portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

faith & spirituality | political theory

Why Zionism Will Loose the PR War

Even as Judeo-Christianity engages a new series of crusades on Islamism, in which case the intermediate outcomes could be very devastating for the world at large, still in the long run Abrahamic Religions, that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islamism, that is, their authoritarian ego psychology will little matter.
Why Zionism Will Loose the PR War

By the devil's advocate

Even as Judeo-Christianity engages a new series of crusades on Islamism, in which case the intermediate outcomes could be very devastating for the world at large, still in the long run Abrahamic Religions, that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islamism, that is, their authoritarian ego psychology will little matter.

The fact is the value systems of the old world and the new world are diametrically opposed—that is the styles of ill-liberalism versus liberalism. The old world, is comprised of the lands of the Middle and Near East that spawned three "authoritarian" religions—and the ego psychology of "projecting" evil on the "other" as not in one's "in-group."

The new world, for our reference, began with the Italy's Renaissance, that sought refuge from the debilitating, guilt tripping of the Catholic Church, on to the Enlightenment of British, French and Americans for its recognition of reason, human rights and freedoms. This tradition came to the people of the United States via the psychology of the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights following the path of the Magna Carta.

More specifically the liberal tradition recognizing that individual freedom is the goal of the state; whereas the ill-liberal tradition views the individual as subservient to the state. Israel, despite its public relations campaign to market itself as a democracy, is a religious autocracy—and it is democratic only for Jews. Everyone else, especially Palestinians, are unwelcome—meant to be driven away—such as out to sea.

This is why Barack Obama was right in re-emphasizing: "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion." Obama has managed to hone-in on the "central" issue of bed-rock principles dividing the new and old world—irrespective of "traitorous" major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as not recognizing this fact with its fifth columnist syndication pandering for a sanctimonious right-wing Israel.

Take one deviant of writers—George F. Will—deviant in the sense that when he cannot or will not articulate a logical argument he reverts to insinuate, fear-monger, use false fact, or engage various forms of assumption and implication. This man is constantly throwing curveballs within his arguments, that when analyzed seldom follow logical steps to make clear and unambiguous sense. Apparently he likes to impress his naïve readership with his insider presumption, or namedrops to vast knowledge and reference, for example to law citation or book cover, than simply write a clear and democratic argument the average daily reader could read and understand the point—not that he is unable. Or is it not uppity enough to use writing style that is clear and forceful in principle?

Nevertheless we are informed by his beltway greatness, that is according to Netanyahu, as Will seems to play uncritical mouthpiece, that the Middle East reflects "two" developments—the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution and secondly missile warfare. (Granted the 1979 revolution would not likely have happened had some oil company not been so greedy in its expectation of percentage of profit).

But if you read Will's column to make Israel's leader a tough guy ("... our God is meaner and less predictable than your Jesus and Jimmy Carter... ), you notice he never mentions Israeli militancy, or Israel's and the U.S. "vast" arsenals of nuclear weapons (that of course are no concern to anyone), etc., to counter the constantly distortedly narrow pictures Israelis present.

Rather Will continues on to say the third "threat" is an attempt to "de-legitimize" Israel's right to defend itself. (And of course we readers are supposed to interpret these "threats" as the most important factual "developments" because Israel and the Zionist Washington Posts mouthpieces say so.)

Fine. Israel can defend itself and it should do so without expecting the people of the United States to back it up. Why should the people, as major tax payers of the United States, fight for an ill-liberal tradition of some crazy myth that Americans and Europeans are too chicken hawk of heart to examine—that is that some "so-called" Yahweh with the heart of tyrant, and the soul of a despot, gave ancient Hebrews Canaan—that is according to Moses and his public relations press pool—that justified the killing off of many inhabitants—because, as the brainwash goes, if it was God's command, as it then means no dissidence, or questioning?

