By MARTIN SHERMAN
Paradoxically, it was not Peres’s successes – but his failures – that catapulted him to international stardom; it was not his impressive accomplishments that made him a global celebrity but the disastrous fiascoes in pursuit of his wildly unrealistic illusions
Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue.
-Gaius Sallustius Crispus, Roman historian and politician, (86 BCE – c. 35 BCE)
It is our experience that political leaders do not always mean the opposite of what they say.
-Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat and politician (1919-2002)
On Wednesday, September 28, Shimon Peres, the 9th and arguably the most high-profile President of Israel, passed away. For all the glare of the public spotlight and scrutiny to which he has been exposed, he remains in many ways, an enigmatic figure, comprised of seemingly impossible contradictions for historians to attempt to decipher.
Sweeping international acclaim: Well-merited or unwarranted?
Peres will be laid to rest on Friday with all the pomp and ceremony that befits the funeral of a former Head of State and public figure of international stature.
The expected attendees include world leaders and renowned celebrities from dozens of countries around the globe. US President Barack Obama, and former President Bill Clinton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, former British PM Tony Blaire, and Prince Charles are but a few names in the star-studded list of reported dignitaries, who plan to attend the ceremony. Tributes flowed in from far and wide, from Hollywood stars to the British royal family, mourning the passing of the man seen as Israel’s elder statesman.
Of course, all this international attention was not unexpected. After all, during his lifetime, Peres had virtually every major international honor bestowed on him –from the Légion d’Honneur through the Congressional Gold Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet, to some, all this acclaim and acknowledgment, may seem somewhat incongruous in light of the almost unbroken succession of failures and fiascoes that have dogged much of his career since the late 1970s—both in terms of his personal electoral defeats and of his policy debacles—particularly the disastrous implosion of his flagship endeavor to resolve the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs, and the evaporation of his vision of a peaceful and prosperous “New Middle East”.
The enigmatic conundrum
As mentioned earlier, despite the fact that Peres was exposed to public scrutiny for almost seven decades, there in still much about him that remains a puzzling conundrum, comprising a tangled web of seemingly irreconcilable paradoxes. For many, his passing may well appear to be an appropriate juncture to begin addressing the intriguing challenge of unravelling the enigmatic kaleidoscope of events he traversed on his route to the pinnacle of international esteem.
To be sure, Peres’s extraordinary ability, passion and energy are beyond dispute. But so, it would seem, was his unbridled ambition, making the caveats in the introductory excerpts highly relevant in evaluating the breathtaking volte face in his professed political credo.
There can also be little dispute that, as President, he managed, to restore an aura of dignity to the office, so severely tarnished by the unfortunate scandals that plagued the incumbency of his predecessor.
Even his fiercest critics cannot deny Peres’s huge contribution to the nation’s security, particularly in the first decade-and-a-half after independence.
As a young protégé of David Ben-Gurion, Peres is credited with playing a leading role in setting up much of the foundations for the nascent nation’s military infrastructure that has been so crucial in ensuring its survival and its technological edge – including Israel Aircraft Industries (today Israel Aerospace Industries), acquisition of advanced combat aircraft from France and the establishment of the nuclear facility in Dimona.
As defense minister at the time of the Entebbe raid in 1976, many identify him as providing the political will to push through the decision to carry out the now legendary operation.
The fruits of failure?
However, perversely, it has not been Peres’s successes – but his failures – that have catapulted him to international stardom. It was not his impressive accomplishments in the service of his nation that brought him global celebrity status, but the disastrous fiascoes in the pursuit of his wildly unrealistic illusions.
Thus, it was the disastrous Oslo Accords—which have long since imploded into bloody ruin—that brought him the 1994 Nobel Peace prize.
Likewise, it was his lofty vision of a “New Middle East” – with peace and prosperity stretching from the Maghreb to the Persian Gulf – that caught the imagination of so many- but now, with the descent of today’s Middle East into carnage and chaos, appears nothing but a ludicrous delusion.
Accordingly, it was not his considerable contributions to Israeli security that made him such a sought after figure on the global stage, but rather his adoption of the role of supranational statesman on a noble quest for regional peace, a quest that precipitated nothing but death and devastation.
