Sharon and Bush 'Will Fry in Hell'

[Scurrilous]

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2004/3116arthur_hertzberg.html

This interview appears in the April 23, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Interview: Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg

<snip>

EIR: After years of devolution and increasing tension, we're at a critical point in terms of Israel's survival and the danger of a full-blown worldwide clash of civilization.

Hertzberg: I think that what happened in Washington yesterday is a disaster. Sharon is licking his chops. He's going home to Israel to parade his achievement; he scored a famous victory. Bush is licking his chops. He thinks he's added about 10% or so to the Jewish vote that he will get in November. And so, Florida is more secure, and he thinks that he will himself be re-elected.

Both of them will fry in hell for what they did yesterday. And I want you to quote me on "fry in hell," because what they have done is that they have permanently put the United States at war with the Arab world. They have left no negotiating room. The only tactic that Arabs have left is to send in more suicide bombers.

EIR: It's certainly a worse situation than it was before the day before yesterday.

Hertzberg: And therefore, anybody who thinks that what happened in Washington yesterday is good for peace and good for people, is out of his head.

EIR: Unfortunately, in the Bush Administration and elsewhere, there are a lot of people who are out of their heads.

Hertzberg: Absolutely, absolutely.

EIR: As you know, we've been putting pressure on the Bush Administration for getting rid of Cheney and his entourage.

Hertzberg: I'm part of that pressure from a different side. These people are essentially mindless bullies. It's not merely that they're bad for Arabs, or bad for America. They are also bad for Jews. They are involving us in a permanent war with the Arab world. They are making it much worse.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

2. Lyndon LaRouche, huh?

:crazy::crazy:

[Vladimir]

3. I don't understand

what's with LaRouche? I know his background, vaguely, but why would he be an untrustworthy/biased source on this matter?

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. LaRouche is untrustworthy on ALL matters

[Vladimir]

6. I got that much

but why? I am not trying to be difficult Muddle, I genuinely don't know much about this and would appreciate pointing in the direction of some information...

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Here ya go

His group is also historically anti-Semitic. Apparently, folks forget that.

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html

[Vladimir]

8. Thanks

I looked through that website and article... yeah, he does seem like a lunatic. Fucking hell, something we agree on, eh?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Yep, nice isn't it?

Actually, I don't think you and I are as far apart on things as it might seem. This issue is quite polarizing and we can't even come up with a solution that we all agree on here. I can't begin to imagine how tough it would be in the real world.

[Tinoire]

23. Surely you don't disagree with anything in the interview?

It seemed spot on to me!

EIR: Unfortunately, in the Bush Administration and elsewhere, there are a lot of people who are out of their heads.

Hertzberg: Absolutely, absolutely.

....

EIR: As you know, we've been putting pressure on the Bush Administration for getting rid of Cheney and his entourage.

Hertzberg: I'm part of that pressure from a different side. These people are essentially mindless bullies. It's not merely that they're bad for Arabs, or bad for America. They are also bad for Jews. They are involving us in a permanent war with the Arab world. They are making it much worse.

.......

EIR: I think most Jews aren't hardliners.

Hertzberg: That's the point. The majority of the Jews want peace, and they will recognize that this isn't going to lead to peace.

.............

EIR: What do you think has to be done at this point?

Hertzberg: What I am thinking overnight is that there has to be a very serious Jewish declaration by some very responsible people, which says that Bush and Sharon do not speak for us. I'm going to try to make that happen in the next day or two. I think some Jews have to step out and say, this does not represent me.

.................

EIR: How do you see that pressure coming? Do you see your declaration as having that effect?

Hertzberg: I see anything that is done in the Jewish world, and in the world as a whole, to make the point that these two leaders of yesterday do not speak for us, as fundamentally important.


What part of this interview could anyone possibly disagree with?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. I disagree with it being here

I disagree with use of material from hate groups.

[number6]

35. nope not all...

matters, he knows Bush is bad.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. LaRouche

Is a lunatic.

I am amazed that a progressive site would allow postings from such a fringe group.