Funny how some Gods, especially monotheistic Gods, have the same personality and ego structure as do some authoritarian personalities? The human ego is quick to judge, quick to become hostile, to exact revenge, to hold a grudge and resent, to hoard power, to be extremist in expectation and action—but somehow naïve men have bought the same hook, line, and sinker for Middle Eastern Gods as well—as they have been brainwashed into thinking they owe some allegiance to such manipulation and form of politic (George Will included).

But more importantly why does the Anti Defamation League, that most notably seems to be a Israeli front, and nevertheless actively works to "encourage" discrimination against Muslims and Arabs here in the United States, thinks it has some pre-emptive prerogative to speak for Americans in Manhattan, or in general, about who can exist in Manhattan—and what kind of religion can be practiced there or in the United States?

In fact some people, who have actually looked more deeply into the 9/11 event, that is past the propaganda war that surrounds it with bogus arguments and red herrings, are not at all convinced that any Muslim had anything to do with 9/11, and it might even be the case that rogue elements within the U.S. and Israel played a part. Nevertheless it almost always seems that either some ultra-right-wing Christian or Jew tries making a case to persecute and prosecute everything Islamic and Arab here in the United States—just like a similar propaganda of discrimination is taking place in Israel—as if Manhattan should equally be "Jewish" territory.

Even Uri Avnery in his article A Parliamentary Mob: Inside the Israeli Knessent says in a nutshell that Israelis are using their government to discriminate against non-Jews and to have more and more expelled out of the area. Uri Avnery, one of the main and early proponents of the two state solution ought to know; but the two state solution was always a farce the way Israel played its actions as discordant from articulated intention—that is deliberate deceit—it was just that American diplomats were too ignorant or patsy to say otherwise.

But again we see evidence of this conspiracy theory containing truth—namely a deliberate and cynical attempt to prejudice Americans against Muslims by a rhetoric of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington (political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy aide to President Clinton). Huntington like, Leo Strauss, wanted to re-unite this country by creating a new outside enemy and deliberately lying to the public—that is since Russia was no longer as much a boogieman—enter Al Qaeda—the Muslims the U.S. used as proxies warriors in the Russian/ Afghan war.

It is interesting to note Anton Chaitkin in his book review published in Exceutive Intelligence Review May 21, 2004 wrote:

"... Huntington's 1996 The Clash of Civilizations sought to derange the public mind to accept war between the West and Islam as inevitable. With this sequel, Who Are We?—The Challenges to America's National Identity he promotes a "white nativist movement," to be herded with panic and hatred against the proposed new enemy image: Hispanics, particularly Mexican immigrants... "

Brown people from the south are another of his other targets to protect white people—and it is not ironic that "white" Jews feel a need of discrimination and defend, not Israel but Zionist Israel as well?

The latest evidence of this religious clash is the divisive clamor about the ground zero mosque in NYC, to be built about four blocks from where the Twin Towers fell. (See Justin Raimondo's commentary "Haters Go After the 'Ground Zero Mosque... '" at his Antiwar.com dated July 23, 2010.)

So one "accomplishment" of the Neo-Con-Artists and parallel Christian-Zionist right-winger movement since 9/11—was to get more Europeans, Canadians and Americans, etc., to see Muslims and Arabs as "our" enemies—that is of white, European descendants—including the "white" people that now comprise most European, Baltic, Russian, and American Jews, since few of them are actually biological descendants of a purported Semitic King named David (see Schlomo Sand's book The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso Books, 2009). (Note, as well, Schlomo Sand was a professor in Tele Aviv and a Polish survivor of the Holocaust. Yet his theory that most of contemporary Jews are descendents of peoples converted over, and thus not biological descendants, is denigrated as not worthy of serious consideration. Still it is obvious that "authentic" Semites would have skin color and physical features like those people living in Egypt and Syria—not Caucasoid—meaning you don't need the absolute certainty of a DNA test to know why Gandhi was kicked off a first class train car in South Africa—it was because he was colored the way the Palestinians are of a darker hue).