Moreover, since the late 1970s, by most accepted standards, Peres would have been considered a failed politician. Yet repeated electoral defeats, even at times when victory seemed almost certain, appear to have left his stature undiminished.
Snatching defeat from jaws of almost certain victory
Indeed, Peres never won a national election and lost numerous internal elections for party leadership.
Between 1977-96, he led the Labor party unsuccessfully in five general elections, losing four of them and tying in one of them (1984)’ resulting in a 2 year rotation arrangement, with Likud’s Yitzhak Shamir.
The razor-edge loss of the 1996 election to Benjamin Netanyahu, which he was widely expected to win, was particularly humiliating- given the waves of public sympathy his party enjoyed following the assassination of his predecessor, Yitzhak Rabin.
No less humiliating was the failure of his first bid to win the presidency in 2000, in which he was surprisingly defeated by the unimpressive and un-presidential Moshe Katsav.
Peres was also regularly defeated in elections for the leadership of the Labor party, by Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and even lack-luster Amir Peretz. It was shortly after his defeat by Peretz, that Peres abandoned the Labor party and joined Ariel Sharon’s newly formed Kadima faction. In 2007, Kadima, which today no longer exists, appointed Peres as its candidate for President—after considerable hesitation due to doubts as to whether he could win. This time, however, Peres won the vote, thus becoming President…on behalf of a party soon to disappear.
It was from this inauspicious start the Peres managed to choreograph his presidency into an international “hit” on a global scale.
Metamorphosis from hawk to dove
Peres was always obsessed with “Tomorrow.” In many ways he appropriated it as his professional trademark, in an endeavor to brand himself as a future-oriented statesman. And while there was much to substantiate that image in his earlier hawkish era, his predictive acumen seems to have deserted him in his later dovish years.
Peres’s transformation from hawk to dove seems to have taken place around the mid-80s, when one Peres morphed into an almost diametric opposite Peres (hence the dichotomy in the title). Indeed, as Anshel Pfeffer wrote this week (Guardian, September 28): “ If Peres had resigned from frontline politics at the age of 54, as many of his colleagues were demanding, after having lost the 1977 general election…he would be remembered as one of Israel’s most legendary security “hawks”
It was around then that Peres, as foreign minister, began to embrace the land-for-peace doctrine and, largely behind Prime Minister Shamir’s back, attempted to secure a deal with Jordan’s King Hussein over the fate of Judea-Samaria. Given the precarious plight of the Hashemite regime today, and the growing ascendancy of radical Islamist elements in the monarchy, it is difficult to be charitable as to the foresight such a proposal entailed.
Calculated cynicism or well-informed confidence
Referring to this puzzling transformation, Pfeffer observes: “Peres never explained the transformation he underwent in the wilderness of opposition”.
He offers two possible explanations, one of calculated cynicism, the other of well- informed confidence: “His many detractors said that Peres simply had no choice. With Begin and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat … signing the Camp David peace agreement, he had no choice but to move leftwards and try to present himself as a better peacemaker than his Likud rivals”; while. “His supporters explained [referring to Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities]that Peres knew more than anyone else just how strong and secure Israel had become, and could therefore make concessions and take risks for peace in its dangerous neighbourhood.”
While some may baulk at the former, the latter is entirely unpersuasive.
For as we shall see, and as hawkish Peres himself warned, the most immediate threats to Israel’s security today are those of enhanced and ongoing attrition rather than cataclysmic invasion by Arab armies. Accordingly, because of the diffuse nature and close proximity of the sources of these threats to Israeli population centers, the country’s alleged nuclear capabilities are largely irrelevant in dealing with them.
Yesterday’s view of ‘Tomorrow’
As mentioned previously, Peres was always enamored with the “Tomorrow” theme. One of his first forays in to “Tomorrow-territory” was a programmatic book entitled “Tomorrow IS Now”, which he authored as chairman of the Labor Party, just after it had lost power to Menachem Begin’s Likud. Published in 1978, it laid out Peres’s prescriptive vision for the future conduct of the affairs of the nation.
In many ways, the book – available only in Hebrew – is an astonishing document.
