Albert Einstein's 1948 letter to the NYT on the visit of Menachem Begin to the US:

Quote:Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin. The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948

http://pulpnonfiction.blogspot.com

A problem with this letter is that it blames the Deir Yassin massacre on the Irgun, when it is now been shown to be part of Plan D to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its Arab Palestinian population. Plan D was approved from the top levels of the Israeli government. This did not come out until Bennie Morris and other Israeli revisionist historians began to publish their findings.

...and some wonder why the FBI had a huge file on Einstein! Wonder no more. A great letter to the Editor!...and as apt today as it was then. The signatories are an all star cast!

by Lenni Brenner in MWC News, March 9, 2011

If you want to know what Benjamin Netanyahu really thinks about coexisting with Palestinians, Vladimir Jabotinsky's 1923 article, The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), is a must read. Benzion Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister's father, was Jabotinsky's secretary. It is one of six matrix pieces for the material dealing directly with Zionist adaption to the fascist powers in my book 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis.

When the British Empire declared Palestine to be the future Jewish national home, Palestine included today's Jordan. But in 1921 London separated it from Palestine and gave it to the son of Britain's puppet Sharif of Mecca. As no Jews lived there, the World Zionist Organization's leaders accepted the loss. But Jabotinsky insisted that the WZO had to "revise" its policy. Britain giving part of Palestine to an Arab would inspire Palestinians to struggle on until they got it all back.

The Iron Wall opens with a sweet "equality" flute tune:

"There will always be two nations in Palestine -- which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority.... I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme.... In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights."

But soon enough you hear his military trumpet:

"It is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.... Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population - behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach. That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that an outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible."

The Zionist settlement was then too numerically weak to dominate the Palestinians, so Jabotinsky hoped Italy would replace the softie Brits as Zionism's iron wall. He didn't like dictatorship, in 1926 writing of Mussolini's party title:

"They had to coin a new term - Duce' - which is a translation of that most absurd of all English words - leader' - Buffaloes follow a leader. Civilized men have no leaders."

Nevertheless the head buffalo's concentration camps and hanging of revolting Arabs in Italy's Libyan colony pleased him. By the mid-1930s, in spite of cavils re Fascism, Jabotinsky openly orientated towards Italy. In 1934, Mussolini responded by establishing a squadron of Betar, the Revisionist youth group, at his maritime academy.

Jabotinsky became Fascism's defense attorney. He wrote an April 11, 1935 article, "Jews and Fascism: Some Remarks - and a Warning", for New York's Jewish Daily Bulletin. Most Jews followed common usage and referred to the fight against Hitler as part of the "anti-Fascist struggle." Jabotinsky tried to stop that. If Jews saw Hitler as a Fascist, they wouldn't accept Revisionism's move towards Mussolini. The brief for the Fascist regime shows how he put objections to buffalo herd politics well after his wish that Italy would replace Britain as Zionism's iron wall:

"Whatever any few think of Fascism's other points, there is no doubt that the Italian brand of Fascist ideology is at least an ideology of racial equality. Let us not be so humble as to pretend that this does not matter that racial equality is too insignificant an idea to outbalance the absence of civic freedom. For it is not true. I am a journalist who would choke without freedom of the press, but I affirm it is simply blasphemous to say that in the scale of civic rights, even the freedom of the press comes before the equality of all men. Equality comes first, always first, super first; and Jews should remember it, and hold that a regime maintaining that principle in a world turned cannibal does, partly, but considerably, atone for its other short-comings: it may be criticized, it should not be kicked at. There are enough other terms for cussing use Nazism, Hitlerism, Polizeistaat, etc. but the word "fascismo" is Italy's copyright and should therefore be reserved only for the correct kind of discussion, not for exercises in Billingsgate. Especially as it may yet prove very harmful. That government of the copy right is a very powerful factor, whose sympathy may yet ward off many a blow, for instance in the League of Nations councils. Incidentally, the Permanent Mandate Commission which supervises Palestinian affairs has an Italian chairman. In short though I don't expect street-urchins (irrespective of age) to follow advise of caution responsible leaders ought to take care."

The March, 1936 issue of L'Idea Sionistica, published during Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia (aka Abyssinia), describes a ceremony at Betar's headquarters at the scuola marittima:

"The Order Attention' - A triple chant ordered by the squad's commanding officer - Viva L'Italia! Viva Il Re! Viva Il Duce!' resounded, followed by the benediction which rabbi Aldo Lattes invoked in Italian and in Hebrew for God, for the King and for Il Duce."

