World War II mythology serves the new fascists (MMN)

[Up2Late]

(Note: Greg Felton is a Canadian writer and makes several Canadian references)

World War II mythology serves the new fascists

by Greg Felton
(Friday June 10 2005)

“In the past Canada has taken clear and diplomatically sound steps when dealing with countries which are in contravention of international law…. The South African Apartheid regime was dealt with in Canada with economic bans and with strained diplomatic ties. Why, then, is the Apartheid regime of Israel rewarded with invitations?”

-- Colleen Baumier, MP

The 60th anniversary of the end of World War II ought to be a time for momentous reflection, but for those with a sense of history, such a commemoration is disturbingly perverse.

Sixty years ago this week, Allied forces defeated a fascistic regime dedicated to militarism, persecution of select peoples, hypernationalism, and contempt for international law. Today, the U.S. and U.K., two of the leading Allied forces, espouse these odious principles in the name of democracy.

In fact, the U.S. has so thoroughly betrayed its own republican traditions that it can no longer be called a democracy. Just as the Nazis did in Germany, the Jewish/Christian zionist movement in the U.S. has dogmatized the government, compromised the judiciary, and made persecution of critics acceptable.

Is there any point to celebrating an event that has become irrelevant? On the one hand, to commemorate the war allows the U.S. and other “allies” to milk their now-defunct image as champions of democracy.

(more at link above)

[Parche]

1. mythology

What peeves me off is the way they keep comparing Pearl Harbor
with Sept 11th, they are completely 2 different scenarios
nothing at all the same

[cap]

2. but you know they arent showing too many WWII movies

where the Nazis are slapping around our boys???? It rings a little too close to G'tmo.

Maybe we should show "The Great Escape" or "Shoah" or other movies. Subtly remind folk that the "good guys" dont do certain things.

[Up2Late]

3. Let's just hope Fox doesn't Try to do a re-make of Hogan's Hero's

Ya think they could make a T.V. Show like that these days?

Oh those silly P.O.W.'s Arrg!

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Anti-Semitic trash

This article is almost as bad as his other recent article. Filth!

On Edit: This person is a supporter of Hamas, and not the political branch!

[blindpig]

5. Anti Zionists, certainly

I didn't see Anti-Semitism. The line about Israel being subsumed by Palestine is not something that I advocate but it could happen and if it does it will be because of the initial injustices of the founding of the Israeli state and the decades old pursuit of lebensraum. It could have been different and still can be.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. The author

He sees Israeli Jews as Zionists, perhaps all Jews. So, anti-Zionist does equal anti-Jew (anti-Semitic), in this case. I believe that anyone who advocates the destruction of Israel is an anti-Semite. To prove my point, I will include this disgusting piece of filth from another article he wrote, titled: "Hamas a principled defender of Palestine"

The essentially criminal, acquisitive nature of Israel should provide ample proof that a two-state solution is a dangerous illusion. The only possibility for peace is a single democratic state in a de-Zionized Palestine. So long as the Zionist Reich exists, Hamas, and groups like it, will be the real champions of Palestinian justice.

Continued anti-Semitic filth here

This is one of the problems I have tried to explain to others. What may seem like anti-Israeli, is in fact, anti-Semitic. When 'people' like this muddy the waters, it makes it difficult for legitimate criticism to occur because they cleverly hide their anti-Semitism. Often, they even turn the tables and act the victim of Jewish critics. This is how the left is being infected, but many here will deny that, even with proof like this staring them in the face. (I am not saying you, I have others in mind. This is the first post I have seen from you).

Do you still think this piece is just "anti-Zionist?"

[blindpig]

7. still don't see it

While I disagree with the author concerning his "one state solution", I think that a two state solution has better chance, at least in the short run. I believe that Israel should give up land enough to make Palestine contiguous. Biblical maps don't mean shit to me. Justice does.

Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism, no matter how much Zionist want to make it so.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I guess you don't get it.

Anti-Zionism, like criticism of Israel, is not always anti-Semitic. However, I believe calling for the destruction of Israel, which he also calls the "Jewish Homeland," is anti-Semitic! If Palestine gets a contiguous nation, it will cut Israel in half, that won't happen. What part of "de-Zionized Palestine" is NOT anti-Semitic? Calling for the destruction of Israel IS anti-Semitic in nature.