[Scurrilous]

10. The interview isn't with LaRouche.

The interview is with Rabbi Hertzberg, former president of the American Jewish Congress, and former vice president of the World Jewish Congress. It is Rabbi Hertzberg's opinions on Bush and Sharon that I felt were worth sharing. Rightwing source notwithstanding.

Plus...the title was irresistable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. The PUBLICATION is LaRouche

Who knows who the interview is with.

This is the most questionable source for anything I've ever seen on DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. 'Who knows who the interview is with.'

Scurrilous just told you and just a quick look at the original post would have also filled you in....

The most questionable source for anything you've seen on DU? While I think LaRouche is a questionable source, I find it hard to believe that you've never seen the many times Arutz Sheva and Cox & Forkum have been used at DU. Not to mention the time yrs truly posted an article from that lovely bunch from GAMLA ;)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Clearly you don't grasp who LaRouhe is

Given your location, that makes certain sense.

He's a lunatic gadfly anti-Semite fascist. And that is just scratching the surface.

ANYTHING coming from his group or organization is beyond suspect.

They are not run of the mill haters, they are the true lunatic fringe.

[Scurrilous]

16. Prove this interview is suspect.

You know, with facts and stuff. Contact Rabbi Hertzberg's organization, tell them LaRouche is printing phony interviews with his name attached, and come back to DU and post your proof. Put up or shut up.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. It comes from LaRouche

Everything about it is instantly suspect.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I read the link you posted...

And why are you arguing with me when I said Larouche appeared questionable? Or are you trying to defend the lunatic sources I compared it to?

I agree with Scurrilous. This particular item was an interview, not an opinion piece or even a news article. As yr insisting it's suspect, the onus is on you to prove it...

Violet...

[bemildred]

28. Ah violet, why read when you can talk? nt

[Scurrilous]

13. The interview is with Rabbi Hertzberg.

If you have any proof to the contrary, feel free to share it with the rest of us.

Here's the issue of EIC which carried the interview:

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/2004/eirtoc_3116.html



They also have a review of Hertzberg's book:

The Fate of Zionism: A Secular Future for Israel & Palestine, by Arthur Hertzberg.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

15. LaRouche is a notorious fascist. Any rabbi who'd be published by him has a

self-image problem. :puke:

[Scurrilous]

18. I can see where Rabbi Hertzberg...

...might have poor self-image. Take a look at his bio. It just screams no self-esteem.

Arthur Hertzberg

The son and grandson of Hasidic rabbis, Hertzberg immigrated from Poland to the United States in 1926 with his parents at the age of five. (His maternal family were all killed by the Nazis.)

Hertzberg's family lived in New York for a year, then moved to Youngstown, Ohio, then to Baltimore. As a teenager, he was schooled in the Talmud and Hasidic literature by his father. He, himself, also became a rabbi (at Temple Emanu-El in Englewood, New Jersey, from 1956 to 1985, where he remains as rabbi emeritus), and a professor of religion (at Dartmouth, where he is now a professor emeritus).

He was ordained a rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1943 and received a Ph.D. in history from Columbia University in 1966. He has taught at Princeton, Rutgers, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Since 1991, he has been the Bronfman Visiting Professor of the Humanities at New York University.

Hertzberg has also been active in the World Zionist Organization and the American Jewish Congress (he was president of the American Jewish Congress from 1972 to 1978 and vice president of the World Jewish Congress from 1975 to 1991). Hertzberg was a strident advocate of the Civil Rights Movement, and an outspoken opponent of the war in Vietnam.

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/authors/ArthurHertzberg.php

[Jim Sagle]

32. So when did he go south? It's really sad.

[Tinoire]

19. About Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg

ed Press Releases
POSTPONED: DIALOGUE FORUM SERIES: RABBI ARTHUR HERTZBERG
Jan 29, 2004

On Thursday, January 29, at 8:00pm, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg will discuss his new book, The Fate of Zionism: A Secular Future for Israel and Palestine (HarperCollins, October 2003), in an informed and stimulating conversation with Rabbi William Berkowitz.


Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg was formerly the Rabbi at Temple Emanu-El in Englewood, New Jersey, from 1956 to 1985, where he is Rabbi Emeritus. He is also a Professor Emeritus of Religion at Dartmouth.


