Anglican vicar a target of "Anti-Gentilism" from Zionist quarters by Wayne Madsen

Anglican vicar a target of "Anti-Gentilism" from Zionist quarters

WMR has recently reported on the growing threat of "anti-Gentilism" in Europe most notably seen in the virulent anti-Christian and anti-Islamic cartoons published by the recent Rothschild family-acquired French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, sexually-explicit attacks on churches and mosques by George Soros-funded and -inspired feminist groups like FEMEN and Pussy Riot, and attacks by Zionist groups on mainstream Christian denominations that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) initiative against Israel.

Reverend Stephen Sizer, Church of England vicar of Christ Church of Virginia Water in Surrey, England and a staunch defender of the rights of Palestinians and repressed Christians in the Middle East is facing a barrage of crticism over posting on his Facebook page a link to an article titled "9/11: Israel Did It." Sizer posted the following question and statement: "Is this anti-Semitic? It raises so many questions."

Although there is overwhelming evidence from law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world that Israel was culpable in organizing and carrying out the 9/11 attack on the United States in a typical Israel "false flag" operation, Sizer is facing demands by the Board of Deputies of British Jews for his dismissal by the Church of England. Although Sizer apologized for posting the link, the Jewish Board has always had Sizer in its cross hairs for his principled pro-Palestinian stance.

The Diocese of Guildford, which oversees Sizer's church, appeared ready to carry out the British Jewish board's demands and throw Sizer under the bus. A spokesman for the diocese said, "It [the Facebook post] was particularly insensitive in that last week coincided with Holocaust Memorial Day."
 
Whether its their condemnation of Stephen Sizer [left] or Pope Francis [right], the hypocrisy of the spokesparties for political Jewry has no end.

However, for Zionists, any comment critical of their Talmudic political movement and Israel always comes at "insensitive" times considering the number of holidays that Talmudic Zionism celebrates in a single year. And the demands by Zionists to sanction Christian prelates for their views on Israel and Zionism are growing with the Zionists launching a vicious attack last June against Pope Francis I after he prayed on Israel's "Separation Wall" that divides Israelis and Palestinians. The neocon Jerusalem Postcalled Francis a "liar" for pointing out that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew and intimated that the Christian messiah was a Palestinian, not an Israeli. Of course, the Zionists charged Francis with anti-Semitism, the only canard those who have no other arguments, rely on when they are called out on their blatant historical and biblical revisionism. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that a sect based on exceptionalism and exclusion finds it necessary to attack the leaders of a religion based on inclusiveness.


WMR editor top tier, third from right, at Tehran policy conference with Rev. Stephen Sizer, bottom tier, 7th from left

Israel supporters want to have it both ways. They condemn and want sanctioned Christian leaders who point out the evils incarnate with modern-day Israel. However, when it comes to rabbis supporting "price tag" arson, window breaking, and graffiti attacks against Christian properties in Israel and the Occupied Territories, they remain silent. There are no calls for offensive rabbis to be stripped of their religious titles and tossed out of Jewish institutions. Haredi Orthodox rabbis have urged their followers to spit on Christians in Israel and the Occupied West Bank. Where were the calls by international Jewry to ostracize and abandon three rabbis -- Rabbis Yitzhak Ginzburg, Yaakov Yosef, and Yitzhak Shapiro -- for endorsing the following statement in 2009?: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments -- because we care about the commandment -- there is nothing wrong with the murder." Why was not Rabbi Yaacov Perrin dismissed from his office for making the following statement in 1994 at the eulogy for Baruch Goldstein who opened fire and killed 39 Muslims praying at a mosque in Hebron?: "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

Christians expect their leaders to always tell the truth, even when that truth hurts a Christian or someone other than a Christian who attacks Christianity. Dr. Stephen Sizer and Pope Francis I have told the truth about Israel and the Talmudic Zionists who pose a threat to the peace of the entire planet.

In the interest of full disclosure, this editor's first intended career path was to attend St. Olaf College in Minnesota on an Air Force ROTC scholarship and eventually become a Lutheran minister after serving a chaplaincy in the Air Force. Although that career trajectory went off into a different area entirely, I have great respect for mainstream and traditional Christian ministers like Stephen Sizer who "answered the call" and serve their congregations, their nations, and those around the world, like the Palestinians and the dwindling Christian population of the Middle East, who are caught between Talmudic "anti-Gentilism" and foreign-supported cults like Daesh that falsely claim to represent Islam. Both notions are foul and deserve nothing but ostracism and condemnation. Perhaps the Board of Deputies of British Jews should look in their own backyard before they make demands of a religion they neither recognize nor historically respected.

The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America

by James Petras / September 1st, 2010

Any serious effort to understand the extraordinary influence of the Zionist power configuration over US foreign policy must examine the presence of key operatives in strategic positions in the government and the activities of local Zionist organizations affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations and religious orders.

There are at least 52 major American Jewish organizations actively engaged in promoting Israel’s foreign policy, economic and technological agenda in the US (see the appendix). The grassroots membership ranges from several hundred thousand militants in the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) to one hundred thousand wealthy contributors, activists and power brokers in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In addition scores of propaganda mills, dubbed think tanks, have been established by million dollar grants from billionaire Zionists including the Brookings Institute (Haim Saban) and the Hudson Institute among others. Scores of Zionist funded political action committees (PAC) have intervened in all national and regional elections, controlling nominations and influencing election outcomes. Publishing houses, including university presses have been literally taken over by Zionist zealots, the most egregious example being Yale University, which publishes the most unbalanced tracts parroting Zionist parodies of Jewish history.¹ New heavily funded Zionist projects designed to capture young Jews and turn them into instruments of Israeli foreign policy includes “Taglit-Birthright” which has spent over $250 million dollars over the past decade sending over a quarter-million Jews (between 18-26) to Israel for 10 days of intense brainwashing.² Jewish billionaires and the Israeli state foot the bill. The students are subject to a heavy dose of Israeli style militarism as they are accompanied by Israeli soldiers as part of their indoctrination; at no point do they visit the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem.² They are urged to become dual citizens and even encouraged to serve in the Israeli armed forces. In summary, the 52 member organizations of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations which we discuss are only the tip of the iceberg of the Zionist Power Configuration: taken together with the PACs, the propaganda mills, the commercial and University presses and mass media we have a matrix of power for understanding the tremendous influence they have on US foreign and domestic policy as it affects Israel and US Zionism.

While all their activity is dedicated first and foremost in ensuring that US Middle East policy serves Israel’s colonial expansion in Palestine and war aims in the Middle East, what B’nai B’rth euphemistically calls a “focus on Israel and its place in the world”, many groups ‘specialize’ in different spheres of activity. For example, the “Friends of the Israel Defense Force” is primarily concerned in their own words “to look after the IDF”, in other words provide financial resources and promote US volunteers for a foreign army (an illegal activity except when it involves Israel). Hillel is the student arm of the Zionist power configuration claiming a presence in 500 colleges and universities, all affiliates defending each and every human rights abuse of the Israeli state and organizing all expenses paid junkets for Jewish student recruits to travel to Israel where they are heavily propagandized and encouraged to ‘migrate’ or become ‘dual citizens’.
Method: Studying Zionist Power:

There are several approaches for measuring the power of the combined Zionist organizations and influential occupants of strategic positions in government and the economy. These include (a) reputational approach (b) self claims (c) decision-making analysis (d) structural inferences. Most of these approaches provide some clues about Zionist potential power. For example, newspaper pundits and journalists frequently rely on Washington insiders, congressional staff and notables to conclude that AIPAC has the reputation for being one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. This approach points to the need to empirically examine the operations of AIPAC in influencing Congressional votes, nomination of candidates, defeating incumbents who do not unconditionally support the Israeli line. In other words analyzing the Congressional and Executive decision-making process is one key to measuring Zionist power. But it is not the only one. Zionist power is a product of a historical context, where media ownership and wealth concentration and other institutional levers of power come into play and shape the current decision-making framework. Cumulative power over time and across institutions creates a heavy bias in the political outcomes favorable to Israel’s organized agents in America. Once again the mere presence of Jews or Zionists in positions of economic, cultural and political power does not tell us how they will use their resources and whether they will have the desired effect. Structural analysis, the location of Zionists in the class structure, is necessary but not sufficient for understanding Zionist power. One has to proceed and analyze the content of decisions made and not made regarding the agenda of Israel’s backers operating in the USA. The 52 major Zionists organizations are very open about their claims to power, their pursuit of Israel’s agenda and their subservience to each and every Israeli regime.

