is it true?

Don't get me wrong, I post this article just because this is something I read often... I want to know by you americans if it is true or how much it is true, how much it is exaggeration or if he's only a total liar.

I made a google search and I saw he apparently is a bit involved with historical revisionism and I don't like that much revisionists... ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p373_Weber.html )

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/zifewcrit.html

I put the entire article cos it's short.

Why We Few Criticize Israel

by Joseph Sobran

WASHINGTON - People sometimes ask me why I'm so critical of Israel, as if I should be devoting more of my attention to Sri Lanka, or perhaps Zaire. But the question is always a little nervous, as it wouldn't be if I were writing equally often about Sri Lanka or Zaire.

I could understand this curiosity if some other small, remote country were one of the world's four or five military powers; if it received a quarter of our foreign aid; if it were constantly on our front pages; and if its sympathizers regularly occupied much of the op-ed space of The New York Times and other major newspapers. But there is only one country of whom these things are true, and that is Israel.

Nobody thinks it's odd that there should be 20 columnists who are apologists for Israel; but apparently it is unfathomable that there should be one or two who are critical of Israel.

But there's another reason that is both personal and professional. Israel has a very powerful lobby in this country, with a highly accomplished propaganda corps. And that lobby is not content with making the case for Israel and putting fear into nearly all the politicians in Washington, who are supposed to be representing the interests of the United States. It also tries to shut up opposition in the free press.

I have felt its pressure. So have Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. So has Patrick Buchanan. And a great many newspaper editors.

We still hear of the fear engendered by Joe McCarthy. But people talked freely about that fear even 'at the height of Sen. McCarthy's career. I believe that someday historians will look back with more wonder about the quieter and more paralyzing fear engendered in our own era by domestic Zionist power. The press was never afraid of Sen. McCarthy; it is very much afraid of Israel's U.S. sympathizers.

One result is that the news we get from Israel is heavily self censored and bowdlerized. The average American thinks of Israel as a "democratic" country whose domestic troubles are due to unruly Arabs. Not one American Christian in a hundred realizes that if he lived in Israel, he would be the victim of official discrimination forced, like the Soviet Jew, to carry an identification card effectively stigmatizing him.

If Israeli propaganda were true, there would be no need to Quash or intimidate critics. The very act of trying to silence opposition is a kind of confession in itself. Ring Lardner said it well: "'Shut up,' he explained."

Is there no case to be made for Israel? Of course there is. I have made it myself. I would make it again -- if Israel had not become a threat to freedom of speech and ethical debate in this country. But when you risk injury to your career in the U.S. by defending the interests of the U.S., something is seriously wrong. A proper parallel is not with Joe McCarthy, who at least was trying to uphold America's position, but with the publishing industry in New York during the 1930s, when a book critical of the Soviet Union stood scant chance of seeing print.

Suppression is a good tactic, but a bad strategy. In the long run, the truth has a way of seeping through. No matter how many clever excuses you make for a Yitzhak Shamir, it's not a terribly good idea to have Americans identifying Israel with Yitzhak Shamir. Israel was much better off when Americans identified Israel with Abba Eban -- now in political exile for his moderation.

And it isn't wise, in the long run, to make Americans afraid, in their own country, to speak their minds about a foreign country. They will eventually resent the colossal impudence of it. And the country on whose behalf the suppression was enacted will bear the consequences.

 

TheWakeUpBomb - No it isn't true.

Nate505 - no comment but I feel like joking with wakeupbomb.

DoctorJones24 - yes, but he is somewhat overstating.

BenReilly - He's antisemite. if you're not antisemite you can criticize israel in the mainstream press (aipac decides who is and who isn't)

Till now, and basing on what i read elsewhere (Said, Fisk etc.), I give more confidence to docJones' opinion.

But I can change my mind.

Don't be worried american ppl, say what you think, no one will mark you as antisemite (against jews or against arabs).

