse than that. Social media now deliver the news to large sections of the population. Their censoring of a story is more akin to the electricity company turning off the power to everyone’s homes for the duration of a TV broadcast to ensure no one can see it.
Censorship by stealth
The tech giants are the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in human history, their riches measured in hundreds of billions, and now trillions, of dollars. But the argument that they are apolitical – aiming simply to maximise profits – was never true.
They have every reason to promote politicians who side with them by committing not to break up their monopolies or regulate their activities, or, better still, by promising to weaken controls that might prevent them from growing even more fabulously rich and powerful.
Social media algorithms help drive decisions on content removal (AFP/File photo)
Conversely, the tech giants also have every incentive to use the digital space to penalise and marginalise political activists who urge greater regulation either of their activities, or of the marketplace more generally.
Unlike their explicit deletion of the Hunter Biden story, which incensed the Trump administration, social media corporations more usually censor by stealth. That power is wielded through algorithms, the secret codes that decide whether something or someone appears in a search result or on a social media feed. If they desire, these tech titans can cancel any one of us overnight.
This is not just political paranoia. The disproportionate impact of algorithm changes on “left-leaning” websites – those most critical of the neoliberal system that has enriched social media corporations – was highlighted this month by the Wall Street Journal.
Wrong kinds of speech
Politicians increasingly understand the power of social media, which is why they want to harness it as best they can for their own ends. Since the shock of Trump’s election victory in late 2016, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives have regularly found themselves dragged before legislative oversight committees in the US and UK.
There, they are ritually rebuked by politicians for creating a crisis of “fake news” – a crisis that, in fact, long predated social media, as the deceptions of US and UK officials in linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and claiming that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” testify to only too clearly.
The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think
Politicians have also begun holding internet corporations responsible for “foreign interference” in western elections – typically blamed on Russia – despite a dearth of serious evidence for most of their allegations.
Political pressure is being exerted not to make the corporations more transparent and accountable, but to steer them towards enforcing even more assiduously restrictions on the wrong kinds of speech – whether it be violent racists on the right or critics of capitalism and western government policy on the left.
For that reason, social media’s original image as a neutral arena of information sharing, or as a tool for widening public debate and increasing civic engagement, or as a discourse leveller between the rich and powerful and weak and marginalised, grows ever more hollow.
Separate digital rights
Nowhere are ties between tech and state officials more evident than in their dealings with Israel. This has led to starkly different treatment of digital rights for Israelis and Palestinians. The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think, and over who is visible and who is erased from public life.
Israel was well-positioned to exploit social media before most other states had recognised its importance in manipulating popular attitudes and perceptions. For decades, Israel had, in part, outsourced an official programme of hasbara – or state propaganda – to its own citizens and supporters abroad. As new digital platforms emerged, these partisans were only too willing to expand their role.Facebook accused of censoring Palestinians under pretext of fighting hate speech Read More »
Israel had another advantage. After the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, Israel began crafting a narrative of state victimhood by redefining antisemitism to suggest it was now a particular affliction of the left, not the right. So-called “new antisemitism” did not target Jews, but related instead to criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.
This highly dubious narrative proved easy to condense into social media-friendly soundbites.
Israel still routinely describes any Palestinian resistance to its belligerent occupation or its illegal settlements as “terrorism”, and any support from other Palestinians as “incitement”. International solidarity with Palestinians is characterised as “delegitimisation” and equated with antisemitism.
‘Flood the internet’
As far back as 2008, it emerged that a pro-Israel media lobby group, Camera, had been orchestrating covert efforts by Israel loyalists to infiltrate the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to edit entries and “rewrite history” in ways favourable to Israel. Soon afterwards, politician Naftali Bennett helped organise courses teaching “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia.
In 2011, the Israeli army declared social media a new “battleground” and assigned “cyber warriors” to wage combat online. In 2015, Israel’s foreign ministry set up an additional command centre to recruit young, tech-savvy former soldiers from 8200, the army’s cyber intelligence unit, to lead the battle online. Many have gone on to establish hi-tech firms whose spying software became integral to the functioning of social media.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a 2019 cyber industry conference in Tel Aviv (AFP)
An app launched in 2017, Act.IL, mobilised Israel partisans to “swarm” sites hosting either criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. The initiative, supported by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, was headed by veterans of Israeli intelligence services.
