Martial Law: Imminent Arrival?

[Magda Hassan]

So Mark,tell me just what difference there is between say,Pam Geller hate preaching that Islam is taking over America,and Gordon Duff preaching that Israelis are taking over America.

I see little difference,and I wouldn't doubt both are Psy-ops of some sort.

There's heaps of difference.

Duff is basing his claim on evidence. If you don't believe the US Congress is controlled by the Israel Lobby then you are ill informed. They are currently trying to circumvent the President in order to start a war with Iran, for Christ's sake. No hate speech from Duff, just analysis of the facts.

Like his non existent evidence that a nuclear bomb was planted in the bedrock of the World Trade Towers to be activated on 911?

And if Congress is controlled by Israel why haven't they rubber stamped Netanyahu's attack Iran plans by now? He's been pushing it long enough........Could it be that they don't actually control congress? That there are other power groups involved with other interests? That 'Israel' is not all powerful and omnipotent as you would want us to believe? And why do you promote that against all evidence to the contrary? What's in it for you to make Israel seem so omnipotent and invincible?

[Phil Dragoo]

I am reminded of the student from the government of Oman sitting next to me in Dr. Lipsky's senior seminar instructing me, "They have no business in the region," indicating the eevil Jooz.

I find Pipes has the even-handed understanding to analyze matters.

Pipes also cites Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians."
by Efraim Karsh
London: Frank Cass, 1997.

Karsh's Islamic Imperialism is illustrative.


Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel
The real history of Israel's founding, and why it matters
By Daniel Pipes



Zionists stole Palestinian land: That's the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: "Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA's non-recognition of Israel's right to exist." The accusation of theft also undermines Israel's position internationally.

But is this accusation true?

No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents almost the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. Understanding why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historical norm. Governments everywhere have been established through invasion and nearly all states came into being at someone else's expense. No one is permanently in charge; everyone's roots trace back to somewhere else.

Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence after the defeat of Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.

The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory Egypt for example to be conquered and re-conquered.

The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: "No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history." He backs up that claim, counting "at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia." He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today's Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, they are overwhelmingly the offspring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.

Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine "to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry," was the key institution and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.

Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom, but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.

Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that "Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people" which led to a catastrophe "unprecedented in history" (according to a PA twelfth-grade textbook) or that Zionists "plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people" (writes a columnist in the PA's daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine. Merchants purchased Israel.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved


Jesse Jackson crowed that now with The One's election "Zionists will no longer be in the driver's seat."

And of course Michelle grew up in Jesse Jackson's house.

And Bill Ayers' intentionally misinterprets Sirhan's role in his Prairie Fire dedication.

As if Condoleezza Rice was a great friend of Israel. As if the Clinton's didn't entertain Yassir Arafat more than anyone else.

Driving these people into the sea has been on the top of so many people's to-do list and yet they remain.


Certainly Ahmadinejad is so Hannibal Lector on the subject. And he thinks DBA OBAMA will be his little well-bound imam.

The former hosts large presentations depicting the world after Israel while the latter immerses himself in reading of the world after America.

How curious that Iran trucks arms across a complicit Iraq to reinforce Syria's Assad, while DBA OBAMA and Hillary-Huma pretend to support the opposition.

A set piece, a game board, an Orwellian arena in which any combination may be played depending upon the political outcome desired.

All sides oppose Israel which receives universal condemnation from ibid.

While Russia and China patiently wait for 2014 to move into Afghanistan.

DBA OBAMA promises greater flexibility after his certain re-election.

And a greenlight to Ahmadinejihad.

[Mark Stapleton]

So Mark,tell me just what difference there is between say,Pam Geller hate preaching that Islam is taking over America,and Gordon Duff preaching that Israelis are taking over America.

I see little difference,and I wouldn't doubt both are Psy-ops of some sort.

There's heaps of difference.

Duff is basing his claim on evidence. If you don't believe the US Congress is controlled by the Israel Lobby then you are ill informed. They are currently trying to circumvent the President in order to start a war with Iran, for Christ's sake. No hate speech from Duff, just analysis of the facts.

Like his non existent evidence that a nuclear bomb was planted in the bedrock of the World Trade Towers to be activated on 911?

And if Congress is controlled by Israel why haven't they rubber stamped Netanyahu's attack Iran plans by now? He's been pushing it long enough........Could it be that they don't actually control congress? That there are other power groups involved with other interests? That 'Israel' is not all powerful and omnipotent as you would want us to believe? And why do you promote that against all evidence to the contrary? What's in it for you to make Israel seem so omnipotent and invincible?

So the gist of your comments is that there are other murky, shadowy interests beside Israel, who bay for war with Iran. Is that close? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

If you mean US oil interests then I would agree. They are ruthless, opportunistic and greedy. Just like Israel.

Coincidentally, their aspirations appear to converge when it comes to war with Iran.

[Mark Stapleton]

I find Pipes has the even-handed understanding to analyze matters.

Do you Phil?

I get the impression he's a Zionist propagandist.

Have you looked closely at what he says?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Daniel Pipes - Bush crime family propagandist, xenophobe and supporter of the arming of Saddam Hussein.

Zero credibility.