 

I was almost going to write - post to fish Benreilly out of his usual one line replies - in my previous post.

This is a better post, it deserves consideration.

It actually changed my opinion from "a bit overstating" to "overstating".

It's the same thing with US politicians?

 

Well, zionism is not necessarily for the expansion.
It is about a safe homeland for jews, I have no problem with this.
I understand this need perfectly given centuries and centuries of persecution.

I also understand palestinians that say "WTF. Why must we pay for the crimes of christian europeans?"

A good part of zionists (sadly more than those that actually declare it) dream about the Great Israel and that's where is the problem.

Those that talk about "Judea and Samaria" instead of Occupied Territories.

Those that devotely collect funds for settlements, ie the conquest of west (bank).

They are worse than saddam was when he gave money to suicide bombers' families.

A real neutral "judge" cannot pretend that settlements aren't endlessly developing, growing in number, receiving funds from their government (that's why labourists exit sharon's government) and from US jewish organizations, urging IDF to protect them and so getting the occupation worst.

Sure, many palestinians dream about destroying Israel, this is a dream and it remains and will remain a dream, the exact counterpart the great israel instead is a work in progress.

what about US politicians than? Can they freely criticize Israel?

 

Seriously Obie, you say that in 40 states antisemitic sentiment is so strong that senators should perform an antisemitic campaign if they were totally cyinical?

 

uh yes sure, but If they choosed a part of patagonia, world would be quieter now.

Anyway now Israel is there.

2000 years Ben.

Arabs did not invade a desert palestine. As you know, Palestine was a multiethnc, multireligious place.
Jews were in Judaea, but galilea was multireligious and samaria heretical.

The coastline has never being jewish, why don't you question Tel Aviv, Jaffa and so on?

So I assure you that after the diaspora Palestine was still inhabitated by the others non jewish semitic ppl.

Philisteans for example do you remember?
Philisteans - Palestine - arab word for palestine sounds like filistynn.

You surely know that christian communities exist from almost day 1, they are the oldest ones.
If arabs moved from Mecca around half 7th century a.C. who are those christians? Where they came from?

So christians are wrong to think that Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem are Holy Sites?
Muslims that accept Bible and JC as a great prophet shouldn't consider Jerusalem as a Holy Site?

Face the fact that Abraham and the others are prophets for all the 3 religions.

There are still villages (mostly christian ones) in that area that speak aramaic.

Anyway the historical truth is that romans sent away the jewish community not all the inhabitants of Palestine.

Israelis are trying to move away a ppl that have basically the same roots in that land.

If you want I will repost the genetical study that shows that palestinians are the nearest ppl to tha jewish one.
Start considering the fact that that fight is amongst relatives.

Zionist reconstruction of history is bs.
Let's call it revisionism and you will feel like a palestinian.
Maybe one of the inhabitants of the 400 villages destroyed with the nakbah.
One day men (mostly ashkenazis) came where they lived for centuries and centuries and told them.
"a land with no ppl, for a ppl with no land"
They looked at a blond and blue eyed semite, then they looked around, and said "what?", probably they touched themselves to see if they existed.

p.s. Hebron - a city if 150.000 splitted in 2 parts to protect some hundreds jewish fundamentalists.

You need to look at real history, not fiction history.
We sardinians have an history dated millennia, any ppl has an history that dates millennia.

I have fun talking about history but i don't think it is of any use if you want to reach a solution.
(meaning history of 1000/2000 years ago not 50 years ago).

That contradicts what Obie said... now I am confused...

 

I know that original philisteans are said to be an indoeuropean ppl (many link them to those indoeuropeans populations that invaded also egypt -the ppl from the sea) but still the name remained and you can bet that they didn't disappear in a day at the time of their fightings with jews, they mixed with the others semitic ppl.

Have you ever noticed that palestinians have not the same somatic tracts of saudi or iraki arabs?

Anyway i think that considering the genetical similarity is a good way to understand where the palestinians come from (talking about millennia).