For those who are only familiar with the post-Oslowian dovish version of Peres, it offers some staggering surprises.
For the citizens of Israel –indeed anyone concerned with the fate of the Jewish state – it raises deeply disturbing questions regarding the judgment, credibility and integrity of those who have served in positions of senior leadership, and serious doubts as to the credence that can be placed in their pronouncements to the nation.
For, in virtually every aspect, the book negates precepts underlying the rationale of the Oslo Accords—including the validity of the land-for-peace doctrine, the desirability of a Palestinian state and the value of any agreements with the Arab world – particularly concerning demilitarization. Likewise, it strongly endorsed Jewish settlements across the pre-1967 Green Line including Judea-Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Golan. Indeed, it would not be far from the truth to say that Peres was in fact the founding father (or at least, godfather) of today’s much maligned settlement project.
Peres’s past prescriptions; precise predictions
I have written extensively elsewhere of the incisive insights of Peres’s past prescriptions and the precision of his past predictions of the perils that would befall Israel were it to adopt the kind of policies that he later advocated. (see here and here). I pointed out how hawkish Peres forewarned of the very realities the dovish Peres endorsed, and how these were precisely the realities that precipitated the IDF’s Operation Defensive Shield in Judea-Samaria (2002) – and later operations in Gaza: Cast Lead (2008/9); Pillar of Defense (2012); Protective Edge (2014).
He warned of the dangers of relinquishing the highlands of Judea-Samaria to Arab control and how that would allow “the most extreme terrorist forces…equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, [to] endanger not only random passers-by, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain.”
He argued that the greater range, mobility and firepower of modern weaponry only enhance the strategic importance of territorial depth and that relinquishing Judea-Samaria would “create compulsive temptation to attack Israel…” (p.255).
He cautioned against placing trust in agreements with the Arabs, since “The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than the number which they have kept” (p.255).
Which Peres do we mourn?
But perhaps most significant was his endorsement of the settlement project and his call “to create a continuous stretch of new settlements; to bolster Jerusalem and the surrounding hills…by the establishment of townships, suburbs and villages – Ma’ale Edumin, Ofra, Gilo, Bet-El, Givon…to ensure that the capital and its flanks are secured…the settlements along the Jordan River are intended to establish the Jordan River as [Israel’s] de facto security border; however, it is the settlements on the western slopes of the hills of Samaria and Judea which will deliver us from the curse of Israel’s “narrow waist”; the purpose of the settlements in the Golan is to ensure that this territorial platform will no longer constitute a danger, but a barrier against a surprise attack…”(p.48)
So which Peres do we mourn? The dour hawkish Peres, who got it right? Or the internationally-acclaimed dovish Peres, who got it disastrously wrong?
Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategic-israel.org)
So Donald Johanson was totally wrong. The 3 youtube videos are also wrong an meaningless.
I have put forward the material do with it what you want. I do not really care.
@ Felix Quigley:
“Ape to human evolution” is impossible – recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.
“One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another.
The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for “ape to human evolution” theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
There are laws of embryology that directly contradict “ape to human evolution.” One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet “ape to human evolution” requires apes and humans to be able to add genes – for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/id/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8
The New York Times, predictably, used its obit of Peres as another opportunity for an anti-Israel blood libel. This time, it contradicted it’s own report at the time:
September 28, 2016 by Gilead Ini
We all know this but too many of our liberal friends and relatives who are sympathetic to Israel even if its not their main issue rely on the New York “Slimes”, as Sean Hannity so appropriately calls it, as the “paper of record” for their info. So, when you point out that they lie, you can cite their own paper as your source. Somebody just triumphantly gave me a Times article listing Trump’s lies, and before that, one about all the women he supposedly mistreated. This person didn’t accept the women saying that they were misquoted and that it wasn’t true. Didn’t match this person’s politics and wasn’t in the Times. Conservative sources are automatically assumed to be lying. These are people who won’t even look at Camera which has so often got the enemedia to retract. Print these out. The older folks, especially, don’t read emails and don’t open attachments or links.
Felix Quigley Said:
The Emperor of Austria is dead !!!!
Felix Quigley Said:
Hurray !!!!!!!!!!!