Yet the real "enemy" now is the Koran and the Islamic religion itself—a prejudice long held, especially in Christian countries, since Islamists once too considered it necessary to conquer and convert Christians and Jews to their version of what they viewed as the one and only true religion. But this narrowness of rigid perspective is still one of the main problems with the three Abrahamic religions and their various sects, that is, they claim to be the correct and true religion (or required membership and absolute loyalty to live in certain areas). And they spawn self-righteous hostility and fear of other, as they are based on dogmatism and an authoritarian psychology that attracts and reinforces right-wing rigidity.

This is why the problem is not about defense of Israel—but rather what kind of Israel. So Israel can boast all the weaponry it wants, it can fight all the wars and battles it wants—but ultimately it will not win the public relations war—nor will Islamism nor Christianity—because not only are these religions atavistic they are repressive and dangerous in their very literature—never mind interpretation. And it is time to focus exactly on this issue—whether they are of inerrant truth—or reflections of human psychology and politics.

And this is precisely the problem—after 9/11 the United States has become less free and more like Israel engaged in far more security problems and issues and spying—rather than Israel becoming more free and more like the United States, that was based on its Anglo-Saxon law tradition—at least in theory of respect for human rights.

Why is not George Will not demanding from Mr. Netanyahu to have their nation wake up and separate Church and State (or for all countries in the Middle East)?

Instead the sanctimoniousness of George Will really shines, as he wrote in his usual business to tear down Obama and make him seem a light-weight, that Obama declared himself, in his "Cairo speech," that he was a "citizen of the world," to which Willful claimed it was a "oxymoronic boast" since citizenship requires allegiance a particular polity.

Doesn't the "world" sound like a polity Mr. Know-It-All? After all the "polis" was a city back when Israel was a baby. And what about those in the U.S. who have hold dual citizenship—where do they cast their real loyalty? Or what about all those who have loyalty to making a profit irrespective of how many middle class and lower class kids die in wars created by the upper class power structure?

More importantly, as George Will rightfully knows even if too blind to recognize, and that is there is an America allegiance to "principles"—which is what the United States was initially founded on—not a king, not a religion, not any smug assumption. Yet to downplay any legitimacy to the progressive principle of freedom for all, Mr. Will pulls out his "transnational progressivism" label as if to insinuate he somehow has more of a handle on this kind of phenomenon, than those that respect democratic ideals, which many Israelis clearly do not.

But if making Islamism evil is the tack that right-wing zealots want to take, and they are already planning on making the mosque debacle a political issue for election purposes, then why don't we have a contest, and find out which religious doctrines, that is what holy books, actually have the most arguably evil instructions in them? Let various research teams do a compare and contrast analysis? Surely the Intelligence Community has enough personnel and resource to do this kind of thing (since they spent at least 75 billion a year of tax payer money a year according to Dana Priest and William Arkin in the Washington Post article Top Secret America)? Surely they can discover that the idea of "stoning" sinners to death was in the Old Testament—and that women were required to wear veils was equally so—that is if they want to reform Islamic countries today?

But to make it easier for those who think wading through esoteric and ancient tomes too time consuming, some of the research has already been done at places like:




(Don't know of websites that compare Islamic verses as evil but surely they exist or some equivalent does.)

You might think a website with a name like EvilBible sounds too hyperbolic in nature, like a oxymoron, but remember that evil is evil. Surely EvilBible.com is skewed to at looking at the "negative" side of the Bible, but that is precisely because most preachers do not, and therefore most people, do not really have a more balanced view of what the Bible really represents, contradictions and all.

And perhaps it is time to really find out just how "holy" these books and religions are—despite mankind's reluctance—it is just that Citizen Will has given us official notice that we were "warned" that Binyamin, who is not routinely called cuddly, that is warned "they" in Israel will make a world-shaking decision within two years (about the end of Obama's first term).

But we are suppose to assume that somehow these holy books are worth going to World War Three over, because you know when Israel or the U.S. initiates a direct attack, our tries another false flag operation, that it could affect many people. (Such threats by Israel are equally a form of terrorism-given they have no facts to even proof a nuclear weapon program in Iran.)

