Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Religion on SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kid Rock who wrote (650)	9/6/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1542

There are lots of good books about Zionism, but an even better subject is the zealot him or herself- because the cause may change but the zealot remains pretty much the same. Read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer a pithy, profound book that all the non-zealots in the world should read, if only for protection.

To: Kid Rock who wrote (650)	9/6/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1542

Hi Tom, Here is an excellent article by Joe Sobran. I hope to provide you with what I consider the best documented book on the origin of Zionism. Why we few criticize Israel by Joseph Sobran WASHINGTON - People sometimes ask me why I'm so critical of Israel, as if I should be devoting more of my attention to Sri Lanka, or perhaps Zaire. But the question is always a little nervous, as it wouldn't be if I were writing equally often about Sri Lanka or Zaire. I could understand this curiosity if some other small, remote country were one of the world's four or five military powers; if it received a quarter of our foreign aid; if it were constantly on our front pages; and if its sympathizers regularly occupied much of the op-ed space of The New York Times and other major newspapers. But there is only one country of whom these things are true, and that is Israel. Nobody thinks it's odd that there should be 20 columnists who are apologists for Israel; but apparently it is unfathomable that there should be one or two who are critical of Israel. But there's another reason that is both personal and professional. Israel has a very powerful lobby in this country, with a highly accomplished propaganda corps. And that lobby is not content with making the case for Israel and putting fear into nearly all the politicians in Washington, who are supposed to be representing the interests of the United States. It also tries to shut up opposition in the free press. I have felt its pressure. So have Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. So has Patrick Buchanan. And a great many newspaper editors. We still hear of the fear engendered by Joe McCarthy. But people talked freely about that fear even 'at the height of Sen. McCarthy's career. I believe that someday historians will look back with more wonder about the quieter and more paralyzing fear engendered in our own era by domestic Zionist power. The press was never afraid of Sen. McCarthy; it is very much afraid of Israel's U.S. sympathizers. One result is that the news we get from Israel is heavily self censored and bowdlerized. The average American thinks of Israel as a "democratic" country whose domestic troubles are due to unruly Arabs. Not one American Christian in a hundred realizes that if he lived in Israel, he would be the victim of official discrimination forced, like the Soviet Jew, to carry an identification card effectively stigmatizing him. If Israeli propaganda were true, there would be no need to Quash or intimidate critics. The very act of trying to silence opposition is a kind of confession in itself. Ring Lardner said it well: "'Shut up,' he explained." Is there no case to be made for Israel? Of course there is. I have made it myself. I would make it again -- if Israel had not become a threat to freedom of speech and ethical debate in this country. But when you risk injury to your career in the U.S. by defending the interests of the U.S., something is seriously wrong. A proper parallel is not with Joe McCarthy, who at least was trying to uphold America's position, but with the publishing industry in New York during the 1930s, when a book critical of the Soviet Union stood scant chance of seeing print. Suppression is a good tactic, but a bad strategy. In the long run, the truth has a way of seeping through. No matter how many clever excuses you make for a Yitzhak Shamir, it's not a terribly good idea to have Americans identifying Israel with Yitzhak Shamir. Israel was much better off when Americans identified Israel with Abba Eban -- now in political exile for his moderation. And it isn't wise, in the long run, to make Americans afraid, in their own country, to speak their minds about a foreign country. They will eventually resent the colossal impudence of it. And the country on whose behalf the suppression was enacted will bear the consequences. Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist who now maintains a Website at sobran.com.

To: Kid Rock who wrote (650)	9/6/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 1542

Thomas, instead of reading books that "explain" what Zionism is, read the source, a small book "Der Judenstaat" by Theodor Herzl (Benjamin Zeev Herzl), or in English "The Jewish State". You may also try to find a translation of Herzl's "Altneuland" (Translated to English by Paula Arnold in 1960, as "Old New Land"). The first book is, in essence, the "Zionist Doctrine", the second is, in the form of a novel, the Zionist "Vision". Zeev

To: Kid Rock who wrote (650)	9/6/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 1542

Tom, Here is an another excellent article by Joe Sobran. In Our Hands by Joseph Sobran ONE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO SAY THIS, but many people believe that Israel now holds the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in its hands. This is what is known as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The odd thing is that it is held by many Israelis. In an essay reprinted in the May 27th issue of The New York Times, Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than 100 Lebanese civilians in April: "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own..." In a single phrase -- "in our hands" -- Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk. It's surprising, and refreshing, to find such candor in an American newspaper (though his essay was reprinted from the Israeli paper Haaretz). The prescribed cant on the subject holds that Israel is a "reliable ally" of the United States, despite Israel's long record of double-dealing against this country, ranging from the killing of American sailors to constant espionage and technology theft. The word "ally" implies that the relationship exists because it's in the interests of this country, though Israel's lobby is clearly devoted to the interests of Israel itself, and it's childish to suggest otherwise. You expect that from the Israeli lobby; lobbies are lobbies, after all. But it's unnerving that the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media should be "in our hands," as Shavit puts it. Bill Clinton, a lover of peace since his college days, raised no protest when the Israelis drove 400,000 innocent Lebanese out of their homes in "retaliation" for rockets launched into Israel (wounding one Israeli) by a faction over whom those 400,000 had no control. Congress, of course, was supine as usual at this latest extravagance of Israeli "defense." Congress too is "in our hands." A recent article in The Washington Post likened the Israel lobby's power to that of the gun and tobacco lobbies. But there is one enormous difference. Newspapers like the Post aren't afraid to criticize the gun and tobacco lobbies. They will say forthrightly that those lobbies seek goals that are dangerous for this country. They don't dare say as much of the Israeli lobby. But much of the press and electronic media are "in our hands" in a more active sense: They supply misleading pro-Israel propaganda in the guise of news and commentary, constantly praising Israeli "democracy" and ignoring Israel's mistreatment of its non-Jewish minorities -- mistreatment which, if any government inflicted it on a Jewish minority, would earn it the fierce opprobrium of our media. No decent American would think of reducing American Jews to the status of Palestinians in Israel. The idea is almost absurd. Yet Americans are taxed to subsidize the oppression of Palestinians, on the flimsy pretext that they are helping an "ally" in America's own self-interest to be hated and despised by the whole Muslim world. All this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests. Very few in America are doing anything to change this sorry state of affairs. Shavit wrote his article in the desperate hope of turning back his countrymen and his government from a morally and politically perilous course. At least he can hope. It's harder for us, when our own government isn't in our hands. Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist who now maintains a Website at sobran.com.