According to the Forward, a US Jewish weekly, Israel’s intelligence services liaise closely with Act.IL and request help in getting content, including videos, removed by social media platforms. The Forward observed shortly after the app was rolled out: “Its work so far offers a startling glimpse of how it could shape the online conversations about Israel without ever showing its hand.”
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military censor who was then assigned to Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, said the goal was to “create a community of fighters” whose job was to “flood the internet” with Israeli propaganda.
Willing allies
With advantages measured in personnel numbers and ideological zeal, in tech and propaganda experience, and in high-level influence in Washington and Silicon Valley, Israel was soon able to turn social media platforms into willing allies in its struggle to marginalise Palestinians online.
In 2016, Israel’s justice ministry was boasting that Facebook, Google and YouTube were “complying with up to 95 percent of Israeli requests to delete content”, almost all of it Palestinian. The social media companies did not confirm this figure.
The Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Israel lobby group with a history of smearing Palestinian organisations and Jewish groups critical of Israel, established a “command centre” in Silicon Valley in 2017 to monitor what it termed “online hate speech”. That same year, it was appointed a “trusted flagger” organisation for YouTube, meaning its reporting of content for removal was prioritised.
Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate
At a 2018 conference in Ramallah hosted by 7amleh, a Palestinian online advocacy group, local Google and Facebook representatives barely hid their priorities. It was important to their bottom line to avoid upsetting governments with the power to constrain their commercial activities – even if those governments were systematically violating international law and human rights. In this battle, the Palestinian Authority carries no weight at all. Israel presides over Palestinians’ communications and internet infrastructure. It controls the Palestinian economy and its key resources.
Since 2016, Israel’s justice ministry has reportedly suppressed tens of thousands of Palestinian posts. In a completely opaque process, Israel’s own algorithms detect content it deems “extremist” and then requests its removal. Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Israel over social media posts, chilling online activity.
Human Rights Watch warned late last year that Israel and Facebook were often blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and incitement. Conversely, as Israel has shifted ever further rightwards, the Netanyahu government and social media platforms have not stemmed a surge of posts in Hebrew promoting anti-Palestinian incitement and calling for violence. 7amleh has noted that Israelis post racist or inciteful material against Palestinians roughly every minute.
News agencies shut down
As well as excising tens of thousands of Palestinian posts, Israel has persuaded Facebook to take down the accounts of major Palestinian news agencies and leading journalists.
By 2018, the Palestinian public had grown so incensed that a campaign of online protests and calls to boycott Facebook were led under the hashtag “FBcensorsPalestine”. In Gaza, demonstrators accused the company of being “another face of occupation”. Leila Khaled shutdown shows how corporate tech is enemy of free speechRead More »
Activism in solidarity with Palestinians in the US and Europe has been similarly targeted. Ads for films, as well as the films themselves, have been taken down and websites removed.
Last month, Zoom, a video conferencing site that has boomed during the Covid-19 pandemic, joined YouTube and Facebook in censoring a webinar organised by San Francisco State University because it included Leila Khaled, an icon of the Palestinian resistance movement now in her seventies.
On Friday, Zoom blocked a second scheduled appearance by Khaled – this time in a University of Hawaii webinar on censorship – as well as a spate of other events across the US to protest against her cancellation by the site. A statement concerning the day of action said campuses were “joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices”.
The decision, a flagrant attack on academic freedom, was reportedly taken after the social media groups were heavily pressured by the Israeli government and anti-Palestinian lobby groups, which labelled the webinar “antisemitic”.
Wiped off the map
The degree to which the tech giants’ discrimination against Palestinians is structural and entrenched has been underscored by the years-long struggle of activists both to include Palestinian villages on online maps and GPS services, and to name the Palestinian territories as “Palestine”, in accordance with Palestine’s recognition by the United Nations.