If most people actually read the Bible likely more would question the veracity of it. It is simply too much verbiage, in language that is often stilted and arcane, etc. There is far too much baggage for several reasons—including and especially that man attempts to project his human personalit(es) and judgments onto a God, by writing literature and then claiming the literature was inspired by God—when it was really inspired by politics.

And so what if Judaism has a long historical tradition—if it is ultimately based on lies about commands to kill and go to war, why should we Americans fight for such a retrograde cause? Adherents to Abrahamic religions have been embroiled into too many wars over history—many which naïve Americans have little historical awareness, and what do you think is on the table now but more war?

George informs us that Netanyahu has a portrait of Winston Churchill in his office—respect for his not flinching against evil. (Still it is funny how humans so readily become Gods?) Nevertheless, it is obvious that humans wrote the Bible and the Koran—and some of those humans had insane ideas—at least they would seem insane, if not downright criminal, at least to our own time and awareness levels.

And this is not to argue that all Muslims or Arabs are saints—that is not the point. The point is that these religions have far too much sway in a dangerous world and it is time to defang these delusions—as to what principles are going to motivate International Relations. If Israel's Jews can't take the lead in recognizing it is time for a new awareness then we should stop dealing with them. How many decades or centuries do Israelis and Muslims expect intelligent people to assume their religious delusions are valid principles for International Affairs? And equally how much longer is the religious right in the U.S. going to do the same?

But now the hubris is larger than ever, like before WWI when the German Kaiser government thought itself invincible—yet their over-confidence backfired and they lost the war despite the odds were thought to be on their side.

And realize the U.S. bully has no real friends out there as we have pretty much alienated everyone. There is much reluctance for other nations to want to be involved in another dishonest game that will destroy much in many ways. They can see what the U.S., and its people really stand for—unmitigated theft of resources from other nations and continuous support of dictators. After all who put the Shah of Iran in power in the first place and why?

The entire U.S. Government, especially the legislative branch, cowers in submission to Israel and its lobbyists. They are constantly supplicating and prostrating themselves before the Jewish peoples with never ending promises of aid and security protection—and for nothing in return. More importantly Republicans especially are making support for Israel a wedge issue.

Israel does not advocate for equality or freedom like in the speech Abraham Lincoln gave as his Gettysburg Address—that we should not forget why they died there. Israel wants rights for Jews and Jews only. They want to export other people. They, and their religion, don't even have the same values we purport to have.

There was no God that ever gave the Hebrews the land of Canaan. The whole Moses story is a fabrication. It is nothing but war propaganda used to justify the killing off of the tribes, as according to Moses, God commanding the Hebrews from Egypt to kill off the inhabitants of Canaan because they were told God had given "them" that land. (Read best seller Jonathan Kirsch's Moses: A Life for a very scholarly analysis of his biography).

Something else has to change. And it seems to be the very idea of Zionism itself—and then other cultures can begin to question their own religious presumptions. (Or are we going to have unending conflict between peoples and religions that all really are intolerant to each other?)

Despite all its history, Jerusalem is no more sacred than any other space on planet earth or the cosmos. It is only the minds of humans that think it so. Sure it was the part of the center of the old world as a crossroads but so what. So are a lot of other old places in the Middle East. If the Muslim leadership had any real sophistication, they would not have just changed the direction of where to face in prayer to Mecca, but change the idea that Jerusalem having much significance at all.

The facts are on the table. People are exploiting these religious conflicts and religious fears to make money and to turn up the tension—as they have no real respect for either religion or ethics. They have bought the Machiavellian notion that only what works matters. That is precisely what the devil was purported to have advocated—that ethics and morality was a mere hindrance and would not allow for the complete freedom to do whatever you liked if it helped you gain power or the upper hand. This is how Hitler played his cards. This is how Stalin played. Lies and deception, and now it seems both the U.S. and Israel are playing the same table.

Well good luck.

P.S. Israel—you and your god are coming down your mountain.

P.S. Another good source of learning about some of the ugly realities of the Bible is John Spong's The Sins of Scripture. Sponge is the best selling author of Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism.