INCREDIBLY HONEST ARTICLE

Coming from the Washington Post, this is astonishing. It mentions many significant facts about Palestine, Gaza, and Israel which are studiously kept buried by our nightly television news toadies. I've noticed that some of those TV "personalities" are looking noticeably uncomfortable about the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, and the lies used to justify it, and yet restrict their personal protest to squirming and changing the subject. Their body language reveals their true feelings but isn't revealing enough to get them fired through Jewish pressure.


Israel's Gaza Gamble

By Mahmoud Sabit

This has been a particularly brutal two weeks in the tragic saga of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. It's not very clear as to what precisely all this death and destruction is supposed to accomplish from an Israeli perspective. The utter defeat of Hamas? There's no consensus that this can accomplished by military means; Hamas is an ideological organization with strong support in Gaza, and their structure is woven into the very fabric of the refugee camps. To cow the civilian population of Gaza into withdrawing their support of Hamas? This is not very likely, especially after the sheer quantity of explosives showered on Gaza like confetti, and their resultant toll on the civilian population. Civilians tend to harden their determination when subjected to a constant diet of explosives, as the Germans learned during the London Blitz in WWII. As an election 'gimmick' to show how 'tough' Israel's leaders can be? Perhaps Israel's leaders have lost all sense of moral and ethical proportion if they believe that bombing an oppressed civilian population and its choice of leadership into a state of total submission following two years of virtual siege is a measure of toughness or lack of 'squeamishness.' To present President-elect Barack Obama with a fait accompli when he is sworn in later this month? A crisis that will force the new administration's hand upon taking office? It would not be the first time an Israeli government has attempted to impose its narrow agenda on an incoming U.S. administration.

Whatever the reason, it is a serious gamble, and a gamble without any likely long-term benefits. On the contrary, the long term implications do not benefit the interests of arriving at a final and just settlement to all parties in this dispute, whether Israeli, or Palestinian or Arab. It's certainly a gamble that may change the perspective of Arab governments in their interests in a rapprochement with Israel. There has been for the past few years an offer of peace to Israel by the Arab countries formulated in the Beirut Declaration of March 2002. This offer has so far been gathering dust, unaddressed by Israel, and it could be withdrawn (though this is not really likely.) The pressure from Arab public opinion as a result of this situation may well force the hand of some Arab governments to withdraw their support of this Declaration. To so dramatically reveal the Arab governments' inability to influence anyone at all on the conduct of Israel in Gaza would strengthen the position of Iran and its allies in the region. These are potentially serious consequences. For Israel to gamble with such possibilities is to engage in a serious disservice to their Israeli constituency as well as to their Arab neighbors.

Any and all civilian deaths and casualties should be deplored, be they Palestinian or Israeli. Firing homemade rockets into Israeli territory and bombing civilians in Gaza with modern ordinance are both acts that do not advance the cause of peace. Neither will tormenting a quite helpless refugee Palestinian population in Gaza with an economic embargo, nor denying its basic right to some sort of compensation through an overall peace settlement, nor attempting to coerce them into an abject capitulation to Israel's demands.

As for Hamas, they exist solely as a result of over 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation over the Palestinians without any recourse to a just settlement that would allow these people to have some sort of choice for their own future. At first the PLO/Fatah represented their interests, but Fatah was not able to deliver, thanks to Israeli intransigence and U.S. complicity. Thanks to a compliant U.S., Israel has an effective Security Council veto on any inconvenient resolution that this international body considers that might in any way restrict actions Israel considers 'appropriate' - which may or may not be abhorrent to the international community.

So when a free and open election took place in 2005, Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Hamas was brought into power because they are an element just as intransigent, just as doctrinaire and just as hard headed as past Israeli governments have proven to be. The reaction by Israel, the U.S. and Western Europe to this election was, as expected, vociferous. Even the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, however odious they may be considered, has been denied them. In a cynical display of moral outrage, Israel and the U.S. conspired with Fatah to topple Hamas, through violent means. The end result was that Gaza remained under Hamas control, whereas the West Bank effectively came under Fatah control. In addition Gaza has been under an economic embargo for several years now, causing immeasurable hardship to the Palestinian civilian population, in effect reinforcing a brutal occupation with a state of siege, actions more reminiscent of the excesses of the Middle Ages rather than the 21st century. If Hamas is considered so unsuitable today, 60 years after these Palestinians became refugees, perhaps Israel and its allies should have entered into a sincere and just settlement with more acceptable Palestinian partners decades ago.