"Giovinezza," the Fascist Party anthem, "was sung with much enthusiasm by the Betarim."

The war ended in May and they marched in a victory parade. Revisionism's attitude towards Mussolini's war was best described in the June 12, 1936 issue of London's World Jewry magazine. Wolfgang von Weisl, Revisionism's Financial Director,
"declared that, although opinions among the Revisionists varied, in general they sympathized with Fascism.... He, personally, was a supporter of Fascism, and he rejoiced at the victory of Fascist Italy in Abyssinia as a triumph of the White races against the Black."

Their rejoicing ended a few weeks later after General Francisco Franco's coup against the left-leaning Spanish Republic. Mussolini realized that a Spanish workers victory would inspire Italian workers to try to overthrow him. He had competed with Germany over domination of Austria, but realized that he had to unite with Hitler against the left. He knew that he couldn't have an alliance with the Nazi and have Jews in his party, so he expelled them and put paid to his ties to Zionism.

War broke out in 1939. Jabotinsky and Benzion Netanyahu felt that they had to support Britain. But a Revisionist minority had become so ideologically fascist in the scuola marittima season that they wouldn't fight Hitler. He was a persecutor, but Britain was the enemy because a 1939 London White Paper called off the solution to European anti-Semitism, i.e., establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1940 they broke with Jabotinsky. In January 1941, their leader, Avraham Stern, sent a representative to Beirut, controlled by pro-Nazi Vichy France, to negotiate with a German diplomat. After the war, their "Proposal of the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the side of Germany" was found in the German Embassy in Turkey. They told the Nazis that:

"The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries....

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,
3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively lake part in the war on Germany's side.

This offer by the NMO... would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity."

The Sternists declared that "The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure."

The Nazis didn't respond to the Proposal, but they didn't lose hope. In December 1941 another agent was captured in Syria by the British, on his way to Germany's Embassy in Turkey.

Until Menachem Begin's l977 election victory, most Israeli historians dismissed Revisionism as Zionism's fanatic fringe. The "Stern Gang", as their enemies called Avraham Stern's NMO (later renamed Lohamei Herut Yisrael, Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, acronym Lehi) was looked upon as of more interest to psychiatrists than political scientists. Nevertheless, Begin's appointment of Yitzhak Shamir (birth name Yizernitsky) as Foreign Minister was quietly received, although Shamir was the Gang's operations commander after the British killed Stern.

I was in Jerusalem in 1983, when Shamir became Prime Minister (1983-84/1986-92). I got an English-language Arab weekly to run the Sternist Proposal. Days later, in Britain for lectures on my first book, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, I read that the new PM had been challenged about it. The October 21 London Times reported that Shamir

"denied that he had any part in the efforts by Mr. Abraham Stern, the original commander of Lehi... to establish contact with the Nazis and Italian Fascists. There was a plan to turn to Italy for help and to make contact with Germany on the assumption that these could bring about a massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. I opposed this... but I did join Lehi after the idea of contacts with the Axis countries was dropped.'"

I went to The Times with their Proposal, in German and English. After an editor read the surreal document, it ran my November 4 letter, sure that my claim of his membership, before 1941, was true.

"As an American, away from my files, I cannot be certain exactly when in 1940 Shamir joined the group. But in any case, isn't he confessing that he knowingly joined an organization of traitors which had offered to ally itself to the arch-enemy of the Jews? Nor can there be any doubt that he joined up with Stern before December 1941, when the Sternists tried to send Nathan Yalin-Mor to Turkey to contact the German ambassador there with the same proposal: that they be allowed to ally themselves to the Third Reich."

My source for 1940 membership was Gerold Frank's 1963 book, The Deed, on the 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, Britain's Minister Resident in Cairo:

"In September Stern walked out of the Irgun and set up his own group.... Eliahu and David Danon... were summoned to a remote school-house.... the Irgun commander... made a brief speech.... He read Jabotinsky's cable to Raziel... and the one sent to Stern: Reappointing R'.... Itzhak Yizernitsky.... spoke tersely, summing up the reason behind Stern's decision to walk out of the Irgun.... David, for his part, could not forget Yizernitsky's fire and powder' remark in the days immediately following the Raziel-Stern split."

Shamir's lie re joining the Sternists only after they stopped trying to fight on Germany's side, tells us why 51 Documents can be a powerful weapon against modern Zionism. Trying to ally with Hitler can't be justified today, not to Jews nor anyone else. Some Revisionists try to get out from behind Shamir's Nazi-philia by reminding us that most 1940s Revisionists supported Britain. But that Revisionist majority later voted for a Prime Minister who, "on a national and totalitarian basis," wanted Adolf Hitler to win World War II.