Rabbi Hertzberg was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1943 and received a Ph.D, in History from Columbia University in 1966 and has taught at Princeton, Rutgers, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Since 1991, Rabbi Hertzberg has served as the Bronfman Visiting Professor of the Humanities at New York University.


Rabbi Hertzberg is active in The World Zionist Organization and the American Jewish Congress (He was President of the American Jewish Congress from 1972 to 1978 and Vice President of the World Jewish Congress from 1975 to 1991). Rabbi Hertzberg was a leading advocate during the Civil Rights movement and an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War.


Rabbi Hertzberg's Books include: Jewish Polemics (1992); The Zionist Idea (1997) and A Jew In America (2002).


ADMISSION: Free


SPONSORS: Dialogue Forum Series And American Jewish Historical Society


###
http://www.cjh.org/about/news/view_archive.cfm?newsid=140

==========

Over the course of his 50 plus year career, Rabbi Hertzberg has served as a congregational rabbi, president of both the American Jewish Policy Foundation and the American Jewish Congress, vice president of the World Jewish Congress and a leading representative of world Jewry in the historic Catholic-Jewish dialogue that commenced during the papacy of Pope John XXIII. As a major public figure in the world of Jewish organizational life, Hertzberg has been at the epicenter of the crucial events shaping American Jewish life since the end of World War II. He walked with Martin Luther King Jr in the 1963 March to Washington and Bloody Sunday at the height of the American civil rights movement, and Henry Kissinger. Hertzberg played a major role in some of the most significant issues the world Jewish community faced in the decades following World War II, including discussions with the Catholic Church over the still unresolved conflict over the Vatican's release of documents pertaining to Pius XII and the Holocaust, as well as his outspoken criticism of the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians. Hertzberg also made his mark in Jewish scholarship. His landmark book, "The French Enlightenment and the Jews: The Origins of Modern Anti-Semitism" (1968), argued that the source of modern antisemitism could be traced to the "liberal" ideas of such "enlightened" philosophers as Voltaire. Similarly, his "The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader" (1970) pioneered the study of Zionism and provided generations of students with the understanding that modern Zionism was a secular movement to remake Jewish identity into one of the many modern secular nationalisms. Finally, although a self-styled pragmatic liberal, Hertzberg saw no contradiction between his political convictions and his reverence for a Jewish tradition shorn of its religious fundamentalism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/arthur_hertzberg

[Vladimir]

20. Thanks for the info Tinoire

his book sounds like an interesting read... methinks I'll be getting a copy.

[Tinoire]

21. Anytime Vladimir

s udovol'stviem

I'm interested in reading more about/from him too. I agree with him- Bush and Sharon are going to fry in hell.

Note also that people can decry Larouche's personal opinions all they want but his factual information is extremely well researched. When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger ;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. When the messenger is an anti-Semitic fascist

Attacking the messenger is appropriate.

[Tinoire]

27. Nonesense... Seems you just don't like what the Rabbi had to say

All the filth coming from Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson is not only accepted but defended time after time.

Why is it that when the messenger is an anti-Islamist fascist, there's not one squawk from the peanut gallery? Just a vociferous excuse and understanding of their filth. But let Larouche interview some respectable Rabbi, ardent Zionist at that, and all the squawking begins.


It's a good thing for Progressives that there are clear-thinking Rabbis like this whose hearts aren't filled with hate and are warning the world about Sharon, Bush, and the dangers that Christian fundamentalists are posing to the safety and very existence of Israel and Jews. Good thing that Larouche conducted and published the interview. You must agree that the last thing any of us want is to allow 2 fascist nut-balls like Sharon and Bush to blow up the world with their crazy fundamentalist beliefs.

[bemildred]

29. I think I would prefer bacon fat.

For frying, I mean.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. I haven't made it past the anti-Semitic fascist source

Nor do I intend to do so.

[Forkboy]

22. We should all be so lucky

[sushi]

30. I don't know

about the frying in hell. I'll be relieved and happy when Bush and Sharon leave, and I hope it's soon.

[forgethell]

31. Well, Bush & Sharon

might well "fry in hell". If there is a hell. And some of their policies are demonstrably mindless. But Israel was already involved in a permanent war with the Arab world. How the hell can the Arab world be any angrier than they already were?