[Up2Late]

10. See, this is the REAL problem

People like you immediately start throwing around terms like Anti-semitic and anti-Jew and saying things like Anti-Zionist=Anti-Jew, but then you only back that up with opinion and things you have been taught about THOSE people. Then you immediately launch into prejudicial attacks, accusing anyone that disagrees with anything you say as being anti-Jew. That's just wrong.

My Sister, Brother-in-Law, my 2 nieces and my nephew are Jewish, Hell, half of my extended family was Jewish, until the Nazis killed most of them.

You need to settle down and open you mind a bit. I think the biggest problem is that the people in this country have been given so little information about the Jewish/non-Jewish question, that it is imposable to make a thoughtful argument either way.

I have to say, in 2005, I would guess that 99.5% of Americans don't even know what Zionism is, let alone , why it is or isn't a problem. I was never taught that. I would just like a little more information. That is what we are here for isn't it? :shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

11. The REAL problem is blindness to bigotry from the left

I didn't "throw around" the terms anti-Semitic and anti-Jew, I backed it up with HIS words! You show me where I have accused ANYONE that has disagreed with me as being anti-Jew! I didn't comment on ANYONE other than the AUTHOR! I hardly think that signifies a "launch into prejudicial attacks, accusing anyone that disagrees with anything you say as being anti-Jew." Also, point out one thing that I said that indicates what I think about "those people." Talk about muddying the waters. I didn't even mention Arabs or Arab beliefs. I stayed on topic and attacked the AUTHOR!

You need to read more and open your mind. I said it in a post above, but since you obviously didn't read it...Anti-Zionism, like criticism of Israel, is not always anti-Semitic.

Jewish/non-Jewish question? What question is that?! Their right to exist? To have a homeland? To feel secure and safe in said homeland?

It is tedious that people cannot see the difference between criticism of a nation and her people. According to our own site, DU, if this author tried to post in I/P, he would be banned. The rule I mention is: If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned. (emphasis mine) Further more is would violate this rule: Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli". As well, he would violate this one: Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided. Why would he be banned? Because his post would be ANTI-SEMITIC! If the rules of this site can deem his writings as anti-Semitic, why can I not do the same?

I cannot educate the 99.5% of Americans who do not know what Zionism is, but here are a couple of defintions...

from Dictionary.com

Zi·on·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (z-nzm)
n.
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zion·ist adj. & n.
Zion·istic adj.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Zionism

n 1: a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine 2: a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Up2Late]

13. Did I miss something?

Did I post a message that said, "Hey Folks! Check out this Awesome AUTHOR and all the great things he has written in the past...!" NO, I didn't.

I posted a NEW article, by a non-American Author, who has not been subjected to the jingoistic American Media, that wrote about the problem he was having with the WWII 60th Anniversary "celebrations".

Then you come along, see that this author has Quoted, (not himself written) a Canadian Parliament Member who, being from a country with a very small military and a different feeling about War and their country giving Military training to a heavily militarize countries, who says something that doesn't fit the MSM's and your "Israel is always right" line of thinking, you come along and start labeling this article "Anti-Semitic trash" and "Filth!" because of OTHER articles you've supposedly read by this author.

Then you try to hijack the thread when blindpig responds that he/she doesn't see IN THIS ARTICLE what your talking about.

Now, let's see what you wrote in this post.

Point#1: "...I didn't "throw around" the terms anti-Semitic and anti-Jew..."

Let's see what you DID write when blindpig responded to you that he/she "Didn't see it," let's count up your inflammatory terms:

"(The author)...He sees Israeli Jews as Zionists, perhaps all Jews. So, anti-Zionist does equal anti-Jew (anti-Semitic), in this case. I believe that anyone who advocates the destruction of Israel is an anti-Semite..."

(2)(Z/a-Z) (J/a-J) (2) and your favorite term (anti-Semitic) (1) plus (2)= (3) so far, and that's just your first 2 sentences.