Those who deny Zionist power over US Mid East foreign policy are left-Zionists namely Noam Chomsky and his acolytes. They never analyze the legislative process, executive decision-making, the structures and activity of the million member Zionist grassroots and the appointments and background of key policy makers deciding strategic policies in the Middle East. Instead they resort to superficial generalizations and political demagogy, imputing policy to “Big Oil” and the “military-industrial complex” or “US imperialism”. Categories devoid of empirical content and historical context about real existing policy making regarding the Middle East.

The Making of Zionist Power in the US Government

To understand US submission to Israeli war policies in the Middle East one has to look beyond the role of lobbies pressuring Congress and the role of political action committees and wealthy Zionist campaign contributions. A much neglected but absolutely essential building block of Zionist power over US foreign economic, diplomatic and military policy is the Zionist presence in key policy positions, including the Departments of Treasury and State, the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the White House.

Operating within the top policymaking positions, Zionist officials have consistently pursued policies in line with Israel’s militarist policies, aimed at undermining and eliminating any country critical of the Jewish States’ colonial occupation of Palestine, its regional nuclear monopoly, its expansion of Jews only settlements and above all its strident efforts to remain the dominant power in the Arab East. The Zionist policymakers in Government are in constant consultation with the Israeli state, ensuring coordination with the Israeli military (IDF) command, its Foreign Office and secret police (MOSSAD) and compliance with the Jewish State’s political line. Over the past 24 months not a single Zionist policymaker has voiced any criticism of Israel’s most heinous crimes, ranging from the savaging of Gaza to the massacre of the humanitarian flotilla and the expansion of new settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. A record of loyalty to a foreign power which even exceeds the subservience of the Stalinist and Nazi fellow travelers in Washington during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Zionist policymakers in strategic positions depend on the political backing and work closely with their counterparts in the “lobbies” (AIPAC) in Congress and in the national and local Jewish Zionist organizations. Many of the leading Zionist policymakers rose to power through a deliberate strategy of infiltrating the government to shape policy promoting Israel’s interest over and above the interests of the US populace. While a degree of cohesion resulting from a common allegiance to Tel Aviv can account for suspected nepotism and selection, it is also the case that the powerful Jewish lobbies can play a role in creating key positions in Government and ensuring that one of their own will occupy that position and pursue Israel’s agenda.

Stuart Levey: Israel’s Foremost Operative in the US Government

In 2004, AIPAC successfully pressured the Bush Administration to create the office of Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (UTFI) and to name its protégé Princeton graduate Stuart Levey to that position. Before, but especially after his appointment, Levey was in close collaboration with the Israeli state and was known as an over the top Zionist zealot with unbounded energy and blind worship of the Israeli state.

Within the confines of his Zionist ideological blinders, Levey applied his intelligence to the singular task of turning his office into the major foreign policy venue for setting US policy toward Iran. Levey more than any other appointed official in government or elected legislator, formulates and implements policies which profoundly influence US, European Union and UN economic relations with Iran. Levey elaborated the sanctions policies, which Washington imposed on the EU and the Security Council. Levey, organizes the entire staff under his control at Treasury to investigate trade and investment policies of all the world’s major manufacturing, banking, shipping, petroleum and trading corporations. He then criss-crosses the US and successfully pressures pension funds, investment houses, oil companies and economic institutions to disinvest from any companies dealing with Iran’s civilian economy. He has gone global, threatening sanctions and blackballing dissident companies in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America which refuse to surrender economic opportunities. They all understood Levey operated at the behest of Israel, services Levey has proudly performed.

Levey coordinates his campaign with Zionist leaders in Congress. He secures sanctions legislation in line with his campaigns. His policies clearly violate international law and national sovereignty, pressing the limits of extra territorial enforcement of his administrative fiats against a civilian economy. His violation of economic sovereignty parallels Obama’s announcement that US Special Forces would operate in violation of political sovereignty on four continents. For all intents and purposes, Levey makes US policy toward Iran. At each point he designs the escalation of sanctions, and then passes it on to the White House, which shoves it down the throats of the Security Council. Once new sanctions approved by Levey and staff are in place they are there to enforce them: identifying violators and implementing penalties. Treasury has become an outpost of Tel Aviv. Not a single leftist, liberal or social democratic publication highlights the role of Levey or even the terrible economic pain this Old Testament fanatic is inflicting on 75 million Iranian civilian workers and consumers. Indeed like Israel’s Judeo-fascist rabbis who preach a “final solution” for Israel’s enemies, Levey announces new and harsher “punishment” against the Iranian people.³ Perhaps at the appropriate moment the Jewish State will name a major avenue through the West Bank for his extraordinary services to this most unholy racist state.

The Strategic Role of Local Power

The Israel Lobby Archive recently released declassified documents of the American Zionist Council (AZC) subpoenaed during a US Senate investigation between 1962-63. The documents reveal how the Israeli state through its American Jewish conduits – the mainstream Zionist organizations – penetrated the US mass media and propagated its political line, unbeknownst to the American public. Stories written by a host of Jewish Zionist journalists and academics were solicited and planted in national media such as The Readers Digest, The Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post among others, including regional and local newspapers and radio stations.⁴ While the national Zionist organizations procured the journalists and academic writers and editors, it was the local affiliates who carried the message and implemented the line. The level of infiltration the Senate subpoenaed Zionist documents in the 1960’s reveal has multiplied a hundred fold over the past 50 years in terms of financing, paid functionaries and committed militants and above all in structural power and coercive capability.

While the national leaders in close consultation with Israeli officials receive instructions on which issues are of high priority, the implementation follows a vertical route to regional and local leaders, politicians, and notables who in turn target the local media and religious, academic and other opinion leaders. When national leaders ensure publication of pro Israeli propaganda, the locals reproduce and circulate it to local media and non-Zionist influentials on their “periphery”. Letter campaigns orchestrated at the top are implemented by thousands of militant Zionist doctors, lawyers and businesspeople. They praise pro-Israel scribes and attack critics; they pressure newspapers, publishing houses and magazines not to publish dissidents. The national and local leaders promote hostile reviews of books not promoting the Israeli line, influence library decisions to pack their shelves with pro Israeli books and censor and exclude more balanced or critical histories. Local militants in co-ordination with Israeli consuls saturate the public with thousands of public meetings and speakers targeting Christian churches, academic audiences and civic groups; at the same time local Zionist militants and, especially millionaire influentials, pressure local venues (university administrators, church authorities and civic associations) to disinvite any critic of Israel and their supporters from speaking. In the last resort, local Zionists demand that a pro-Israel propagandist be given equal time, something unheard of when an Israel apologist is scheduled to speak.

Local Zionist organizations make yeoman efforts to recruit mayors, governors, local celebrities, publishers, church people and promising young ethnic and minority leaders by offering them all expenses paid propaganda junkets to Israel and then to write or give interviews parroting what they were fed by Israeli officials. Local leaders mobilize thousands of militant activist Zionists to attack anti-Zionist Jews in public and private. They demand they be excluded from any media roundtables on the Middle East.

Local Zionist functionaries form rapid response committees to visit and threaten any local publisher and editorial staff publishing editorials or articles questioning the Israeli party line. Local leaders police (“monitor”) all local meetings, speaker invitations, as well as the speeches of public commentators, religious leaders and academics to detect any “anti-Zionist overtones’ (which they label “covert anti-Semitism”). Most of the major Jewish religious orders are lined up as the clerical backbone of local Israeli fundraising, including the financing of new “Jews only” settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.