[number6]

34. about Larouche

I disagree with him on many things
he's against environmentalists
..however
he defended Clinton
criticized Ken Star
called Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney, children on Satan
(ha ha spell checker had halfwits for Wolfowitz)
he can't be all bad ...so he's just half fascist..

[bemildred]

36. Well, it's your basic ad hominem attack.

The source ought to be irrelevant. What the rabbi said OUGHT to
stand or fall on it's own merits. Otherwise all that matters
is where things are posted. Basic herd behavior.

[number6]

37. thats what I think ...

"What the rabbi said OUGHT to
stand or fall on it's own merits"

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. We don't allow posting from hate sites

So clearly the source IS relevant. And LaRouche is a hater, anti-Semite and fascist from way back.

[bemildred]

39. Yeah, well, so far this seem to be an allowed site.

And it's still an ad hominem attack. If LaRouche posted
the Bible would you stop believing in Jesus?

[Forkboy]

40. Nothing would stop that

:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. I wouldn't read a Bible posted by LaRouche

It could take years or a nice software package to compare it to a real Bible and look for minor changes he might have made.

[Forkboy]

42. The Bible would be just as believable either way

i.e. not at all.

This just illustrates a selective mentality of denial.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Denial of a fascist anti-Semitic source

Yes.

[Forkboy]

44. but not

a fairy in the sky source?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

60. Muddle

You are right in saying that LaRouche is a bigot and a fascist.

And yes, EIR is indeed a highly biased publication and one where study must be made of each article's context and veracity. However, there is some editorial process which does keep out the more fanatical views of LaRouche. You can see the following statement concerning EIR as published in the Columbia Journalism Review.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/93/3/spooky.asp

Another major source of conspiracy theories are the LaRouchians -- followers of former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, presently serving a jail term for mail fraud and tax evasion. The LaRouchians are perhaps best known for their theory that Great Britain's political leaders are basically puppets of Jewish banking families and that Queen Elizabeth and others are in league with these families to control the smuggling of drugs into the U.S.

Back in the early days of the Reagan administration, the LaRouche information-gathering operation received a tribute from the National Security Council's senior director of international affairs, Dr. Norman Bailey, who called it "one of the best private intelligence services in the world." (The La Rouchians' links to the NSC's staff were terminated after producer Pat Lynch exposed the relationship in a 1984 segment of NBC's short-lived First Camera news program. LaROuche sued NBC, including Lynch and correspondent Mark Nykanen; free-lancer Dennis King; this author; and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith for defamation. A jury ruled that characterizing LaRouche as an anti-Semite, "small-time Hitler," cult-leader, and crook was not defamation.)

Several journalists who published early Iran-contra stories say that the LaRouchians were important players in the traditional Capitol press corps game of trading tips and theories and sometimes swapping sources and documents. Herb Quinde, an intelligence policy analyst for the LaRouchians, confirms that he and other LaRouchian investigators were then, and are now, in constant touch with journalists and researchers across the political spectrum. The LaRouchains' Executive Intelligence Review even gets a footnote acknowledgment from Ben Bradlee, Jr., in his Guts and Glory: The Rise and Fall of Oliver North. There he acknowledges the help of EIR in decoding the short-hand used by North in his notebooks.

Because this is a book review and an actual interview, the only discussion that can be made here is whether the quotes were taken out of context or the person being interviewed is somehow unqualified or heavily biased/extreme in their own viewpoints. I didn't see it being rejected on this basis.

[bemildred]

61. It seemed to me that it's easy enough to criticize this on its merits.

God knows it's not very deep or very subtle.
"Clash of civilizations".
Right.

[Lithos]

62. That is fair game

And you are right, there is much to criticize and debate.

L-

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Then why limit info from OTHER hate sites?

But we do, because we try for a standard of reputable information.

[bemildred]

65. Indeed, no more censorship, let the chips fall where they may. nt

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Censorship? I would call it editing.

I just suggest we add this hate site to the list.

[bemildred]

67. Fine, no more "editing", let the chips fall where they may. nt

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. And there we choose to disagree.