Frank Adam You are indeed correct when you refer to the antagonism between the nation state and the capitalist world market. There IS this antagonism and the biggest issue is how this can be resolved in a peaceful manner because it does have to be resolved.I am unaware of the Austrian Emperor trying to resolve this issue and that is very interesting and in fact reinforces this point, that there is a dialectical relationship between the part and the whole, the nation state and the world economy.
Will this be resolved by means of dictatorship or can it be done in a humane and collaborative manner – that is one of the big questions of the day.
In the initial post i referred to Ross used this term continually.
The issue of the use of the term “Globalist” used with an anti-Semitic content is a very serious issue indeed but I will not raise it on this forum again, as I have made my position and that of my associates towards this term very clear.
Elaine Morgan’s kudos has indeed arisen greatly in the latest archaeology – but she still used the title I quoted.
If you can still fish out of Beeb I-Player the Attenborough “Waterside Ape” on R4, do so
Weizmann started his Zionist career in Motol – collecting pushkes for Zionist charity- before going to secondary school in Pinsk.
His rubber and acetone chemistry kicked off after his visit to Palestine in 1908 when he realised that the pioneer settlements would have only a limited absorptive capacity for the millions of Tsarist Empire Jews. He twigged that if he found an agricultural waste based industry to support urban Jews Zionism would be able to support more Jews – but the process had to be cheap in capital and he was both industrial chemist and small town lad enough o realise we make wine, vinegar and cheese by fermentation so if we can ferment Ethanol why not butanol as a base for rubber to sell to the new motor trade? By 1912 he was finding it trickier than expected and got into a squabble over possible profits on acetone and rubber. He spent several summers at the Pasteur Institute in Paris studying fermentation. This gave him the edge when his old boss Schuster, ex Dean of Science at Manchester by 1915 Secretary of the Royal Society, recommended him to the HMG for the acetone requirement to manufacture cordite.
Felix Quigley Said:
the greatest significance of the word “globalism” is its’ actual definition… let me refresh your apparent memory loss
bernard ross Said:
I suggest gingko biloba as nothing else seems to help your memory.
Another current significant aspect of globalism, in relation to Jews, is that it brings together some strange partners such as leftists and muslims which appears to result in mass muslim migration and an uptick in antisemism performed by leftists and muslims.
Another significant aspect is the absurd phenomenon of globalist Jews support the migration of muslims… a collective who have been murdering and hounding the Jews in Israel and the diaspora. Unamusingly this same globalist leftist muslim alliance contains a number of leftist globalist anti semitic “Jews”. the same leftist globalist Jews are the most likely to be anti Israel, anti zionist and anti semitic….. nothwithstanding the anti zionist nutter NK and teitelbaum “true Torah” Jews who like the right wing neo nazi appear to have always been with us. The major threat to Jews today is not the neo nazi or NK but the leftist muslim alliance. I expect that most of the trolling found on the sites of jones and icke whom you frequest are leftists and muslims posing as neo’s as part of the hilary smear campaign of Trump.
bernard ross Said:
Sorry Yankee Boy, but I can’t hep ma self !!!!!!!!!!
Sebastien Zorn Said:
In the old cemetery of Augusta, Georgia there is a Jewish section that contains the graves of Jewish Confederate Officers. In the local museum displays their group photo taken some years after Lee’s surrender.
Frank Adam Said:
Sweetie, Women have not descended !!! Women have arisen !!!
Felix Quigley Said:
bernard ross Said:
the discussion was about Peres being influenced by the globalist left and about the globalist left’s alliance with the globalist muslims in an anti semitic pogrom. I can understand why you wish to create your usual red herrings by going off on a tangent to distract attention from your idols and having us all commiserate about anti semites linking globalists with Jews but that is another discussion entirely… and upon which I have commented many times. Unless you wish to be considered a serial runaway coward I expect you to deal with the actual points I raised rather than the chimp shiite you threw into the mix.
I see that you are still incapable of learning how to use the Belman “Highlight and Quote” tool which would address your comment to me based on what I acutally said. Perhaps you were hoping that I would not again expose your red herring MO….. “vont vork lady.”
Still waiting for you to actually deal with the points I raised rather than use my name to introduce your obsessions.