Local functionaries are in the forefront of campaigns to deny independent Middle East specialists and public policy academics, appointments, tenure or promotion, independently of the quality of their scholarship. On the other hand, academic hacks who toe the pro-Israel line, by publishing books with blanket attacks on Israeli critics among Christians and Muslims and countries like Turkey, Iran or whoever is a target of Israeli policy, are promoted, lauded and put on the best seller list. Any book or writer critical of Zionist Power or Israel is put on a local and national ‘index’ and subject to an inquisition by slander from a stable of Jewish Torquemadas.

Conclusion

The power of Israel in the US does not reside only in the influence and leadership of powerful Washington based “pro-Israel lobbies”, like AIPAC. Without the hundreds of thousands of militant locally based dentists, podiatrists, stockbrokers, real estate brokers, professors and others, the “lobby” would be unable to sustain and implement its policy among hundreds of millions of Americans outside the major metropolises. As we have seen from the Senate declassified documents, over a half-century ago, local Zionist organizations began a systematic campaign of penetration, control and intimidation that has reached its pinnacle in the first decade of the 21st century. It is no accident or mere coincidence that University officials in Northern Minnesota or upstate New York are targeted to exclude speakers or fire faculty members critical of Israel. Local Zionists have computerized databanks operating with an index of prohibited speakers, as the Zionists themselves admit and flaunt in contrast to “liberal” Zionists who are prone to label as “anti-Semitic” or “conspiracy theorists” writers who cite official Zionist documents demonstrating their systematic perversion of our democratic freedoms.

Over the decades, the distinction between Zionist power exercised by a “lobby” outside the government and operatives “inside” the government has virtually vanished. As we have seen, in our case study, AIPAC secured the undersecretary position in Treasury, dictated the appointment of a key Zionist operative (Stuart Levey) and accompanies his global crusade to sanction Iran into starvation and destitution. The planting of operatives within key Middle East positions in government is not the simple result of individual career choices. The ascent of so many pro-Israel Zionist to government posts is part of their mission to serve Israel’s interest at least for a few years of their careers. Their presence in government precludes any Senate or Congressional investigations of Zionists organizations acting as agents of a foreign power as took place in the 1960’s.

As the major Zionist organizations and influentials have accumulated power and abused the exercise of power on behalf of an increasingly bloody racist state, which flaunts its dominance over US institutions, public opposition is growing. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is gaining strength even in the US (see Harvard divestment in Israeli companies). US public support for Israel, by all measures, has dropped below 50%, while polls in Western Europe show a marked increase in hostility to Israel’s ultra-rightist regime. Anti-Zionist Jews are growing in influence especially among young Jews who are appalled by the Israeli slaughter in Gaza and assault on the humanitarian flotilla. Equally important the presence of anti-Zionist Jews on panels and forums has given courage to many otherwise intimidated non-Jews who heretofore were fearful of being labeled “anti-Semitic”.

The Zionist power configuration rests on a declining population base: most young Jews marry outside the confines of the ethno-religious Jewish-Israeli nexus and many of them are not likely to form the bases for rabid campaigns on behalf of a racist state. The Zionist leadership’s high intensity and heavily endowed effort to fence in young people of Jewish ancestry via private schools, subsidized “summer programs” in Israel etc. are as much out of fear and recognition of the drift away from clerical chauvinism as it is an attempt to recruit a new generation of Israel First militants.

The danger is that the US Zionist support for the ultra-rightist and racist regime in Israel is leading them to join forces with the far right in the US. Today Jewish and Christian Manhattan rednecks are fermenting mass Islamic hatred (the so called “Mosque controversy”) as a distraction from the economic crises and rising unemployment. Zionist promotion of mass Islamofobia, so near to Wall Street, where many of their fat cats who profit from plundering the assets of America operate, is a dangerous game. If the same enraged masses turn their eyes upward toward the wealthy and powerful instead of downward to blacks and Muslims, some unpleasant and unanticipated surprises might rebound against, not only Israel’s operatives, but all those wrongly identified as related to a misconstrued Jewish Motherland.

Appendix
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Member Organizations

1. Ameinu
2. American Friends of Likud
3. American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors
4. America-Israel Friendship League
5. American Israel Public Affairs Committee
6. American Jewish Committee
7. American Jewish Congress
8. American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
9. American Sephardi Federation
10. American Zionist Movement
11. Americans for Peace Now
12. AMIT
13. Anti-Defamation League
14. Association of Reform Zionists of America
15. B’nai B’rith International
16. Bnai Zion
17. Central Conference of American Rabbis
18. Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
19. Development Corporation for Israel/State of Israel Bonds
20. Emunah of America
21. Friends of Israel Defense Forces
22. Hadassah, Women’s Zionist Organization of America
23. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
24. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
25. Jewish Community Centers Association
26. Jewish Council for Public Affairs
27. The Jewish Federations of North America
28. Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
29. Jewish Labor Committee
30. Jewish National Fund
31. Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
32. Jewish War Veterans of the USA
33. Jewish Women International
34. MERCAZ USA, Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement
35. NA’AMAT USA
36. MCSK” Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia
37. National Council of Jewish Women
38. National Council of Young Israel
39. ORT America
40. Rabbinical Assembly
41. Rabbinical Council of America
42. Religious Zionists of America
43. Union for Reform Judaism
44. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
45. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
46. WIZO
47. Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
48. Women of Reform Judaism
49. Workmen’s Circle
50. World ORT
51. World Zionist Executive, US
52. Zionist Organization of America

1. Financial Times book review section August 28/29 2010. [↩]
2. Boston Globe August 26, 2010. [↩] [↩]
3. Stuart Levey, “Iran’s New Deceptions at Sea Must be Punished” FT 8/16/2010, p. 9. [↩]
4. Israel Lobby Archive, August 18, 2010. [↩]

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras’ most recent book is Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Clarity Press, 2008). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu. Read other articles by James, or visit James's website.

A documentary which AIPAC and the American Zionists don't want you to see:

What is Anti-Semitism? (part of "The First Word War")

WRITTEN BY Anait Brutian

What is Anti-Semitism? Before attempting to answer the question, we must first define the word “Anti-Semite.” A dictionary definition describes Anti-Semitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semite). Also known as Judeophobia, the term is used to describe “prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture or religion” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism). The adjective “anti-Semitic” is used to describe a person “who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews” (Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000, Updated in 2009), or “having or showing a strong dislike of Jewish people, or treating them in a cruel and unfair way” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=93608). The noun “anti-Semite” is used to describe “an anti-Semitic person” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=93608).

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the term as “a modern word expressing antagonism to the political and social equality of Jews,” assigning its origins to the “ethnological theory that the Jews, as Semites, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European populations and can never be amalgamated with them” (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b8jl7YQ3). According to Jewish Encyclopedia, the word “Anti-Semitism” does not imply opposition on account of religion but “on account of … racial characteristics,” such as “greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, and especially of patriotism” (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b8jl7YQ3). Outlining the history of the term, the Jewish Encyclopedia ascertains that the word was first printed in 1880 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b8uZ0yFX) but acknowledges the difficulty of tracing its first use. What appeared to have been employed in a philological sense in Franz Bopp’s (1791-1867) “Comparative Grammar,” later acquired a meaning imbued with ethnic characteristics (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b91hsaWJ). Christian Lassen (1800-76) was the first to draw a “picture of the Semites” as distinct from the Aryans. Ernest Renan (1823-92) came up with a theory of “inferiority of the Semites” – "The two words, which have served until now as a symbol for the progress of the human mind toward truth, science, and philosophy, were foreign to them." Renan credits the Aryans with all the “great military, political, and intellectual movements in the world's history,” while the Semites are credited with “the religious movements.” “The Semites have never had any comprehension of civilization in the sense in which we understand the word; they were at no time public-spirited. Intolerance was the natural consequence of their monotheism, which, if not imported from the Semitic world, would have remained foreign to the Aryans, who were impressed with the variety of the universe. The Jewish people, while not progressive, claimed that the future was theirs; and this illogical position accounts for the hatred which eighteen centuries were unable to mitigate” (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b9AA28Uz). Renan’s influence can be felt in an article published by Hellwald in 1872: "The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but – and this is to us the most important factor – ethnically an altogether different race. The European feels instinctively that the Jew is a stranger who immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is a natural sentiment. Civilization will overcome the antipathy against the Israelite who merely professes another religion, but never that against the racially different Jew. The Jew is cosmopolitan, and possesses a certain astuteness which makes him the master of the honest Aryan. In Eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh of the other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim. Selfishness and lack of personal courage are his chief characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign to him" (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1603#4621#ixzz0b9HQtXQv).