[Albert Doyle]

[
And if Congress is controlled by Israel why haven't they rubber stamped Netanyahu's attack Iran plans by now? He's been pushing it long enough........Could it be that they don't actually control congress? That there are other power groups involved with other interests? That 'Israel' is not all powerful and omnipotent as you would want us to believe? And why do you promote that against all evidence to the contrary? What's in it for you to make Israel seem so omnipotent and invincible?

Because America has extended itself politically and financially as far as it can go. Wiser heads realize this switch of attention to these matters removes attention from Iraq and Afghanistan where the US is extending wars and control. Both Israel and the US are very happy to keep this major War On Terror prize whose origins were war crimes and the slaughter of 3000 Americans on 9-11. There's real question about accountability for the Bush era. Something they are very happy to avoid if people are kept occupied arguing Iran.

I mean are you serious? You are actually, seriously, questioning if Israel controls the US government through its AIPAC lobby? Just try to oppose them from an elected position if you doubt that and see what happens to you. There's no question the main focus of the American government has been a subtle transition from democracy to Zionist interests and the American Military Industrial Complex's backing of those interests since the formation of both the CIA and Israel in the late 1940's. To suggest otherwise is to err on historical accuracy.

[Albert Doyle]

I think Phil needs to read Norman Finkelstein on the true background of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Pipes prefers Joan Peters' version of contrived history, however Peters' version has long ago proven to be lies.

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren,

You need not direct me to sources that will allegedly improve my understanding of Israel. I have already read the work you suggested. You have no idea who you are
attempting to school here. My understanding of the region might be more than you could possibly have guessed. Cryptic statement? Yes, I know. Live with it. Condescending
remarks, patronization, and ill-advised cites to authorities that are themselves dubious will not work with me. Try again.

Condescending? Guilty. Patronizing? Guilty. But ill-advised cites to autorities? These people are more than authorities. They are Zionist leaders. Ben-Gurion? Jabotinsky, the father of the Likud party? My only point is that there was and always has been an aspect of Zionism which is includes ethnic cleansing within the larger framework of their internal conversations. And it is very old.

(Off topic, I found it humorous to read Jabatinski's comment on the "militarists" vs. the "vegetarians.")

I could be accused of cherry picking quotes. OK, here is another one from Jabotinsky's The Iron Will:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.


Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority.

What a mild statement compared to what is going on now in Israel.

Don't agree? Fine. The annals of Benny Morris are long and filled with invective. He paid dearly for his book. But I know I cannot not settle it, nor will I try.

BUT for all the hot tempered stuff that has happened here at DPF, you actually threatened me. That's low.

Up until now, I have read your posts here at DPF and over at The Swamp to great benefit. You gave a very good talk at COPA. Your JFK credibility is very high. But I also now know that you can be a bully and a mean spirited person. I wish I did not know that.

[Greg Burnham]

Lauren,

You need not direct me to sources that will allegedly improve my understanding of Israel. I have already read the work you suggested. You have no idea who you are
attempting to school here. My understanding of the region might be more than you could possibly have guessed. Cryptic statement? Yes, I know. Live with it. Condescending
remarks, patronization, and ill-advised cites to authorities that are themselves dubious will not work with me. Try again.

Condescending? Guilty. Patronizing? Guilty. But ill-advised cites to autorities? These people are more than authorities. They are Zionist leaders. Ben-Gurion? Jabotinsky, the father of the Likud party? My only point is that there was and always has been an aspect of Zionism which is includes ethnic cleansing within the larger framework of their internal conversations. And it is very old.

(Off topic, I found it humorous to read Jabatinski's comment on the "militarists" vs. the "vegetarians.")

I could be accused of cherry picking quotes. OK, here is another one from Jabotinsky's The Iron Will:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.


Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority.

What a mild statement compared to what is going on now in Israel.

Don't agree? Fine. The annals of Benny Morris are long and filled with invective. He paid dearly for his book. But I know I cannot not settle it, nor will I try.

BUT for all the hot tempered stuff that has happened here at DPF, you actually threatened me. That's low.

Up until now, I have read your posts here at DPF and over at The Swamp to great benefit. You gave a very good talk at COPA. Your JFK credibility is very high. But I also now know that you can be a bully and a mean spirited person. I wish I did not know that.

A bully? Mean spirited? Hmmm. I responded in kind to your characterization of my statement as "dumb". It was not. Nor am I. If you would like to believe that the potential for me to become "nasty" is a threat then you are in the wrong zone. I apologize if it came out harsher than it was meant. No "threat" was intended. However, I do tend to react sharply toward those who would confound kindness with weakness. Likewise, I reject self proclaimed authorities on subjects of which they appear to me to have tunnel vision.

Your attempt to pass judgment (positive as it may seem) on my JFK work does not impress under these circumstances. Perhaps we have very different views on this (Israel) subject and should just accept that as the case, not reading more into it than that.

:peace:

[Greg Burnham]

Daniel Pipes - Bush crime family propagandist, xenophobe and supporter of the arming of Saddam Hussein.

Zero credibility.

Irrespective of Pipes' "lack of credibility" overall -- in this instance, I agree with Phil. He is on the mark.