Then, after pointing to a different article, that I didn't post and was not asking for a discussion on, you wrote:

"...This is one of the problems I have tried to explain to others. What may seem like anti-Israeli, is in fact, anti-Semitic. When 'people' like this muddy the waters, it makes it difficult for legitimate criticism to occur because they cleverly hide their anti-Semitism..."

Thats 2 more (2+3=5) (A-S) (1)anti-Israeli and a Quote/unquote "People"like this.

Then, in your second, off topic reply to "blindpig," which I see as an attack on that persons valid opinion, you write:

"...I guess you don't get it...Anti-Zionism, like criticism of Israel, is not always anti-Semitic. However, I believe calling for the destruction of Israel, which he also calls the "Jewish Homeland," is anti-Semitic! If Palestine gets a contiguous nation, it will cut Israel in half, that won't happen. What part of "de-Zionized Palestine" is NOT anti-Semitic? Calling for the destruction of Israel IS anti-Semitic in nature.

So that (5+4=9) more (a/S) and another (a-Z) (2+1=3) So that makes 9 (a/s), 3 (a-z/Z) 2 (a-J/J) and 1 (a-I). Is that "throwing around?" I think so.

Point #2 you say:
"...I didn't comment on ANYONE other than the AUTHOR...!"

Again, as I said above, this post was not about "The AUTHOR, it was about the posted article, which was about his feeling of uneasiness with the WWII 60th Anniversary "celebrations."

Point #3 you ask, "Also, point out one thing that I said that indicates what I think about "those people." Now I'm sure you'll disagree, but I think most would agree that the term "those people" and the term "...'people' like this..." means the same thing.

Then, to top it off, you go on to point out in a hypothetical situation, where this author posted in the I/P forum, this author would have been banned, but everything in the rules you just posted, you in fact, just violated.

AND, as you point out, your criticisms are aimed at some un-named person who has disagreed with you in the past.

If this isn't hight of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I would say I'm speechless...fortunately, I'm not!

Did you miss something? I would say so.

Did I post a message that said, "Hey Folks! Check out this Awesome AUTHOR and all the great things he has written in the past...!" NO, I didn't.

I posted a NEW article, by a non-American Author, who has not been subjected to the jingoistic American Media, that wrote about the problem he was having with the WWII 60th Anniversary "celebrations".

Then you come along, see that this author has Quoted, (not himself written) a Canadian Parliament Member who, being from a country with a very small military and a different feeling about War and their country giving Military training to a heavily militarize countries, who says something that doesn't fit the MSM's and your "Israel is always right" line of thinking, you come along and start labeling this article "Anti-Semitic trash" and "Filth!" because of OTHER articles you've supposedly read by this author.

Did I claim that you said; ""Hey Folks! Check out this Awesome AUTHOR and all the great things he has written in the past...!"?" Nope. Don't see any declaration on my part stating you did anything of the such. But, I also didn't see any disclaimer saying I could not post my opinion about the article or the author. Did I miss that?

I came along and actually READ the damn article. My charge of anti-Semitism wasn't because of the idiotic statement from the Canadian PM it was because of this:

The answer, of course, is that the Israel Lobby in government runs foreign policy,...<snip> When the U.S. empire is broken and Israel is consumed by Palestine we will be able to explain to future generations how the “good guys,” permitted the very depravity they waged war against.

Please point to where you ascertained that I have an ""Israel is always right"" mentality ("line of thinking")! Could it be this..."When 'people' like this muddy the waters, it makes it difficult for legitimate criticism to occur because they cleverly hide their anti-Semitism." OR perhaps this..."Anti-Zionism, like criticism of Israel, is not always anti-Semitic." Is this how you arrived at I have an ""Israel is always right"" mentality ("line of thinking")?

And, as you can see, I labeled this piece anti-Semitic because of what is IN the piece, as well as the own author's own pieces, which I obviously read, since I quoted at least one. But, I have others if you'd like.

Then you try to hijack the thread when blindpig responds that he/she doesn't see IN THIS ARTICLE what your talking about.

Now, let's see what you wrote in this post.