It is my strong contention that the term being used in wide circles of the internet especially in the election campaign in America is most dangerous for Jews. This is the term “globalists”. It always as used in these circles leads on to the claim of an elite controlling the world. It is another coming to light (yet again) of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
In the post above by Bernard Ross the very same term is used repeatedly.
He is possibly totally unaware of this significance of the term.
But being unaware does not deny its significance.
The pointis bernard Ross that the term “globalist” and “the globalists” in very wide circles today is a term that is laden with antisemitism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade
links at site
http://www.seymourbrody.com/
More on the Jewish contribution to victory in both World Wars. They probably would have lost without our contribution. The British — in fact, America, the West, and all of humanity — owed and owe us big time on so many levels. The Balfour declaration wasn’t a gift. And the Arabs broke their word, too.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/weizmann.html
Read more: http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Va-Z/Weizmann-Chaim.html#ixzz4MB8kPCkM
@ Frank Adam:
‘ And they saw that they were Naked”
the legacy
@ honeybee:We became bi-pedal and lost our fur during our waterside wading off the beach epoch qv E. Morgan “The Descent of Woman” and others such as D.Attenborough, then we initially spread round the World beachcombing.
@ honeybee:
like me
Sebastien Zorn Said:
the joke I remember is where the Jewish vampire shows up and the beatiful female holds up a cross, whereupon he replies “Vont Vork Lady”
thanks for reminding us of some of the harsh realities of those days. This is helpful when recognizing that things have not changed much. Today we see Europe, UK, US, muslims, UN, leftists collaborating on swindling the Jews of their rights and endangering Jewish lives daily with blood libels of Israel and Jews
@ bernard ross:
And flaky !!!!!!!!!!
honeybee Said:
your were the perfect student 🙂
Felix Quigley Said:
Perhaps you are a CINO or commie in name only, or a TINO
I am also on some issues on the left, in others on the right or libertarian… depending on the issue. For me ideologies are imperfect tools for assessing reality and making practical and successful decisions. I use the terms differently in different contexts depending on audience understanding of the terms and the scenario…. e.g. when discussing Israel here I tend to use the word leftist to denote anti zionists, anti Israelists, anti Jewish rights etc and dont relate it at all to their economic and other political policies.
In my experience discussions of ideologies in real politics tends to cloud the issues..e.g. it is useless to discuss communism only as an ideology separate from its actual manifestations to date. One must compare realities to realities and ideologies to ideologies when making comparisons. I find that ideologues are always in the end faced with choosing the Ptolemy option… choosing to force recalcitrant facts into idological analyses. Whether a bible thumper on the pulpit or a communist at the socialist international meetings I notice the same pathologies.
In conclusion,your individual belief cannot be used as a observational template for the general leftist collective. Russia is the best example of a communist ideology in power and we saw that it sought to extend its hegemony through puppet “socialist” govs united in politics by socialism… national sovereignties of critical natures were given up to Russia. the socialist international is a good example of whether the left seeks to a one world order. I make no judgement, only factual observations. It is also a good example of how central authorities tend to build up their own power and often overstep the original mandates given it by their constituents. Other examples are the EU gov,, the UN, the USA presidency and congress. Power and authority removed far from the citizenry tends to corruption and abuse of authority.
Felix Quigley Said:
I never said … re read my posts.
What I said was that the common bond between leftists and muslims was Communists/socialists and muslims are “globalist ” by creed and implied that this might be one motive for the alliance.. each using the other to further their own power.
bernard ross Said:
Had you attempted to use the “highlight and quote” you would have seen your error, if it was an error as opposed to an intentional deception.
If you intended to substitute the word globalist for capitalist I would offer that although globalism does not neccesstate abandoning national sovereignty in theory perhaps.. in its reality it appears to keep progressing along the path of reducing national sovereignties… I made no value judgement on that reduction in general but in specific cases such as dangerous muslim migration floods and firing american workers to replace them with foreigners I do make a value judgement.
that was part 4 of showing you the efficacy of using the quote tool
Felix Quigley Said:
I have no idea of what relevance this statement is to any post I made. Furthermore, in the limited context you have stated it is as meaningful and relevant as saying “the sky is sometimes blue”. there has been a world market for thousands of years and the world has been dealing with it… I have been dealing with it for 70+ years. If you feel this statement has any relevance to any post of mine then I suggest you once more use the Belman provided “highlight and block tool” and quote the relevant portion of my comments to your “rebuttal”[?].