Let's go further. Were Jabotinsky and his secretary really much better than Stern and Shamir? Let's ask Israel's Prime Minister if von Weisl also spoke for his father when he cheered for Italy during the Ethiopian war? Did Il Duce break with Jabotinsky and Benjamin Netanyahu's father? Or did they break with Il Duce? Training the founding admirals of Israel's navy at Mussolini's scuola marittima during the Ethiopian war can't be justified today, not to Ethiopians or Italians nor anyone else.

So, dear reader, permit me to close by pointing out that even the few Zionist writings quoted above demonstrate that 51 Documents is required reading for putting today's Israel in historical perspective. Study all the documents and let friends and colleagues know that the book is available.

- See more at: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9183-z...zrL0A.dpuf

here is a pdf by this book by Eran Kaplan. In his intro to the book, he says this about his use of the term "radical right":

Quote:I prefer to use the term radical Right rather than fascism in discussing
the cultural roots of revisionism. In his essay "Power and Strate-
gies" Michel Foucault wrote, "The non-analysis of fascism is one of
the important political facts of the past thirty years. It enables fas-
cism to be used as a floating signifier, whose function is essentially
that of denunciation." The term radical Right allows for a more his-
toricist analysis of the groups that were part of the cultural, intellec-
tual, and political revolt against the values of modernity, an analysis
that focuses more on the origins and development of this historical
phenomenon than on its horrifying aftermath.

Israel Murders IDF Soldier to Prevent His Capture

by Richard Silverstein on July 26, 2014 in Mideast Peace


I've devoted a good deal of my life to Israel. I've studied, read, visited, lived, breathed it. Not in the way diehard pro-Israel fanatics do. But in a different way that matched my own intellectual and political proclivities. It's a subject that is rich, varied, troubling, bedeviling, and exhilarating. But every once in a while I learn something I never thought possible; and I don't mean this in a good way.
Sgt. Guy Levy of the armored corps, killed today by the IDF to prevent his capture