Point#1: "...I didn't "throw around" the terms anti-Semitic and anti-Jew..."

Let's see what you DID write when blindpig responded to you that he/she "Didn't see it," let's count up your inflammatory terms:


"(The author)...He sees Israeli Jews as Zionists, perhaps all Jews. So, anti-Zionist does equal anti-Jew (anti-Semitic), in this case. I believe that anyone who advocates the destruction of Israel is an anti-Semite..."

(2)(Z/a-Z) (J/a-J) (2) and your favorite term (anti-Semitic) (1) plus (2)= (3) so far, and that's just your first 2 sentences.

Then, after pointing to a different article, that I didn't post and was not asking for a discussion on, you wrote:


"...This is one of the problems I have tried to explain to others. What may seem like anti-Israeli, is in fact, anti-Semitic. When 'people' like this muddy the waters, it makes it difficult for legitimate criticism to occur because they cleverly hide their anti-Semitism..."

Thats 2 more (2+3=5) (A-S) (1)anti-Israeli and a Quote/unquote "People"like this.

Then, in your second, off topic reply to "blindpig," which I see as an attack on that persons valid opinion, you write:


"...I guess you don't get it...Anti-Zionism, like criticism of Israel, is not always anti-Semitic. However, I believe calling for the destruction of Israel, which he also calls the "Jewish Homeland," is anti-Semitic! If Palestine gets a contiguous nation, it will cut Israel in half, that won't happen. What part of "de-Zionized Palestine" is NOT anti-Semitic? Calling for the destruction of Israel IS anti-Semitic in nature.

So that (5+4=9) more (a/S) and another (a-Z) (2+1=3) So that makes 9 (a/s), 3 (a-z/Z) 2 (a-J/J) and 1 (a-I). Is that "throwing around?" I think so.

We obviously have a different idea of what "throwing around" a word(s) is(are). I see it as using words indiscriminately and with no real proof. "blindpig" said the piece was anti-Zionist, but couldn't see the anti-Semitism. So, in my response, I used the terms, "Jew," Zionist," and "anti-Semitism." So, how was I supposed to respond without using those words? Is this a big game of "Taboo?" And, as for your charge of "hijacking," I was unaware that posting one's own OPINION, then responding to the subsequent responses constitutes "hijacking." My response to him/her was NOT an attack on his/her valid opinion, it was an expression of exasperation that s/he didn't see what I was seeing. By your reasoning, his/her initial response to me was an attack on MY opinion! I certainly don't think that; but your rationale certainly could be seen to justify it. Incidentally, why was HIS/HER opinion valid and mine was not?

Point #2 you say:
"...I didn't comment on ANYONE other than the AUTHOR...!"

Again, as I said above, this post was not about "The AUTHOR, it was about the posted article, which was about his feeling of uneasiness with the WWII 60th Anniversary "celebrations."

So, if you posted an article from Pat Robertson, who was against the war, or David Duke, you think people would ONLY comment on the piece? If you believe that, by all means, please post an anti-war piece by Pat Robertson in the GD forum and see how that turns out!

Point #3 you ask, "Also, point out one thing that I said that indicates what I think about "those people." Now I'm sure you'll disagree, but I think most would agree that the term "those people" and the term "...'people' like this..." means the same thing.

Then, to top it off, you go on to point out in a hypothetical situation, where this author posted in the I/P forum, this author would have been banned, but everything in the rules you just posted, you in fact, just violated.

AND, as you point out, your criticisms are aimed at some un-named person who has disagreed with you in the past.

If this isn't hight of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Considering the author is Canadian and NOT an Arab or Muslim (to my knowledge), why did you JUMP to the CONCLUSION that my "'people'" comment was about anything other than anti-Semites? Of course, had I said that, it would have been one more use of the term for your "counting fest." I had been talking about anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, not ONCE did I use "Arab" or "Muslim." So, perhaps a little projection was happening, and you ASSUMED that "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semite" was "code" for Arabs and Muslims?

The hypothetical situation would have had the poster banned. I would not have been banned unless he was a member of DU and I posted, to him, that he was an an anti-Semitic piece of filth. Since he is not a member, I can post that about him. Therefore, I violated NO rules of the DU.