Pasting that comment with no reference to any of mine appears to highlight another repetitive pathology of yours… psychological projection whereby you regularly accuse folks here of your own pathologies like this one:
Felix Quigley Said:
If you use the quote tool you will not appear to be as “‘flaky” as the others who you accuse.
Another repeat pathology of yours is to “put words in others mouths”. I recently just admonished you on that pathology where you put the word “marxism” in my mouth which I never wrote. I noticed that when I brought it to your attention you never apologised for your repeated “error” or tactic. Now, you appear to be intentionally using the same deceitful tactic again as I never used the term “world market” in my post.
Look at how you did it last time and just substitute the term “world market” for “marxism”. Hopefully, using the tool will help you avoid this serial pathology.
bernard ross Said:
that was part 3 in my quote tool training session… use the tool it will help others to know to whom you direct comments and what part of their comment you are rebutting.
Felix Quigley Said:
Here is part 2 in my “highlight and quote” training session to keep you on point.
See how you keep trying to focus attention on your irrelevant tangent and red herring. I am disinterested in discussing Jones or you Icke lizard theories an have told you this prior, its irrelevant to my post and my point
bernard ross Said:
I dont understand why you seek to hijack the point into a discussion of Jones, Icke and the lizard people?
I am also disinterested in a long drawn out anal retentive discussion of the meaning and common usage of the word globalism as it is a red herring to the point I made. However, for the sake of not endlessly repeating these ludicrous red herring tangential discussions I will do it to show you your pathology and irrelevance in the hope you will start using the quote tool and start making relevant rebuttals.
I clearly stated the manner in which I used the term
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
which complies with both common usage and understanding and the dictionary definition.
Soros, obama, Merkel… all globalists who support, enable and facilitate the current muslim migrant flood in europe and seek the same for the USA
bernard ross Said:
Remember, you taught me.
Felix Quigley Said:
As usual you are projecting your own pathologies on others. You have once more departed upon red herring tangents and forgotten the points I was discussing and substituted your own in order to create the tangent whereby we end up discussing your anal retentive ideological rants.
The best way to avoid this “error”, in which you serially engage, is to use the Belman provided “highlight and quote” tool at the top of a posters comment when you comment on a posters post. This will help you avoid substituting your perspectives and thoughts for the actual written comment. When you use that tool it forces you to take note of what the poster actually wrote rather than continuing to use their post as a disingenous way to hijack posts into discussing your political ideologies.
See, in this post I gave you an examplple of how it is done… I quoted your specific statement and replied by showing how your accusation towards me was in fact your usual mechanism of psychological projection. I also demonstrated the red herring tangent technique you use in your MO.
Watch how I use the quote tool following this, to your comment, and you will then be able to focus attention on what posters actually write.
Felix Quigley Said:
Apes became upright during a warm dry spell in Africa. Forest retreated and large savannahs open up. Making it necessary for Apes to search for food with out the protection of the jungle. Stress and necessity are the movers of evolution, not economics.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Thank you for all your research. I appreciate your efforts.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
I was looking for the also, great minds run in the same track.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Evil must ALWAYS be invited .
@ Sebastien Zorn:
The difference between the 30’s and now was that then the Christians did not want more Jews in the US and now the Christians want Jews in Israel for the Second Coming. When Ernie Bevin said about the Anglo American Report in 46 the US wanted (proposed immediate 100 000) Jews in Palestine because they did not want them in New York he was bitterly resented because there was a lot of substance in his jibe. There is another point that perhaps our US friends could dig out the papers if not yet declassified. Why did the Allied Air Forces not bomb the Auschwitz crematoria etc or the rail lines given the were into bombing the Monowitz fuel from coal plant? We know the RAF chiefs just left the idea in their in -trays as subordinates will unless top people continually blow down their necks. We have at least one USAAF excuse that such an attack would kill the prisoners , or tha tot pick out a volunteer crew was not likely to find volunteers – [despite the numbers of Jewish aircrew in the USAAF] ….?