Possibly one of the more sinister aspects of this tragedy is the clumsy attempt through media 'spin' to portray Israeli civilians as victims in this crisis. When we see on our TV screens and computer monitors the effects of Hamas 'rockets' on Israeli communities, compared to the sheer havoc wreaked by Israeli high explosives on the Gaza urban landscape and its civilian population, the educated and informed can safely put this fiction aside. As of a couple of days ago, in an TV interview with the BBC, Dr. Mars Gilbert at Dar el Shifa hospital in Gaza informed us that the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated were civilians and that of the 900 casualties that they had so far cared for at Dar el Shifa, 25% of the fatalities and fully 45% of the wounded were women and children.

In an article that appeared January 7, 2009 in the UK, Avi Shlaim, a respected Israeli historian and Oxford University scholar, wrote that Israel had become a 'rogue' state, by definition a state that ignores and violates international law at will, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.)

In another BBC World interview with another noted Israeli historian, Tom Segev, when posed the question, "After the fighting is over, what should then happen?" answered, "We shall have to talk to Hamas - they may be a terrorist organization, but they are also a political party, a social welfare movement and the elected representatives of the Palestinian people."

These educated and informed Israelis are well aware of the fundamental truth of this situation, which is that Israel's long term security, its very survival, relies on making a just and equitable peace with the Palestinians, making peace with the rest of the Arab World, and making the Arabs their best friends as quickly as possible.

From an Egyptian perspective, the government is not thrilled that Hamas is in this leadership position with the Palestinian people. They are after all the 'little' brother of Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, opponents today of the Egyptian government. Egypt also realizes that Hamas will probably survive this onslaught; their survival will be considered a victory and may well have serious repercussions in the Arab World. In short this Israeli gamble, ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, may well reinforce and encourage political Islamist ideologues and their extremist elements in the moderate Arab World. If Hamas does not survive, even more extremist elements may replace them in Gaza - elements that have been waiting on the sidelines for just such an opportunity, including al-Qaeda.'

THE LOST ART OF SAVING

I am old enough to remember when there was not a single credit card in all of America. You don't believe me? I'm not surprised. With your government frantically doing everything possible to persuade you to go deeper in debt via credit cards and other loans, you might well ask if this country ever survived without massive debt on all levels.

The first credit cards went into general use with the American Express card and the Bankamericard (now Visa) in 1958. Credit cards freed “consumers” from having to pay for things at the time they bought them and to delay the day of reckoning indefinitely as long as they met the payment demand each month while the cost of their purchase was grossly inflated by hefty interest rates. Thus instant gratification was introduced into the American bloodstream with the approximate disastrous effect of the forcible introduction of opium into China by the British in the 19th Century.

Add to credit cards the wild promotion of borrowing money secured by a car or a house which the lender could take if you didn't pay, and the US was ripening for economic catastrophes.


BY 2007, BORROWING WAS AT NEW HIGH LEVELS


But, you ask, in the Dark Ages before 1960 did no one buy Christmas presents? Did no one own a car or go to college? Ho, ho, ho! Of course they did. There was something called “saving” in order to pay something later. There was even an atypical system, little used today, in which the bank would pay you interest to place money in a savings account – so that the bank could lend the money to others (maybe even you) at much higher interest.

Watch some old movies and you will see how your ancestors “saved up” to buy things – scrimping and putting coins in a jar until the day they could buy that fancy dress or that doll or that 40 acres. What terrible times, thankfully gone along with dentistry without anesthetics. Now you take home that dress or bicycle today and have the rest of your life to pay for it at double the cost compared to a cash purchase.