That campaign has largely floundered, even though more than a million people have signed a petition in protest. Both Google and Apple have proved highly resistant to these appeals; hundreds of Palestinian villages are missing from their maps of the occupied West Bank, while Israel’s illegal settlements are identified in detail, accorded the same status as the Palestinian communities that are shown.
New houses being built in the Nokdim settlement in the occupied West Bank on 13 October (AFP)
The occupied Palestinian territories are subordinated under the name “Israel”, while Jerusalem is presented as Israel’s unified and undisputed capital, just as Israel claims – making the occupation of the Palestinian section of the city invisible.
These are far from politically neutral decisions. Israeli governments have long pursued a Greater Israel ideology that requires driving Palestinians off their lands. This year, that dispossession programme was formalised with plans, backed by the Trump administration, to annex swathes of the West Bank.
Google and Apple are effectively colluding in this policy by helping to erase Palestinians’ visible presence in their homeland. As two Palestinian scholars, George Zeidan and Haya Haddad, recently noted: “When Google and Apple erase Palestinian villages from their navigation, but proudly mark settlements, the effect is complicity in the Israeli nationalist narrative.”
Out of the shadows
Israel’s ever-tightening relationship with social media corporations has played out largely behind the scenes. But these ties moved decisively out of the shadows in May, when Facebook announced that its new oversight board would include Emi Palmor, one of the architects of Israel’s online repression policy towards Palestinians.
Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful
The board will issue precedent-setting rulings to help shape Facebook’s and Instagram’s censorship and free speech policies. But as the former director-general of the justice ministry, Palmor has shown no commitment to online free speech. Quite the reverse: she worked hand-in-hand with the tech giants to censor Palestinian posts and shut down Palestinian news websites. She oversaw the transformation of her department into what the human rights organisation Adalah has called the Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.
Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate, online transparency or greater civic engagement. Their only commitment is to the maintenance of a business environment in which they avoid any regulation by major governments infringing on their right to make money.
The appointment of Palmor perfectly illustrates the corrupting relationship between government and social media. Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful.
Many more of us could soon find ourselves sharing the online fate of Palestinians.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.Jonathan CookJonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net
Another Epstein Class whistleblower ‘suicide’
-
“How US commerce secretary’s Epstein links were uncovered by British
whistleblower“ (Verity/Byrne/Milne):Andriesz suspected there was yet more
to find in t...
The Legendary Golem
-
The Legendary Golem October 3 2026 ___________________________________ More
Vids! +BN Vids Archive! HERE! ___________________________________ Support
The B...
The United States At A Crossroad
-
The United States At A Crossroad—An Analysis (16 Sept 2026) by Lawrence
Davidson Part I—Texas vs Minnesota Back in mid-May […]
Report on Beth Israel vigil 09-12-26
-
*Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day Approaches*
This year, EAC Day appears on Monday, September 21st. The date coincides
with the Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur. Cl...
-
Hello all,
It is with great sadness that I share with you the passing of our beloved
sister, Mother, and Grandmother, the individual that you all knew ...
Best Horror Podcast
-
Best Horror Podcast Introduction: Horror podcasts […]
The post Best Horror Podcast appeared first on Copper Shock Horror Podcast.
Ikhras Endorses Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
-
“Oh parties of banditry and sectarianism and corruption, we have come and
our goal is to destroy you.” Ikhras formally endorses Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
Iraqi j...
Prince Charles: Foreign Jews behind bloodshed in ME
-
In May, 2017, British Crown Prince Charles declined an invitation from
Zionist entity’s president Reuven Rivlin‘s to attend the 100th anniversary
of the no...
Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One
-
Honouring All Palestinian Women by Honouring Three: Hanin Zoabi, Ahed
Tamimi, Samah Sabawi Vacy Vlazna “Palestinian women have always stood side
by side ...
US’s Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
-
By F. William Engdahl Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly
not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank
neo-...
-
*Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association *
* http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai...
Abdul Aziz Rantissi:
"My ultimate wish, my God, is to attain martyrdom,"...God granted him his wish on April 17, 2004, at the hands of Israeli assassins.