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, had experienced anti-Semitism first hand – he had seen the Parisian mob demanding the death of Dreyfus in 1895, and had heard the cheers of the middle-class Viennese that greeted the election victory of anti-Semitic Karl Lueger the same year (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). But Herzl failed to recognize the huge Gentile support for Dreyfus: the intellectuals of France with Emile Zola at the forefront, rallied behind Dreyfus, the right wing of the French society, the army, the clergy were discredited, and anti-Semitism was defeated. Instead of seizing the moment and mobilizing support for Dreyfus, Herzl, the most famous journalist in Vienna, used it as an opportunity to further the idea that “anti-Semitism could not be Beaten” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html) and the World Zionist Organization did not combat it. The very first entry of Herzl’s “new Zionist Diary” contains the following statement: “In Paris … I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). Karl Lueger's success in Vienna was used to develop a “pragmatic strategy of non-resistance to anti-Semitism coupled with emigration of a portion of the Jews to a Jewish state-in-the-making” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). While the Habsburg Emperor refused to confirm Karl Lueger in office – 8 per cent of the generals, considered the most loyal supporters of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were Jews – Herzl favoured the confirmation. On November 3, 1895 he met the Prime Minister Count Casimir Badeni and told him to “accommodate Lueger” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html).

A similar logic underlined the cooperation between Zionists and the new Nazi regime in mid-1930s. The ideological similarities between the two – “the contempt for liberalism,” the racism and the strong belief that “Germany could never be the homeland of its Jews” – convinced the Zionists to solicit the patronage and support of Adolf Hitler repeatedly after 1933 (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). Two months after Hitler’s rise to power on January 30, 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein of the SS and Kurt Tuchler, an executive of the ZVfD visited Palestine on the condition that upon his return the Baron would write a pro-Zionist article for the Nazi press (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). Rabbi Joachim Prinz’ comments of 1937 describe the “Zionist mood in the first months of 1933” and allude to a memorandum sent to the Nazi Party by the ZVfD on June 21, 1933: “Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealings with the Nazi government. We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which – after the riots and atrocities of the revolution had passed – the new status of German Jewry could be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal!” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html).

The memorandum, unknown until 1962, was printed in German in Israel. It reveals the similarities between the Nazi and Zionist ideologies and the extent of collaboration between the two parties: “May we therefore be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence … An answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry… a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values … On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible… Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group … The national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought about easily as the result of an organic development … For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people … Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state.” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html).

Speaking in the name of “self-conscious Jewry,” the Zionists acknowledged sharing the Nazi ideal of the “foundation of the new state” that had established the “principle of race.” The “principle of race” was at the heart of anti-Semitism. Yet, this fact did not discourage collaboration. Quite the contrary, the Zionists not only encouraged it – “we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group” – but offered their cooperation – “We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state …” – and full support to a “government fundamentally hostile to Jews” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). The memorandum, “a treason to the Jews of Germany,” emphasized the level of collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis, all in the name of a Jewish state. As for Hitler’s overt anti-Semitism, expressed in Mein Kampf, the Zionists had inherited Herzl’s conviction “that anti-Semitism could not be fought” (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/zad/zad1.html). Besides, given their support for the Nazi “principle of race,” one can ascertain that the Zionist ideologies were not different from those of the Nazis. However, in recent years, dating from the 1967 Six-Day War, the term “anti-Semite” is used to discredit critics of the policies of the Zionist state (Gates, 124) and “to misdirect and intimidate” (Gates, xvi) those who seek the truth. These charges must vehemently be denied and people who believe in the validity of the charges must be given the chance to understand how they, unwillingly as it seems, have become reluctant participants and victims of a Zionist “Nationalistic Religious Orgy” (http://www.inthesetimes.com/main/print/4755/), a brainwash and propaganda apparatus that hides the truth from the population. Thus non-Jews who disagree with the agenda of Colonial Zionism are branded “anti-Semitic,” and dissenting Jews that deviate from the pro-Zionist “party-line” are smeared pejoratively as self-hating Jews (Gates, 124). Fuelling charges of anti-Semitism against anyone opposing Tel Aviv’s “land grab,” deemed lawful by the Jewish fundamentalists (Gates, 127), has become a strategic method of suppressing the opposition to Israel’s new colonialism. The aggressive strategy of “discredit[ing], isolat[ing], ostraciz[ing] or marginaliz[ing] anyone critical of Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies” (Gates, 127) proves to be an “effective” method of censorship – the fear of a smear campaign keeps many quiet – undermining a fundamental right to Free Speech.

The policy of silencing the critics follows a well-know pattern: the attacker usually starts with mentioning the “right to free speech” while attempting to hush the critic (Gates, 127). Norman Finkelstein’s 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah – The Misuse of Anti-Semitism caused Zionists “to hit the panic button” (Gates, 127). A Harvard-Zionist Professor Alan Dershowitz, whose book Chutzpah was the center of an extended critique by Norman Finkelstein, in a typical Zionist manner, attempted to halt the publication of Finkelstein’s “controversial book on Israel” (Gates, 253). At the age of 55, after teaching for six years at Chicago’s DePaul University, Finkelstein was denied tenure. His application had been approved at the departmental and college level but the Dean of the College of the Liberal Arts and Sciences opposed it. Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of meddling in the tenure proceedings, and Dershowitz admitted sending a letter to the DePaul Faculty members, lobbying against Finkelstein’s tenure (Chomsky on Dershowitz' "jihad" against Finkelstein Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ENawcSliA&feature=related). At the end of the day, the University succumbed to the pressure exercised by Jewish organizations and Alan Dershowitz. To use Noam Chomsky’s words, Dershowitz had declared a “jihad against Finkelstein (Chomsky on Dershowitz' "jihad" against Finkelstein Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBclWDYuoxI&feature=related) that despite the latter’s outstanding scholarly credentials, cost him a tenure.

Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid published by Simon & Schuster on November 14, 2006, met with a barrage of criticism (see Carter’s defence of the book and the ideas contained therein in President Jimmy Carter Pounds Israelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDKw0f95k7Q&feature=related). Abraham Foxman of ADL charged Carter, a supporter of the State of Israel and the sponsor of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace process, with anti-Semitism and Martin Peretz of the New Republic wrote: “[Carter] will go down in history as a Jew-hater” (Gates, 127). Similarly, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), an AIPAC media watchdog, bought full-page ads in The New York Times inciting readers to complain to the publisher about the new Carter book (Gates, 127). After the publication of the book, Alan Dershowitz made the following comment: “Jimmy Carter has literally become such an anti-Israel bigot that there’s a kind of special place in Hell reserved for somebody like that” (Alan Dershowitz Blasts President Jimmy Carter on Shalom TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FscSs-_IL0&feature=related).