In those olden days before credit cards, when it was generally felt that borrowing money was something shameful or dangerous, there was a prominent feature of advertising during the weeks before Christmas called The Layaway Plan. The shopper gave the store a small downpayment on the merchandise, which was then held for the buyer, who made periodic payments until the great day when the bicycle or diamond ring was fully paid for and taken home. There was a small service charge, but it was nothing compared to compound interest on borrowed money. The worst that could happen if one failed to make the payments was that the money would be refunded minus the service charge and a cancellation fee.



So, why is our government not encouraging a debt-free population? Why is it not touting savings instead of the borrowing that has caused the financial collapse of the world? Who benefits from undisciplined borrowing? Who gets richer the more you go into debt?

Class, if anyone can't answer that question, please leave the room and max out all your credit cards in a Christmas shopping binge. No need to save up for that television set or Nintendo Wii that you can't afford. Just take it home today and worry about paying for it next year.

NOBODY NOTICED THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM

INDIAN FORCES DESCEND ON JEWISH CENTER


When I began this blog two years ago I expressed its main purpose:

'What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.

That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?'

As I've shown repeatedly since writing those words, the important subjects most often missing from American “news” are Israel, the Israel Lobby, and the influence of Jews in American society. I raise this again today because of reporting of the attack on the Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai.

Notice the puzzlement over why a Jewish establishment would have been chosen as target:

'On Wednesday, the Chabad house became an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.'

At least the Associated Press said outright, 'The attackers' main targets appeared to be Americans, Britons and Jews,' . . . of course without any explanation as to why Jews were included.

As often happens, reports specifically aimed at a Jewish audience were more open:

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this afternoon denounced the terrorist assaults in Mumbai, India. . . Hier called terrorism "the plague of the 21st century" and said the attackers "were not just delivering a message to the Indian government. They were sending a message to America and London and Jews and the state of Israel."'

The ludicrous implication that the occupation of the Jewish center was 'unlikely' and might have been 'accidental' is a typical evasion of mentioning Israel as the root cause of anger and hatred in the Islamic world and the Middle East. And who in all the world is Israel's only support? The United States. And who faithfully trots at the heels of America? England. When the United States invaded Iraq because Israel wanted Iraq neutered, England provided the illusion of a 'coalition' – while Israel was carefully omitted from any discussion of the attack on Iraq which it instigated through its creatures in the Pentagon.

(Throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON you will find many detailed discussions and facts relating to the preceding paragraph.)


Endnote:

'In 2003, barely out of their teens and newly married, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, moved from Brooklyn to the coastal city of Mumbai, India, to manage a mix of educational center, synagogue and social hall known as a Chabad house, one of about 3,500 outposts around the world run by the Lubavitch Hasidic movement. Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were born in Israel, though he and his siblings were brought to Crown Heights as children by their parents.

'Rabbi Holtzberg’s parents, Noah and Freida, spent most of Thursday holed up in their house in Crown Heights, but left for Israel late in the afternoon. Meanwhile, Rivka Holtzberg’s parents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who live in Israel, boarded a plane to Mumbai.'

URGENT: BORROW, BORROW, BORROW!

Yesterday we were bombarded with government plans for even more huge amounts of money to be given to banks. As I forced myself to listen to the television news – BBC, MSNBC, CNN -- I heard the same message again and again:

The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.


'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'

Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?

If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?

Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?

We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.

The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.

'OUTCRY IN NETHERLANDS OVER NAZI LINK TO SHIP'S NAME'

'Dutch Outcry Over Naming Ship After Nazi' and 'Outcry in Netherlands over Nazi Link to Ship's Name' are headlines of the past 24 hours which imply that all Holland is in an uproar because of something equivalent to the discovery that a major dike was defectively engineered and is about to drown everybody in Amsterdam.

The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'

'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'

Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.


PIETER SCHELTE HEEREMA

Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'

'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.

But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.

I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'

Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.

The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.

CONFIDENCE BRINGS FOLLOWERS

The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.

Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.



Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.

The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.

ELECTION LINGUISTICS

You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.

Your dollars are always “hard earned”.

“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]

“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.

“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.

“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.

“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.

Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)

There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.

Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.

“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.

“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.

“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”