 

[/i]
Palestine is not the old israel is a much wider region.

Anyway why call USA USA? That land 1000 years ago it hadn't that name.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/oppimateriaalit/text/english/land.htm

You will find here some useful brief info.

Apart from the larger towns of Sepphoris and Tiberias Galilee was a country area, and agriculture was the main occupation. The Lake of Gennesaret was famous for its fishing. Jesus is said to have found his first disciples among fishermen (Mark 1:16-29).

In the time of Jesus Galilee was surrounded by a number of Greek cities. There was also in Galilee a group of ten Greek towns - the Decapolis. The rest of the area was Jewish.

South of Galilee lived the Samaritans, a mixed population resulting from political transfers of population, whom the Jews did not consider to be real Jews.

While the Jewish Temple was situated on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Samaritans regarded Mt. Gerizim as sacred. They recognized as Holy Scripture only the five books of Moses, and the textual form they used was different from that in use among the Jews.

Palestine was one of the areas settled by people of Greek origin. The newcomers settled in the Phoenician cities of the Mediterranean coast and founded new Greek cities inland, whose administration, economy, legal system and official cult were based on the Greek model.


Another source (I lost the link...)


70 AD : Titus of Rome laid siege to Jerusalem. The fiercely defended Temple eventually fell, and with it the whole city. Seeking a complete and enduring victory, Titus ordered the total destruction of the Herodian Temple. A new city named Aelia was built by the Romans on the ruins of Jerusalem, and a temple dedicated to Jupitor raised up.

313 AD : Palestine received special attention when the Roman emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity. His mother, Helena, visited Jerusalem, and Palestine, as the Holy Land, became a focus of Christian pilgrimage. A golden age of prosperity, security, and culture followed. Most of the population became Hellenized and Christianized .

324 AD : Constantine of Byzantium marched on Aelia. He rebuilt the city walls and commissioned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and opened the city for Christian pilgrimage.

29-614 AD : Byzantine (Roman) rule was interrupted , however , by a brief Persian occupation and ended altogether when Muslim Arab armies invaded Palestine and captured Jerusalem in AD 638


Can you tell me who are these ones that become hellenized and christianized?

Do you really think that christian palestinians are descendent of saudi arabs?

It could be a good negotiation... you give me occupied territories I give you Tel Aviv and all the coast area.

Why don't you phone sharon?

Don't you ever noticed that almost all the other ancient semitic ppls call now themselves arabs?

A bit also. Widely mixed with much more semitic blood.

I also say that many ashkenazis have more indoeuropean blood than semitic.

Sardinia is a mix of semitic and indoeuropean blood.
My hometown were a phoenician town before it became roman.
Usually invasions don't exterminate the invaded ppl, they ruled them and mix with the ppl.
Usually invasors being less in number than the invaded.

The palestinian christian minority has very little problems with muslim majority.
the mayor of bethlehem is christian and christians are no more majority there.
The christian palestinians fight israelis as the muslim palestinians.

I already told you how much these historical masturbations are useless to find a solution?

Anyway maybe cos i'm agnostic but for me there's no religon more religion than the other.

Israel destroyed 400 villages to create Israel (in a land you said you are not interested in).

The origin of Kurds is discussed. Most say they are indoeuropeans some that they are a product of a mix.

Do you have links of these others genetical studies?
Or simply the titles?

You aren't in front of the mirror?

I think that to deny palestinians historical and cultural heritage is a really unfair thing to do, a crime.
I think one day you'll realize.

I guess then that in your opinion egyptian can't say they are the descendants of ancient egyptian.
At least a bit...

i believe it.
But it could be the result of mainstream medias bias.

It could change if a top politician or some top politicians (using also his/their friendly media) join a Said-like point of view.

The point was if the jewish lobbies those that fund so many politicians (I know they are not the only ones) would retaliate and how much this retaliation would be effective.