Tonight, my Israeli source informed me that Sgt. Guy Levy, serving in the armored corps, was captured by Hamas fighters. He had been part of a joint engineering-armored-combat unit searching for tunnels. Troops entered a structure and discovered a tunnel. Suddenly, out of the shaft sprang two militants who dragged one of the soldiers into it. By return fire, one of the Palestinians was killed, while the other fled, presumably with the soldier.
This Israeli report, which was censored by the IDF, says only that the attempt to capture the soldier failed. It says nothing about his fate. The expectation of anyone reading it would be that the soldier was freed. But he was not. In order to prevent the success of the operation, the IDF killed him. Nana reports that the IDF fired a tank shell into the building, which is the same way another captured soldier was killed by the IDF during Cast Lead.
I would presume that once the militant fled into the tunnel with his prisoner that the IDF destroyed the tunnel and entombed those within it, including the soldier. I would also presume that the IDF knows he is dead because they retrieved his body.
To the uninitiated this will seem a terribly strange, uncivilized, even immoral act. But that's where I learned something I'd never known before about the IDF. There is an unwritten secret regulation written by the IDF High Command, but nowhere codified in writing. Its existence is protected by military censorship. Journalists have rarely written about it. When they have it's usually been in code or by inference.
It's called the Hannibal Directive. Though the Wikipedia article doesn't explain the reference to Hannibal, I assume it relates to the death of the great Carthaginian general, who took poison rather than allow himself to be captured by his mortal enemy, the Romans. Though Sara Leibovich-Dar wrote in 2003 that the name came from a military computer!
In my long history of dedication to this subject, I've rarely seen anything that has disturbed me as much. The Hannibal Directive is:
As happens so often in these cases, an IDF commander instrumental in drafting the order denied the horrific logic of the directive and then offered an example of how he would proceed which only confirmed it:
In other words, the IDF will do almost everything in its power to prevent capture of its soldiers including killing him. It might not put a bullet directly in his brain, but it would certainly shell a home or vehicle in which he was situated.
Perhaps there's a lingering bit of the liberal Zionist I once was here, but I'd always heard that Israel never leaves a soldier behind. It does everything possible to bring all its troops home, and once captured does everything possible to retrieve or free them.
All this time I was sorely mistaken. When all hope is lost of liberating the soldier from captivity, he dies. What's equally disturbing is that the existence of the directive is an open secret. Commanders warn their soldiers that no one may be captured and that if you are you must commit suicide. If you can't do that, then they will do their best to kill you. Perhaps they don't articulate it precisely in those words, but that's the clear intent.
Lest you think Hannibal is a theoretical regulation, it has been implemented before and captured soldiers have been killed by the IDF. Most recently it happened during Operation Cast Lead:
You have every right to ask: what soldier in his right mind would follow such an order. There are thankfully examples of ones who refused. But there are a number who didn't including the tank commander who fired on his comrade in that home in Gaza, killing him.
You also have a right to ask how the IDF could approve such a regulation. The answer is it didn't. It has never been vetted by military lawyers. If it had been, the High Command might've been told it was an illegal, immoral directive which had no standing. Then the IDF would have to implement an order its highest legal authorities had deemed treif. That would never do. So neither the generals, nor the Judge Advocate has ever delved into the matter. It is yet another example of the national security state refusing to examine the deepest, most troubling principles on which it is based.
Implementation of the Hannibal Directive comes on the heels of the freeing of Gilad Shalit after five years in captivity. The nation freed 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in order to release Shalit. Israeli hardliners screamed bloody murder about freeing murderers with blood on their hands. Some said it would have been better if Shalit had died rather than face this ignominy.
I believe that Benny Gantz and Bibi Netanyahu aren't prepared to go through such a trauma again. They believe their constituency would understand if they killed a soldier rather than lose him to capture. Let's make no mistake about this: it is a purely political calculation. A nakedly, cynical political calculation. It suggests that the interests of the nation trump the life of the individual. These are considerations of an authoritarian state and not a democratic one. A democracy values the individual. It recognizes that the nation cannot exist without the individual. Even that the nation should not exist unless it respects and values that individual.
The Hannibal Directive perverts such principles. It embraces a fascist perspective in which the individual is subsumed within the mass. He has no specific individual value unless he is serving the interest of the nation. And his interests may, when necessary be sacrificed to the greater good.
I thank Dvorit Shargel for raising an important, and thorny issue. She implored me to consider the trauma of Levy's family hearing their son was killed not by Palestinian fire, which would be painful enough, but by his own comrades.
It's very doubtful the IDF would tell the family the truth unless it had no other choice. So then the question is, should we allow the IDF to lie just to cover up the use of the Hannibal directive and allow the family to believe he was killed by the enemy instead of his own?
My answer to this reluctantly is No. The greatest good is served by transparency. By knowing the truth, telling the truth, forcing everyone involved to explain what they did and why. Secrecy and pandering helps no one, even the dead soldiers's family. I am sorry if this causes them added suffering. But blaming me is blaming the messenger not the real culprit.
Here is some of the discussion around the matter conducted by military ethicists (if there can be such a thing):
I hate to harp on this, but liberal Zionists enjoy claiming Israel is a nation of laws. That is upholds the rule of law. But this is clearly not the case. No democratic nation would permit such a directive after undergoing legal review. So the answer in Israel is simply to prevent it from undergoing any such review. It allows the flourishing of a secret code that governs critical aspects of the Israeli military.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/0...idnapping/

Some of the comment to the above article are interesting too.

Quote:raziel July 26, 2014, 5:36 AM I have read you CV as much as is available on the web. I am making the assumption that you may have some knowledge of halachah' so you must know of the law יותר מדמיהם meaning e.g. that if sefer torah is stolen with a worth of $20,000 by a non-Jew if the monetary request is not reasonable then the price is not paid. This is also germane to captives because it would encourage more kidnapping and this has been demonstrated in the past by various events the most recent the Shalit deal. So now Israel is telling Hamas that they cannot pressure Israel in this way anymore. Sometimes sacrifices for the general population must be made.

Reply Link
David July 26, 2014, 8:25 PM
" It suggests that the interests of the nation trump the life of the individual. These are considerations of an authoritarian state and not a democratic one. A democracy values the individual. It recognizes that the nation cannot exist without the individual." This is the point at which "nationalism" becomes "super nationalism," in which the individual is dissolved in the myth of the greater state, here the Jewish tribe. Zionism was ALWAYS, at every point, a myth creating a state and that state is an idol worshiped by Jews, blasphemy notwithstanding.
Individuals create and animate the state in a liberal philosophy. In an archaic, fascist philosophy the state creates and animates the individual. Zionism was never simple "Jewish nationalism" as the bases for nationalism were absent, ie. it was not formed of a population in situ with common language and traditions. Jewish life and language is dispersed throughout the world and throughout history. Hence, the myth of origination, tribal identity tied to the land, exile and redemption….all of it myth. Jews attached to the myth created a mythic state and the state then creates the individual actor. A soldier is sacrificed because of the "national" problem he creates when captured. In a liberal state, there is no national problem that precedes the individual's rights, most especially the right to life. Richard is right about this and I think that Zionism creates this national problem, not military exigencies. My point is simply that Zionism was never ever "liberal" because of the need for elaborate distortions, the need to synthesize commonalities where none existed. Zionism is not merely racism, it is state worship, idolatry.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/0...idnapping/