Judge Richard Goldstone, an internationally respected jurist that headed the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, was assaulted by various leaders of the Jewish community and labelled an anti-Semite (http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20091002111513371) despite his impeccable credentials. He served as chair of the commission that investigated the crimes of the security forces during the apartheid regime in South Africa. He was the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6006-gazas-goldstone-on-the-backseat). He is a member of the governing board of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/war-crimes-white-wash) and a life-long supporter of Israel (http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6006-gazas-goldstone-on-the-backseat). The accusation is not only inconsistent with his heritage but also with the fact that he was a member of the International Panel, established in 1997 to investigate the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA) (http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20091002111513371). Nevertheless, in the eyes of those who choose to turn a blind eye to the inhuman treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, Goldstone is a traitor that qualifies for the label “self-hating Jew,” if not for the warn-out version: “anti-Semite.”

Noam Chomsky, a renowned American linguist, philosopher, author, political activist and a key left-wing intellectual has been criticized for his views on Israeli policies. Dismissing Israel’s claims of self-defence (Noam Chomsky on the Israel-Palestine Conflict http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpw-h6WY8As&feature=related), Chomsky explained: “They [Israel] are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they’re crushing … You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying somebody else’s land. That’s not defense! Call it what you like. IT’S NOT DEFENCE! ” (Noam Chomsky on Israel's Policy of 'Self-Defense' – Palestine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7SVaJLuNSo&feature=related).

In an interview on October 21, 2004 Amy Goodman of Democracy Now asked: “What do you say to those who call you anti-Semitic?” Noam Chomsky’s answer was as clear and logical as ever: “Depends who they are. If they're people like … [me] with a nice Jewish education … I’d tell them to read the Bible, where the concept is invented. It was used by King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible that calls … prophet Elijah – Elijah was what we would nowadays call a dissident intellectual, like most of the prophets were, giving geo-political analysis, calling for moral behaviour. He calls for Elijah, he says ‘why you are a hater of Israel’? What does that mean? You are criticizing me. I'm the king. I'm Israel. And therefore you're a hater of Israel. And that's what the concept means” (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041021.htm). Chomsky’s logic is based upon the principle of employing identical standards of evaluation when dealing with similar situations. Using the strategy of smearing the critics of a country’s policies would amount to charging Berlusconi’s critics with anti-Italianism, Bush’s critics with anti-Americanism, etc. “If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then … it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this” (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041021.htm). Chomsky’s critic Alan Dershowitz sees things differently. Chomsky jokingly suggests that he, similar to Norman Finkelstein, probably is on Dershowitz’ “Hit List.” The comment has a tinge of irony but there is truth in it – for years, Chomsky admits, Dershowitz had produced “outlandish lies about him (Chomsky on Dershowitz' "jihad" against Finkelstein Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBclWDYuoxI&feature=related).

Chomsky is right in his analysis of King Ahab’s equation of his rule with Israel; the story comes to us from 1Kings 18:17. Elijah defies Ahab’s, thus also the State’s authority, but he does it in the name of God: “[36] O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I HAVE DONE ALL THESE THINGS AT YOUR BIDDING” (1Kings 18:36). And just like any other terrorist extremist, Elijah kills in the name of God: “[40] Elijah said to them [the Israelites], ‘Seize the prophets of Baal; DO NOT LET ONE OF THEM ESCAPE’. Then they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon, and KILLED THEM THERE” (1Kings 18:40).

All prophets of the Old Testament speak in the name of God, and the threats they utter stand as messages from God. Thus Hosea threatens Israel with exile: “[17] Because they have not listened to him, my God will reject them; they shall become wanderers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17). Jeremiah prophecies loss of land, property and servitude imposed as punishment: “[1] The sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts … [3] … Your wealth and all your treasures I will give for spoil as the price of your sin throughout all your territory. [4] By your own act you shall lose the heritage that I gave you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever” (Jeremiah 17:1-4). Amos predicts disaster in the form of whole-sale massacre: “[1] Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel: [2] Fallen, no more to rise, is maiden Israel; forsaken on her land, with no one to raise her up. [3] For thus says the Lord God: The city that marched out a thousand shall have a hundred left, and that which marched out a hundred shall have ten left” (Amos 5:1-3).

The words of Amos, a pre-exilic prophet from the time of King Jeroboam II (788-747 BCE), a period of territorial expansion and prosperity, ring true today. The wealthy in Amos reached prosperity through manipulation of debt and credit that gave rise to gross inequities between the ruling elite and the poor (NRSV, 1302 HB). “[7] Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood, and bring righteousness to the ground!” (Amos 5:7). Small farmers lost their land and personal property and in many cases even their personal liberty (NRSV, 1302 HB), while the rich got richer: “[4] Alas for those who lie on beds of ivory, and lounge on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the stall; [5] who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp, and like David improvise on instruments of music; [6] who drink wine from bowls, and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph! [7] Therefore they shall now be the first to go into exile, and the revelry of the loungers shall pass away” (Amos 6:4-7). Amos’ denouncement of the decadent opulence of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and his call to Justice is similar to the denouncement delivered by the modern critics of Israeli policies. Predictably, the reaction towards such criticisms essentially has remained the same: [10] They hate the one who reproves in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks the truth” (Amos 5:10).

The message delivered by the prophets in the name of God is ominous. There is war: “your sons, and daughters shall fall by the sword” (Amos 7: 17), “The sword is given to be polished … to be placed in the slayer’s hand … for… it is against all Israel’s princes; they are thrown to the sword, together with my people” (Ezekiel 20:11-12), destruction: “I will deliver up the city and all that is in it” (Amos 6:8), moral degradation: “Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city” (Amos 7:17), famine: “I will send a famine on the land” (Amos 8:11), exile: “Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land” (Amos 7: 17), “I will scatter them before the enemy” (Jeremiah 18:17), “And though they go into captivity in front of their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes on them for harm and not for good” (Amos 9:4). But the promises of misfortune in Deuteronomy are graver than those of the prophets: “The Lord will send upon you disaster, panic, and frustration in everything you attempt to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly …” (Deuteronomy 28:20). Pestilence, consumption, fever, inflammation, ulcers, scurvy, itch, mildew, madness, confusion of mind, blindness, blight, barrenness of womb and of land, drought, hunger, thirst, siege of towns, military defeat before enemies, exile, servitude, continual abuse, robbery, nakedness, lack of everything are the punishments designed for Israel (Deuteronomy 28:15-52). A gruesome description of cannibalism is part of the threats: “[53] In the desperate straits to which the enemy siege reduces you, you will eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your own sons and daughters whom the Lord your God has given you. [54] Even the most refined and gentle of men among you will begrudge food to his own brother, to the wife whom he embraces, and to the last of his remaining children, [55] giving to none of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because nothing else remains to him, in the desperate straits to which the enemy siege will reduce you in all your towns. [56] She who is the most refined and gentle among you, so gentle and refined that she does not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground, will begrudge food to the husband whom she embraces, to her own son, and to her own daughter, [57] begrudging even the afterbirth that comes out from between her thighs, and the children that she bears, because she is eating them in secret for lack of anything else, in the desperate straits to which the enemy siege will reduce you in your towns” (Deuteronomy 28: 53-57). Cannibalism resulting from siege is God’s ultimate weapon and as such it is also referred to in Leviticus 26:29, 2Kings 6:28-32, Jeremiah 19: 9, Lamentations 4:10, Ezekiel 5:10. In all instances God proudly displays this punishment delighting in its abhorrent nature: “[9] AND I WILL MAKE THEM EAT THE FLESH OF THEIR SONS AND THE FLESH OF THEIR DAUGHTERS, AND ALL SHALL EAT THE FLESH OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS in the siege, and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them” (Jeremiah 19:9).

Reading these threats makes one wonder: is the God of the Hebrew Bible an anti-Semite? Or more properly, are the priests and scribes of the Second Temple – the writers of these texts – anti-Semitic? While because of the cultural-historical distance between the Second Temple Judaism and our own time these questions can be debated endlessly, we can affirm that the modern critics of Israeli policies are NOT anti-Semitic. Therefore, the charges of anti-Semitism must be rejected and exposed for what they are: “an attempt to deflect criticism from the actions of … Israeli government by declaring criticism of Israel out of bounds and invoking Europe's last great taboo – the fear of being declared an anti-Semite” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/17/1). The equation "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" that has become the “new orthodoxy” has produced new ways of associating anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rhetoric with anti-Semitism (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020490.html). The study of serious anti-Semitism, presently “hijacked and debased by people lacking any serious expertise in the subject” (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020490.html), should, in reality, include the analysis of the dealing of the Zionists, who collaborated with the Nazi regime and were guilty of anti-Semitism by association. Next, it should deal with the Zionist State that ignores the guilt of the founders of Zionism, and is as guilty of anti-Semitism as the founders themselves.

Bibliography

Gates, Jeff. Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. Santa Barbara: State Street Publications, 2008.

The new Oxford Annotated Bible. Augmented Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Alternativas dos palestinos ao seu Estado

Lejeune Mirhan *

Fiquei contente quando li o artigo de Roger Cohen, no Herald Tribune, intitulado The Mideast Truce (1), cujo título republicado no Estadão foi “Acordo de paz cada vez mais distante”. Não que eu não queira a paz. Ao contrário.

(Muro da Segregação e Vergonha em Israel, com Quase 900 Quilômetros de Extensão)

Desejo a paz ardentemente, e os palestinos também. Ocorre que faz duas ou três semanas, em que publiquei um artigo nesta linha de pessimismo do escritor Cohen. Cabe-nos hoje, refletir as alternativas sobre os rumos do movimento de luta pela libertação da Palestina.

Uma preliminar: o Muro da Segregação

No dia 9 de novembro passado, a direita mundial festejou 20 anos da “queda” do chamado Muro de Berlim, construído em 1961, para separar as duas Alemanhas, a Oriental e a Ocidental, num mundo que não existe mais, que era o da guerra fria. Fizeram festa diante do Portão de Brandenburgo, onde Bach compôs músicas esplendorosas no passado clássico. Dançaram, cantaram. Desenterraram alguns (ex) líderes da época da queda, em 1989, como Mikhail Gorbatchov, queridinha da direita, conhecido como coveiro do socialismo. Se Thatcher parasse em pé hoje, eles a teriam levado, como um cadáver ambulante, uma morta-viva. Merkel, com cara de bebê Johnson, festeja junto com Sarkozy. Querem mostrar ao mundo que a vitória é deles e a derrota é nossa.

De fato, sofremos essa derrota. Já vínhamos sendo derrotados desde 1979, quando a dama de ferro vence as eleições na Inglaterra há trinta anos. Em 1989 foi apenas uma consequência disso. O mundo “endireitou-se” todo de lá para cá, mas hoje, pelo menos na América Latina, o que vemos é uma clara reversão desse processo regressivo, que minimizou estados nacionais, retirou soberania, entregou patrimônio público, demitiu servidores, precarizou trabalho, concentrou renda e riqueza, endividou países, subordinando-os ao Fundo Monetário Internacional.

No entanto, eles fazem essa “festa”, mas estão em depressão profunda. Não possuem saída para a maior crise que o sistema passou desde a de 1929-1932. Seus ideais desmoronaram-se de um dia para outro. Os mais liberais dos liberais, passaram a defender que o Estado saísse em defesa para salvar os capitais em bancarrota. Na verdade, a crise do ano passado foi deles e não foi nossa. A derrota foi deles. É claro, que o nosso lado, os trabalhadores mais sofridos é que acabamos por pagar a crise. Mas o modelo inventado por eles, cuja propaganda mostrava como infalível (falaram até em “fim da história”...), sofreu derrota de morte, esta ferido e pode não ter chance de sobreviver. Vive em estado terminal.

Bem, mas porque falo tudo isso? Que tem a ver a queda do Muro de Berlim com o Oriente Médio? Tudo a ver. É que no Oriente Médio, exatamente na Cisjordânia, na Palestina, desde 2002, vem sendo construído um muro, que o próprio governo israelense chamou de “Muro da Segregação”. É um Muro da Vergonha. Isola aldeias palestinas (daremos os dados adiante).

A direita neoliberal comemora a queda do “nosso” muro. Mas vejam bem. O Muro de Berlim tinha155 Km de extensão. O da Palestina tem 895 Km! Quase seis vezes maior! O Muro de Berlim tinha quatro metros de altura. O da Segregação tem 12 metros de altura! Três vezes mais alto! A largura do Muro de Berlim (área de segurança que ele isolava) era de 40 metros e o da Palestina é de 200 metros! Cinco vezes maior!

Esse Muro da Segregação ou da Vergonha, já condenada pela Corte Internacional de Haia na Holanda (Tribunal da ONU), separa ainda mais os palestinos de suas terras. Israel com isso amplia em mais 12% suas ocupação na Cisjordânia, onde esta ilegalmente desde junho de 1967. E não aceita nenhuma das dezenas de resoluções da Organização para que desocupe esses territórios palestinos. Não só não desocupa, como mantém mais de duas centenas de colônias. Hoje essas colônias (não encontro outra palavra mais apropriada), recebem 450 mil judeus. Se somarmos ocupações, condomínios em Jerusalém Oriental, os judeus em terras palestinas perfazem quase um milhão de pessoas! E esses “assentamentos” não vão parar. Estimulados, inclusive, por declarações desastrosas da secretária de Estado estadunidense, Hilary Clinton, o governo fascista de Netanyahu determinou a continuidade das construções, de novos prédios de apartamentos (mais de 900), na Jerusalém árabe.

O Muro isolou 212 aldeias palestinas em que vivem centenas de milhares de palestinos e suas família. Fala-se em 233 poços de água que foram subtraídos dos palestinos e pelo menos mais 72 nascentes. No total, fala-se em 713 quilômetros quadrados. Isso significa que Israel amplia em pelo menos 12% de todas as terras palestinas histórica (já demos este dado e voltamos a ele: se toda a Cisjordânia fosse devolvido aos seus donos palestinos, a Faixa de Gaza e Jerusalém Oriental, um possível Estado Palestino teria 22% de toda a Palestina original (um quinto) e mesmo com relação ao Plano de Partilha da ONU, aprovado em 29 de Novembro de 1947, eram 48% da Palestina. Hoje, estamos falando de algo como no máximo 10% do território original.

Nesse contexto, como posso ser otimista? Impossível.

Quais as alternativas possuem os palestinos?

Dei uma entrevista para a Rádio França Internacional (a terceira em três meses), para a competente jornalista brasileira radicada em Paris, Lúcia Fróes. Tratamos sobre quais alternativas estão colocadas hoje para o movimento de resistência dos palestinos (essa rádio é muito parecida com a BBC de Londres e transmite em vários idiomas, para a comunidade francófona).

Com base no que pude ler, ouvir, analisar, travar contatos internacionais, acredito que três podem ser os caminhos. Permito-me compartilhar essas ideias com meus leitores, estando preparado para receber críticas (construtivas). Analiso as consequências inclusive.