The reason I don't call someone an anti-Semite, despite your thinking my "...criticisms are aimed at some un-named person who has disagreed with you in the past" is because to label someone an anti-Semite on DU is against the rules. It also goes to show your state of thought that just because someone disagrees with me in this area, I brand him/her an anti-Semite. This is not true, as shown in my aforementioned comments.

Hypocrisy? I see that all over. If you agree with the post, you are "A-OK," but if you dissent, your opinion is NOT valid. Hypocrisy? Being for the state of Israel's existence, while despising her policies, and being labeled "anti-Arab/Muslim," but being "anti-Israel" and allowed to use anti-Semitism as your reason. Hypocrisy? Agreeing that Palestinians should be allowed a state, but not at the expense of Israel, and being labeled an "anti-Arab/Muslim." Hypocrisy? Being able to praise articles by authors who advocate the destruction of Israel, but to dissent and be labeled as "anti-Arab/Muslim" and "un"liberal!

You haven't seen the "heights of hypocrisy" until you try to defend the existence of Israel to so-called progressive liberals!

[Colorado Blue]

12. OK, a simple explanation of what Zionism is.

Zionism is the desire for the Jewish people to maintain and develop their homeland in Israel. Before the establishment of Israel, Zionism reflected the HOPE of establishing their homeland in Israel.

That's about it.

I hope you don't fall asleep reading the following dissertation but since you asked:)

Somehow, thanks to some horrendous antisemitic texts, including a Czarist forgery called "The Jewish Peril", the term "Zionism" has been corrupted, misconstrued and misused in a very sinister way.

This book was based originally on a French document NOT including Jews, but reflecting an imaginary conversation with Machiavelli, but later, in Russia, came to be associated with Jews and Freemasons.

IT was translated and widely disseminated under the unfortunate title, "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion". Alas, people believed it was TRUE. It should be noted that many, around the time the books was widely published, blamed the Jews for the Bolshevik revolution and this turned many European and American capitalists against the Jewish people. Henry Ford, for one, put a copy of it in every car he produced. Many powerful British people - who in any case probably didn't think an industrialized state in the Middle East was to their benefit - turned against the Jewish settlers in the Middle East.

This was the beginning of much woe for us in that region. It's a long story but is amply documented in Wikipedia if you're looking for a quick source of information. Also, the book was published in Damascus in 1920, according to my research, and was widely disseminated throughout the region - which didn't help the cause of the Jewish settlers one bit in their quest to buy land and create a home. In fact, great violence broke out and many people were killed and this became the pattern which has continued to this day.

This text forms the basis for the idea that Zionism is about world domination. The text is taught as truth throughout the Middle East and it has also been dramatized on Egyptian TV, in a program called "Horseman Without a Horse." So the poison continues to be spread.

In the US, "zionist conspiracy theories" abound. When I was young, this was expressed in terms of "Zionist Communist World Domination" theories. Now, it's Neocon Zionist World Domination. In other words, such conspiracy theories are an all purpose way of slandering Jews. The economic or political enemy du jour is linked with Zionists and/or Jews - it doesn't matter. Whoever is in power, that pisses people off, will do.

This will, I fear, result again in attacks on Jewish people. As it is, antisemitic slanders and attacks have soared world wide since 9/11. This includes the US although I don't think there has been the violence associated with such attacks in Europe, for example.

Had people not already been inculcated with 2,000 years of bigotry toward Jews, largely based on the refusal to convert to Christianity, this wouldn't have caught on. But, the Diaspora community, thrown out their home by the Romans, was extremely vulnerable. It was easy to stereotype and scapegoat people and blood libel - killing Christ, using Christian blood to make matzohs, stereotypes in literature such as Shylock - were widespread and formed the excuse for torture, murder, repeated expulsions and pogroms. Jews weren't allowed in many places to own land and were forced to work at "unclean" professions. This was true in Islam as well as within the Christian world. It goes on and on.

But the true, pure meaning of the word "Zionism" is as stated above.