I don't wish to see an infinite pile of crap from hate sites.

[bemildred]

69. Yeah, heaven forfend we should have anything hateful down here. nt

[bemildred]

49. Aha!

I see that you do not deny that it's an ad hominem attack,
but instead cleverly attempt to shift the subject to LaRouche's
possible transcription errors.
:tinfoilhat:

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. It's not ad hominem to view ANYTHING from LaRouche suspect

It's rational.

[bemildred]

51. That is true.

But it is an ad hominem to say it is wrong BECAUSE it is on a
LaRouche site.

You can say "I'm not willing to waste time on it because LaRouche
is an idiot and time is short", but if you say it is wrong/false
because it is on a LaRouche site, that is an ad hominem. It is
wrong or not, in logic and in reason, because of what it says or
does not say, not because of where it is posted.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. I can say

LaRouche is an anti-Semitic fascist and not only shouldn't we be using ANYTHING from his group (just like we avoid David Duke), but that the veracity and accuracy of whatever is used is immediately called into question.

[bemildred]

53. I didn't see anything anti-semitic or fascist in the interview.

Did you? Or would reading it be too dangerous to consider?
Could you point out something anti-semitic or fascist about it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Again, I make it my policy

to NOT read hate sites. I avoid David Duke's website as well.

[Forkboy]

55. We'll take that as a no

[bemildred]

58. So much for "Know your enemy" and stuff like that.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak not evil.
Well maybe not that last one, but two out of three is not bad.
And I think, given the string of dodges and deflections we now
have in evidence, that your conclusion is correct.

[SOS]

72. You've posted that 19 times on this thread.

We get your point already.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. The judgment expressed in the headline

The judgment expressed in the headline is highly speculative and even if such were to be the outcome of the current state of affairs, it would be, I fear, entirely unverifiable.

[bemildred]

59. One hopes it is a figure of speech, and fears that it is not. nt

[Tinoire]

73. You crack me up!

:thumbsup:

[corporatewhore]

63. if there is such a thing as universal/Karmic justice

[Tinoire]

70. Kick for the Iraq Prison Torture Scandal

because I need to hear over and over again that Bush and Sharon will "fry in hell" for unleashing this madness on the world.

[PATRICK]

71. A possible theory

Maybe there was some more specific and compelling quid pro quo in the Bush giveaway of Palestine on Sharon's terms. First Sharon pretty desperately needed a big gift from Washington to wow his rebellious right. Bush desperately needs the WMD's to be "found". The common ground of course is the stalled clean sweep middle east agenda both stake so much in.

Who better to carefully plan and plant WMD's than the experts with contacts in the area with maybe some untraceable passes given their operations? Lord knows they have had the time and opportunity and in the chaos only foreign security guards are raising their heads out of foxholes. I don't think the BFEE assets or sympathizers, even the criminal ones, dare try any such thing under the noses of loyal Americans. Only the Sharon elements of the Mossad have the area expertise to pull it off, though it is also a question how loyal his wider security forces would be. However we are talking apples and oranges. The Mossad has very sound national security reasons to have America finish the job of punching back the Arabs however criminal or distasteful a hoax would be.

Israel could have had access to the surprisingly sloppily guarded nuclear facilities(convenient) to process back in Israel into some form of plausible weaponry. Though it would have the Iraqi signature, such a tailor made resurrection of WMD's would be very tough(except for the doltish US media and Congress).

Dates of opportunity? The sooner the better with Bush teetering, but most likely near the eve of the handover of controls(hah) at the end of June. Or in the wake of new terror attack. Or October if they need to short circuit proofs of authenticity.

One of these days one of my black ops theories will prove true.

[Tinoire]

74. Well, there are only 2 people running this show

(plus a poodle). Someone's got to plant them :shrug:

As soon as they get done eliminating all the scientists and engineers (story was in LBN, possibly GD, last week) and there's no one left to dispute them, the weapons will miraculously appear.

Of course, the UK/US torture scandal is putting a nasty little dent to their best-laid plans.

[number6]

75. kick

:smoke:

[number6]

76. so anyone think bu$h should not ...

fry in hell ?