1. Completa dissolução da ANP – Mahmoud Abbas, que inclusive chega ao Brasil para avistar-se com Lula em Salvador nesta sexta, dia 20, anunciou dias atrás, que desiste de candidatar-se à reeleição. Ele pertence ao grupo majoritário, mais forte, dentro da OLP, que é o Partido Fatah. Seu grupo deixaria de apresentar qualquer candidatura. Com isso, e se ninguém se apresenta nas eleições marcadas para janeiro, a ANP deixaria de existir! Quase que uma auto-dissolução. Um golpe fatal tanto em Israel, quanto nos Estados Unidos de Obama, cada vez mais frustrando esperanças dos povos e dos governos árabes do OM. Não haveria mais que se falar em negociação da paz, pois do lado palestino não haveria nenhum interlocutor. Fala-se na volta da Intifada dentro da Fatah (revolta de jovens com pedras e fundas). Isso gera um profundo impasse. Os acordos de Oslo de 1993, que renderam o Nobel da Paz para Arafat, Peres (que visitou o Brasil esta semana) e Rabin (assassinado por um fanático dois anos depois) e criaram a ANP, tinham o claro objetivo que esse “Autoridade” deveria seguir as negociações de paz, que objetivassem a criação do Estado Palestino. Passaram-se 16 anos e nada de estado;

2. Criação de um Estado da Palestina de forma unilateral pelos palestinos – Essa é uma opção forte e pode ser adotada, à revelia da ONU e do governo israelense. Israel já rechaçou essa possibilidade, portanto registrando o golpe. Claro, é uma operação mais arriscada. Os palestinos podem não ter de imediato o reconhecimento de várias nações importantes e grandes ao seu Estado. Sabemos que vários estados e repúblicas mais avançadas, em especial as bolivarianas da América Latina, podem imediatamente reconhecer esse novo Estado, criando um problema, digamos, diplomático. Mas, estaria criado uma situação de fato e depois de direito. Força-se uma negociação imediata. Não podemos esquecer que, em 15 de novembro de 1988 (mesmo dia de nossa República...), Arafat proclamou na cidade de Argel, Argélia, de forma unilateral, a Independência da Palestina. Foi um gesto mais político, uma jogada de mestre, mas que teve pouca eficácia para a paz;

3. Defesa de um Estado único da Palestina, binacional e laico – Essa é a mais polêmica de todas. Tratei disso no inicio deste ano. Seria como se existisse um estado único num território que hoje se chama Israel, mas que já se chamou Palestina, voltasse a se chamar dessa forma. Ele seria binacional, bilíngue e lá morariam duas etnias, duas povos, o palestino e o judeu. Tentariam viver em paz. As escolas teriam dois idiomas, o país ou duas bandeiras ou uma nova bandeira que refletisse as duas tradições. Teria que ser democrático e laico. Nunca poderia ser confessional, nem judaico, nem islâmico ou cristão. Coisa parecida com o Canadá, que tem duas línguas e duas culturas bem distintas, onde seu povo fala francês e inglês. Muitos intelectuais veem essa proposta com bons olhos. Claro, Israel é completamente contrário. Até porque, é impossível eles defenderem um estado laico, pelo simples fato que eles são por um estado judeu, sem constituição e, portanto, não democrático. Acho esta a mais difícil das três alternativas.

Registro

Durante o 12º Congresso do PCdoB, realizado de 5 a 8 de novembro de 2009, precisamente para coincidir com as comemorações do aniversário da Revolução de Outubro (7 de Novembro no calendário ocidental) de 1917, na Rússia, que chamamos de revolução Bolchevique ou Socialista. O presidente Lula prestigiou esse evento no ato político de abertura, que ocorreu na sexta-feira, no Palácio das Convenções do Anhembi, na sala que cabe três mil pessoas (compareceu com uma comitiva de oito ministros; discursou 1h15 e foi aplaudido nesse tempo exatas 20 vezes, das quais cinco com a plateia em pé).

Não quero descrever sobre o Congresso. Ele foi grandioso e unitário sobre vários aspectos. Quero discorrer sobre as delegações internacionais. Em torno de 150 camaradas de 50 países estiveram presentes de todos os continentes, em uma demonstração de solidariedade internacional e de internacionalismo proletário.

Tive o prazer de travar contatos com as delegações árabes. Vieram representações da Palestina, do Líbano e da Síria. A Palestina surpreendeu a todos os presentes. Enviou quatro representações distintas. Todos os partidos de esquerda, marxistas-leninistas (Partido do Povo palestino, ex-Partido Comunista; Frente Democrático de Libertação da Palestina – FDLP; Frente Popular de Libertação da Palestina – FPLP e o Fatah).

Nas próximas semanas, terei a honra de tentar entrevistar, ainda que por e-mail, os camaradas dos comitês centrais da FDLP, Dr. Jehad Youssef (a quem tive a honra de recepcionar no aeroporto internacional de Guarulhos) e o Dr. Nassim Alam, da Secretaria das Relações Internacionais do CC da Fatah. Aguardem.

Nota

(1) O artigo pode ser lido neste endereço e saiu no Estadão de 18 de novembro de 2009.

1 comentários

* Presidente do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de São Paulo, escritor, arabista e professor. Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa e da International Sociological Association.

When the Israel Lobby goes on red alert, it becomes the Jewish Lobby

Two votes in the last few days show that when backed to the wall, the powerful Israel Lobby can become even more powerful when it marshals the resources of the worldwide Jewish Lobby. THe two lobbies went into red alert status over the UN report of well-respected South African judge Richard Goldstone, who is Jewish, a self-described Zionist, and trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, that recommends an independent investigation into Israeli actions in what the report stated amounted to "war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity." Israel's invasion of Gaza, code named "Cast Lead," resulted in the deaths of over 1400 people, many of them children and women.

The reaction of the "twin lobby" to the Goldstone report was quick and fierce. On cue, the Anti-Defamation League's whiny Abe Foxman let loose with a barrage of criticism of Goldstone. From other quarters, Goldstone was accused of being "anti-Semitic" and a "self-hating Jew." The same sort of vitriolic name-calling had been meted out by the Lobby to Mary Robinson, the former Irish President, who served as UN Human Rights Commissioner.

The Israel Lobby, whose political backbone comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), had introduced into the House of Representatives resolution H.R. 867, which called on the Obama administration not only to reject the Goldstone report, also known as "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict," but block any further consideration of it by the United Nations. On November 3, the House resolution passed by a lopsided 344-36 vote.

AIPAC was supported in its last-minute blitzkrieg of the House by like-minded organizations, including the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Federations of North America, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Zionist Organization of America.

AIPAC, through its power over campaign donations from wealthy Jews in the United States, can ram any legislation through Congress at a moment's notice. And H.R. 867 was time-sensitive. AIPAC and its allies had to send a message to the Obama administration that it and The Lobby expected strong American opposition to the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on accepting the Goldstone report. The UN vote took place two days later and passed 114 to 18, with 44 abstentions and 16 nations not voting.

With the power of the World Jewish Congress, the European Jewish Congress, and other pressure groups arrayed against them, many small countries dependent on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (both controlled by pro-Israelis, Robert Zoellick and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, respectively), were forced to vote against Goldstone, abstain, or simply not vote at all. Israel proclaimed that the 18 nations that voted against Goldstone represented a "moral majority." Israel, headed up by an expansionist and xenophobic government, in which avowed racist and gangster Avigdor Lieberman serves as Foreign Minister, received a seal of approval not only from the Obama administration but US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, go daughter of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Rice's deputy, Alejandro Daniel Wolff, reportedly cajoled various UN delegations to either vote no on Goldstone, abstain, or miss the vote entirely.

However, some countries, like some members of the House, stood up to the immense twin Lobby to vote for Goldstone and reject the threats made by the Lobbies' arm twisters and thumb breakers.

Among those who defied AIPAC and its allies were Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Geoff Davis (D-KY), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), John Dingell (D-MI), and George Miller (D-CA). Perhaps the greatest courage was shown by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), who is Jewish, and voted against AIPAC. Previously, Filner admitted the power of AIPAC to punish those members of the House who defied it. Filner cited the electoral losses of Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Earl Hilliard (D-AL), who were defeated in their respective Democratic primaries after out-of-state money from wealthy Jewish circles poured into the campaign coffers of their opponents. Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD), who also voted against the AIPAC resolution, faces a similar AIPAC-inspired challenge next year.

The "Brave 36" who stood up to AIPAC on the Goldstone report:

Baird Baldwin Blumenauer Boustany Capps Carson (IN) Clarke Clay Davis (KY) Dingell Doggett Edwards (MD)

Ellison Filner Grijalva Hinchey Johnson, E. B. Kilpatrick (MI) Kucinich Lee (CA) Lynch McCollum McDermott McGovern

Miller, George Moran (VA) Olver Pastor (AZ) Paul Price (NC) Rahall Snyder Stark Waters Watt Woolsey

Other House members were able to silently protest by merely voting "Present." They included Hank Johnson, the Democratic primary challenger who beat McKinney in Georgia with the help of out-of-state Jewish campaign funds.