You might make the same "idolatry" argument to those that advocate expanding Israel's borders to those described in the Old Testament. They are tryng to bring about something that existed at one point, but that God took away from the Jewish people when, according to the Old Testament, the people failed to comply with His Commandments. The idea (as well as the occupation of strategic bits of land, and the decades-old practice of settling towns, outside the UN treaty borders) that Israel will now take back the contested territory, irrespective of God's wishes, seems to me to hold the "Nation" higher than God.

Very true Drew. I don't think basing foreign policy on biblical myths is a good thing. This has been a huge mistake all round.

A Bitter Fact: Fascism in Israel

By MUSTAFA AKYOL / Hurriyet Daily News August 1st, 2014

• 
  

"… Here was Rabbi Dov Lior, an extreme right-wing religious leader in the settlement movement. He had just issued a religious ruling (say, fatwa), for the total destruction of Gaza if Israel's military leaders deem it necessary.' So, according to this rabbi, a carpet-bombing of Gaza, exterminating maybe a million civilians, would be just fine. …"

Gideon Levy is a prominent Israeli journalist and a leading voice within the Israeli liberal left. The other day, he published a piece in daily Haaretz, where he writes regularly. He focused on the bewildering lack of concern some of his compatriots had regarding the civilian casualties, including children, in Gaza. Some Israelis were even expressing joy in the face of four Arab children burned to death by Israeli missiles while they were playing on the beach.

As Levy quoted, here were some of comments on the website, "Walla!":
Shani Moyal: "I couldn't care less Arab children were killed, too bad it wasn't more. Well done to the IDF."
Stav Sabah: "Really, these are great pictures. They make me so happy; I want to look at them again and again."
Sharon Avishi: "Only four? Too bad. We hoped for more."
Daniela Turgeman: "Great. We need to kill all the children."
Chaya Hatnovich: "There isn't a more beautiful picture than those dead Arab children."
Orna Peretz: "Why only four?"
Rachel Cohen: "I'm not for children dying in Gaza. I'm for everyone burning."
Tami Mashan: "As many children as possible should die."
While I was reading these unbelievable words, news about another shocking comment by a prominent Israeli fell into my inbox. Here was Rabbi Dov Lior, an extreme right-wing religious leader in the settlement movement. He had just issued a religious ruling (say, fatwa), for "the total destruction of Gaza if Israel's military leaders deem it necessary." So, according to this rabbi, a carpet-bombing of Gaza, exterminating maybe a million civilians, would be just fine.
Then I also recalled what Ayalet Shaked, a young female Israeli politician who represents the far-right Jewish Home party, said in the Israeli Knesset. About two weeks ago, she had likened Arab children in Gaza to "little snakes" and expressed her delight over their killing.
Now, I don't know about you, but what this kind of language reminds me of is a ruthless political culture that has zero sympathy for the innocent lives it takes, even those of little children, for the sake of its own political interests. The common, if not pejorative, definition for such hate-mongering political cultures is "fascism," and it seems that Israel has a good dose of it.
Of course not all Israelis can be blamed for fascism. There are indeed many liberals, peaceniks, human-rights activists who resist this tide and to try to tell their compatriots that Palestinians are human beings, too. There are brave journalists such as Gideon Levy who do the same, risking being branded a "traitor." (Indeed, watch out for the "traitors" in fascist cultures; they are often exceptionally good men or women).
However, fascism is indeed still growing in Israel, "a country founded in its very blood trail," as another daily Haaretz columnist, Bradley Burston, put it four years ago. (See: "Rebranding Israel as a State Headed for Fascism," Huffington Post, May 18, 2010). This is drowning Israel in a perpetual state of war for she never approaches the self-criticism and self-correction that she needs to make peace with Arabs.
And it is also degrading its values. Rather than being "a light unto the nations" as the Prophet Isaiah foretold, Israel is rather going down in history as an oppressor of nations. What a pity.

Don't forget our own government has now teamed up with this practice. We also have a similar unspoken doctrine with AIPAC running our government.