One of the problems of the interwar years now conveniently forgotten is that Zionism was a minority interest in the World Jewish Communities both in Eastern Europe and the Americas till the discovery of the Shoah in 1945 became history’s biggest “Told you so!” ever. I had this from my Father who did leave and held it against his sister in law that she would not let his brother follow so she lost husband home business and everything except her two children. Similarly with the gentleman who created the Dagon Silo in Haifa. He came from a family of German Jewish grain traders and silo owners and they stayed behind and lost everything. @ Sebastien Zorn:
Globalists might indeed be for free trade and open borders but that does not mean that they are against nation states which given the nature of human society continue to be necessary for easier administration than otherwise. The tragedy of the Sarejevo assassination of Franz Ferdinand was that he wanted to reform the Habsburg empire into national administrations while retaining the economic and foreign policy advantages of being a single state. The national successor states arrived anyway in 1918 at great loss of blood and treasure but the advantages of being a great power were lost in the WW I which was a “war of succession” to the Ottoman, Habsburg and Romanov Empires even as WW II became the “war of succession” to the European maritime empires: Britain, France, Dutch and Portuguese in that order. The big states in Europe and the maritime global empires were economically and politically acceptable except that they rested on force – imperium. So why is it wrong to recreate that sort of World by agreement if we can also let small nations behave like Swiss cantons over their particularities? It s remarkable that those who complain about the petty nastiness and inefficiencies of the 190 member UN are also those who on their own accounts and identity want small states – a room of one’s own in the Virginia Woolf feminist trad!
Bernard you miss the point totally.
the term “globalist” has become a big issue. It is used widely now in the alternative media like Jones whether you read him or not is immaterial the point is your use of the word coincides.
As a colleague above states…there IS a world market, deal with it.
Accepting the world market of capitalism does not by itself deny national rights.
I an left and I do not deny national rights. In fact the opposite.
The upshot is that since WWI, we win the wars for the goyim as well as our own, they betray us, and then we wonder how we should humble ourselves and betray our kin-folk next to get back in their good graces. Peres, followed this mold. That’s how liberals are. Not a good way to live.
Yanit
Such confusion being caused by people like Rak. I can see immediately what he is doing.He is a confusionist from what I read above.
You obviously have not read Johanson or even watched the 3 videos right?
All that Johanson said was that “Lucy” walked like us. The knee joint proved that.
Walking upright was the key step in the transition of ape to man.
That is all he said basically. Engels had anticipated that in the 1870s – such a genius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion
correction:
Jewish units in the British Army during WWI
Dov Gutterman, 20 September 2008
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/il%5Egb.html
and see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion
My one criticism of the Aish.com article about how FDR refused to pressure the British to revoke the white paper of 1939 is of this passage which is fine as far as it goes:
However, it leaves out the little known fact that, as in WWI, it was the Palestinian Jews who had their own brigades in the British army. who won the war in the Middle East for the British for all the thanks they got. In fact they won back key territory that the British had already lost and were on the way to losing the war. This priceless little known book also talks about the battle where Moshe Dayan lost his eye because he didn’t execute Arab prisoners — who then escaped and warned their side — but won the battle anyway despite being vastly outnumbered. See
“The Forgotten Ally by Pierre Van Paasen. Dial Press. 1943
https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Ally-Pierre-Van-Paasen/dp/0977102106
as an ebook: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL5433346W/The_forgotten_ally
From the Republican Party Platform of 1944. (But we still supported FDR like most of us did Obama and now Clinton.)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835
My one criticism of the the article I quoted about Eleanor Roosevelt which talks about FDR’s anti-semitism is that it trots out the usual nonsense about how Roosevelt need to get Southern Democrat support for the war effort so he did nothing for European Jewry. Nonsense, the whole country was isolationist before Pearl Harbor and pro-war after. We went to war with Germany because, as Japan’s ally, it declared war on us. Moreover, he actively intervened behind the scenes to make sure that every possible road block was put in the way of Jews already entitled to come here. The Jewish immigration quotas were never filled. Anne Frank and her family were among those turned away.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6930#.VkqJ4d-rSRs
I’m not aware of any Muslims being turned away during this period since liberals try to use this as a precedent for admitting Muslims.http://historybuff.com/anne-frank-was-a-refugee-who-was-denied-entrance-to-the-united-states-MWVgqxJLAjJ2
Plus, let’s face it, the drawing of moral equivalence between anti-semitism against Jews who have contributed so much and Muslims who have murdered so many and want to destroy the Constitution and impose religious and gender apartheid and genocide is just too much.