Jewish thought is very broad and there are Jewish sects and Jewish thinkers, who are not Zionists. Most of us are, though in any case, as the EU reiterates, world wide Jewry can hardly be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government any more than WE can be held responsible for the actions of George Bush.

Nevertheless, there are no fiercer critics of the Israeli government - from all sides - than Israelis and Diaspora Jews. The desire to see the Palestinians treated well is hardly foreign to Jewish people and the stated goal of the Israeli government was to provide a democratic state for people of ALL religions and ethnicities.

Sadly, the Arab attitude was to refuse the UN plan, which included a Palestinian state and attack with 5 armies. One of those armies was led by an Englishman and at one point the British actually threatened to fight on the side of the Egyptian army. The British disarmed the Jews just as was about to break out, even though they had fought for Britain in WWII and were demonstrably vulnerable. Ships filled with refugees from the Holocaust were blockaded. This is the story of the "Exodus". The British government didn't even recognize the state of Israel for nine months.

There has been practically non-stop war and terror ever since.

Meanwhile, Israel's population of 6 million includes a million Arabs, who have full rights. A visit to the online edition of Ha'aretz will reveal the openness of the Israeli press. Included are unmoderated discussion forums in which people of all religions and nationalities participate. Many comments in the paper and in the forums vigorously protest government policy.

It is the opposite of a closed, totalitarian, fascist state.

In any case, attacks on the Jewish state represent attacks on Jewish people. Attempts to delegitimize, demoralize, or destroy the Jewish state are attempts to hurt Jewish people. I don't see how this can be denied.

I hope this helps. Meanwhile here's a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict

[Colorado Blue]

9. Of fer god's sake. The European Union has just stomped

HARD on this sort of bullshit, unequivocably calling attacks on Israel and the rights of Jews to self-determination within their state, bigoted.

Similarly they regard people who refer to Israelis as Nazis, bigots.

And they're right.

They should know, they were there during WWII.

And the violence of Arabs against Jews, beginning back with conquering and destruction of Jewish tribes in Arabia by the armies of Mohammed, and the resulting creation of "dhimmitude" - a sort of apartheid - goes back CENTURIES. In modern times it has been truly horrendous, beginning in the '20's.

The attitude toward the Jewish state has been one of complete refusal to allow her existence, Jewish communities throughout the Middle East have been expelled and destroyed. Even now, as Israel is TRYING to disengage from the OT, the P.A. refuses to disarm the militants. Every step toward peace has been greeted with violence, frequently against innocent civilians. This is going back to DAY 1 of Israel's existence and before.

Anybody who supports or can write such trash is RACIST. And moreover, THIS kind of trash is empowering the Neonazis.

Maybe that's the point.

[Colorado Blue]

15. Cripes.

Since when is Hamas anything but a terrorist organization? EU has reconfirmed this, lest one not trust the US or Israel.

And since when is killing ISRAELI civilians indiscriminately, as has happened with increasing fury since the Oslo accords, NOT a war crime?

We have the death of Yasser Arafat, he should rest in peace, to thank for the slowly improving state of affairs in I/P. And of course this has been matched by increasing pressure WITHIN ISRAEL to withdraw from the OT and the work of two old warhorses, Abu Mazzen and Ariel Sharon, to try and give the young people a better future.

It should be mentioned that said slowly improving state of affairs is severely jeopardized by outfits like Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and others, which threaten, as a matter of written charter, the total destruction of Israel and all her 6 million citizens.

This article is extremely biased.

European Union would define it as bigoted because it denies the right of Jews to self-determination in the State of Israel, refuses to acknowledge the continous and brutal violence which has gone on for at least 8 decades, the five official wars, and the absolute refusal of radical elements AND the vast majority of the 22 Arab states to make peace with Israel - although there have been no lack of opportunities to do so.

OF course it also denies the fact that Palestinian statehood could have been a concrete reality as early as 1949.

Moreover, the suggestion that "The Jews Control The Media" is nothing but a variation on an ancient antisemitic canard: The Jews Have Too Much Power And/Or Dominate The World.

Given that our global population of some 13 million is STILL 2 million less than it was before Hitler's attempt to totally exterminate us, I'd say that's manifest bullshit.