Becerra Cooper Dahlkemper DeFazio Delahunt Duncan Eshoo Farr

Heinrich Hirono Honda Johnson (GA) Jones Kaptur Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe

Luján Obey Speier Tierney Welch Wu

Other House members chose not to vote at all. They included Artur Davis, the candidate who defeated Hilliard, again, with out-of-state Jewish campaign funding, and John Conyers (D-MI), who represents the district with the largest percentage of Arab-Americans in the United States and, thus, has drawn a number of pro-Israeli operatives to his congressional and House Judiciary Committee staffs.

Abercrombie Ackerman Bachmann Barrett (SC) Boucher Brady (PA) Capuano Conyers Davis (AL) Davis (TN)

Deal (GA) Gordon (TN) Gutierrez Hall (NY) Holt Meeks (NY) Murphy, Patrick Nunes Pallone Pascrell

Payne Pingree (ME) Price (GA) Sánchez, Linda T. Sires Souder Stupak Towns Velázquez Wamp

AIPAC and its other Lobby allies were ensured the votes of 344 House members. They are:

Aderholt Adler (NJ) Akin Alexander Altmire Andrews Arcuri Austria Baca Bachus Barrow Bartlett Barton (TX) Bean Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boccieri Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boren Boswell Boyd Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carter Cassidy Castle Castor (FL) Chaffetz Chandler Childers Chu Cleaver Clyburn Coble Coffman (CO) Cohen Cole Conaway Connolly (VA) Costa Costello Courtney Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeGette DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Donnelly (IN) Doyle Dreier Driehaus Edwards (TX) Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson Engel Etheridge Fallin Fattah Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Frank (MA) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Gonzalez

Goodlatte Granger Graves Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Griffith Guthrie Hall (TX) Halvorson Hare Harman Harper Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Himes Hinojosa Hodes Hoekstra Holden Hoyer Hunter Inglis Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jenkins Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jordan (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kennedy Kildee Kilroy Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kirkpatrick (AZ) Kissell Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Kosmas Kratovil Lamborn Lance Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (NY) Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Maffei Maloney Manzullo Marchant Markey (CO) Markey (MA) Marshall Massa Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul McClintock McCotter McHenry McIntyre McKeon McMahon McMorris Rodgers McNerney Meek (FL) Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Minnick Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Tim Murtha Myrick

Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nye Oberstar Olson Ortiz Paulsen Pence Perlmutter Perriello Peters Peterson Petri Pitts Platts Poe (TX) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Posey Putnam Quigley Radanovich Rangel Rehberg Reichert Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Scalise Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schmidt Schock Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Skelton Slaughter Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Space Spratt Stearns Sullivan Sutton Tanner Taylor Teague Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Titus Tonko Tsongas Turner Upton Van Hollen Visclosky Walden Walz Wasserman Schultz Watson Waxman Weiner Westmoreland Wexler Whitfield Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL)

The 114 countries that voted to support the Goldstone report in the UN General Assembly were:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Those who voted to support Israeli genocide and reject Goldstone were:

Israel, United States, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, Macedonia, and Ukraine.

Countries that abstained were:

Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Countries not voting were:

Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Not only is the power of the loan-wielding World Bank and IMF seen in the decision of some countries to abstain or not vote, but the influence-peddling of George Soros, himself a Hungarian Jew by birth, can be seen in the "no" votes of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Macedonia and the abstention and not voting positions of Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania, Kyrggyzstan, and Turkmenistan, nations were Soros's Open Society Institute maintains political sway.

Russia's abstention likely arose from fears that a UN precedent on Israel might be set for other war crimes investigations and Chechnya weighs heavily on Moscow in that respect.

Even with the full-court press by the Israel and Jewish Lobbies, aided by Rice and Wolff at the UN, the yes votes included those of major Latin American nations, including Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Venezuela, as well as countries that will undoubtedly feel the punch of Jewish Lobby's threats to their tourist industries, including Bahamas, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica, Antigua, Belize, Jamaica, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Slovenia, Portugal, Singapore, Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, and Grenada.

AIPAC strives for political indoctrination for college and El-Hi students

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) might learn a thing or two from Lyndon Johnson's famous quote about FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, "Its probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

Having received no word back from AIPAC on receiving credentials to cover their annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center, this editor set out to pick up as many side conversations and abandoned AIPAC literature from the attendees' hotel venues.

This year's AIPAC policy conference's theme is "Relationships Matter."

At a luncheon event at the Hyatt Hotel across from the convention center, 193 student government association presidents from colleges and universities across the nation, including a fair number of historically African American universities, were treated to a right-wing message of unbridled U.S. support for Israel. Although AIPAC's website states that College Democrats of America were invited to the luncheon in addition to the College Republican National Committee, the AIPAC message was clearly conservative in nature. One student, upon leaving the luncheon, said to his colleagues that he was encouraged by the luncheon's theme of "spreading the conservative message on campus."

For AIPAC, that message is ensuring that campus student organizations toe a pro-Israel line and that all campus initiatives to disinvest in Israel are defeated.

But it is not just America's college students who are being subjected to AIPAC's right-wing propaganda blitzkrieg. This editor overheard a conversation by another AIPAC attendee about continued non-profit funding for a network of summer camps to stress support for Israel and "Jewishness" among the generation following in the footsteps of college students and the generation following that. Clearly understood in the conversation was that the effort was planning for thirty years into the future.

Speakers already featured at AIPAC's policy conference are those who represent a "Who's Who" of Israel's influence peddling in Washington: former CIA director James Woolsey; Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) executive director Robert Satloff (who replaced Dennis Ross, who now serves as a Middle East policy adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton); and former Coalition Provisional Authority press spokesman Dan Senor of the Council on Foreign Relations (and the husband of CNN's Campbell Brown. At CNN, with the examples of Campbell Brown and John King, it is best under the tutelage of CNN Washington bureau chief and former AIPAC press spokesman Wolf Blitzer to marry Jewish and convert to Judaism or possible run the risk of losing your job).

Also speaking at AIPAC was Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), who was identified by National Security Agency (NSA) "Stellar Wind" wiretaps trying to get an espionage case dropped against former AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman in exchange for landing the coveted job as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The espionage case against Rosen and Weissman was dropped by the Obama administration prior to the AIPAC conference. Harman is but one of Israel's and AIPAC's many water carriers in the U.S. Congress.

Hasidics brave the wet weather to protest at the AIPAC conference: they can be counted on to be there every year. They expected more of their collegues to be arriving from New York in time for the May 4 banquet event.

This editor recently spoke briefly to former Representative Paul Findlay (R-IL), who was driven from office by AIPAC money for refusing to bow down to Israel's dictates. Findlay later wrote a book titled, "They Dare to Speak Out" about the power of the Israel Lobby in Washington. A former top U.S. diplomat recently told this editor that at a luncheon, Rosen once told him that AIPAC was so powerful that by the end of the afternoon, Rosen could have seventy signatures of U.S. senators, with no questions asked, on a napkin he was holding up.

AIPAC conference attendees were greeted by this mobile billboard across from one of the conference hotels.

AIPAC insists that it is a private lobbying organization funded through private donations. From the license plates pulling into the convention center and hotels it appears that much of AIPAC's support comes from New York. However, given the presence of Israel's top government, military, diplomatic, parastatal, and intelligence leadership at the AIPAC policy conference, it appears that AIPAC is running afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, which requires lobbying organizations that represent foreign governments to register with the Justice Department.

FARA was originally enacted to combat Nazi German propaganda in the United States. Given AIPAC's indoctrination of college students, and summer camp-age children in their political dogma, it would appear that the Israelis and their American supporters are taking a page right out of the Nazi playbook that resulted in the passage of FARA. But AIPAC claims FARA does not apply to it. However, FARA was enacted when it became apparent that Berlin was funding the German American Bund and two camps for the indoctrination of young people, Camp Nordland in New Jersey and Camp Siegfried in New York. It all sounds very familiar.