And FDR refused to pressure the British to revoke the White Paper of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine:
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/The-Infamous-British-White-Paper.html
Maybe Peres croaked when he did because he saw the handwriting on the wall and couldn’t believe the “Paleo-Arab” breach of the contract that was Oslo was going to finally be answered with termination of the contract. 93 isn’t that old. http://www.jta.org/2016/09/14/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/worlds-oldest-man-a-holocaust-survivor-in-israel-to-celebrate-bar-mitzvah-100-years-late
[at age 115 and going strong]
Here’s Greta Garbo playing Simon Peres in “Grand Hotel” (also 1931):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojjWQvlPN8
“Denial is not just a river.”
– Nasser*
*Actually he said he was going to push us into the sea.”
Actually, Peres wound up metaphorically imitating the protagonists of the gallows humor joke about the handful of Jewish groups in 1933 who didn’t take Hitler’s anti-semitism seriously (thought it would blow over eventually like previous rulers’ anti-semitism if they sucked up enough*) imagine the cartoon image of Jews marching behind a Nazi parade in 1933 holding up the banner, “Heraus mit unce.” [“Out with us!”
Like we did FDR. Ever hear the liberal Jewish response to being reminded that FDR was an anti-semite?:”
https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/04/the-shameful-legacy-of-rabbi-stephen-wise/
But Eleanor was trying to persuade him.”
http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/eleanor-roosevelt-and-the-jews/
Maybe Peres croaked when he did because he saw the handwriting on the wall and couldn’t believe the “Paleo-Arab” breach of the contract that was Oslo was going to finally be answered with termination of the contract. 93 isn’t that old. http://www.jta.org/2016/09/14/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/worlds-oldest-man-a-holocaust-survivor-in-israel-to-celebrate-bar-mitzvah-100-years-late
[at age 115 and going strong]
Here’s Greta Garbo playing Simon Peres in “Grand Hotel” (also 1931):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojjWQvlPN8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack
I can’t find a youtube clip (or remember the name) of a satirical Dracula movie in which after a Jewish Van Helsing holds up a cross, and Dracula sneers, saying you have to believe in it, he holds up a Star of David, and Dracula recoils.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
No vampires in Texas, fire ant starved them out.
According to vampire lore, vampires must be invited in to a place before they can enter. They can appear as friendly and inocuous people the first time, in order to be invited. Once, invited, they can forever after enter your space. Hmmm. Sounds familiar. In Dracula with Bela Lugosi (also 1931) Dracula goes to the opera in top and hat (At the end of this clip where he starts out by stalking London after killing all the sailor on the ship he comes on (was Dracula a “Palestinian” Arab or any Muslim? It was during this period that Sayid Kutbd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb) visited America and after deciding he hated us, founded the Muslim brotherhood. And now, we are inviting them in — and of course, once they are citizens they have the legal right to bring all of their relatives over.) and tails so he can be invited into Lucy’s house once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_neOel43acc
I remember when NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani threw Arafat out of Lincoln Center: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/giuliani-arafat-and-the-bankruptcy-of-jewish-leadership/2015/10/21/0/?print
Later that night, he enters through her window as a bat and bites her. The fool who opened the door was Peres, the door was Oslo, and the Vampire was Arafat.
https://youtu.be/F899lKouBNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2dz1LaQZE8
FYI: copy and paste the link to youtube videos. If you just click on share and embed it, the right side gets cut off and you will have to google the title plus youtube to view it in youtube.
yamit82 Said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nur4g4r1LN4
Sebastien Zorn Said:
His inherent bitterness destroyed him .
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Did Peggy have choice?