Israeli Special Forces in Las Vegas?

[bsbray]

In a way though, the issue boils down to a fundamental that Mr Ferrell revealed to me in one of his radio broadcasts. The underlying metaphor behind Christianity, judaism and Islam is one of division. It divides. Humanity (who lives on the earth) from god (who lives in the heavens). The groups chosen by god (jews) and the ones condemned by god (Amalekites).

It's funny that you mention the Amalekites because it's not a "tribe" you hear about every day, but they're exactly who I've been reading about lately in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos. Of course the Jewish scriptures from that period, as they were interpreted as that time, were radically different from how they are interpreted today, especially through the lens of modern Christianity and the part of its theology based around Israel, which has apparently only been a theological idea since the 1800's when the Industrial Revolution began to take off (think -- oil in the Middle East, and a lot of wealthy people getting ideas as to how to get to it).

Jews being together is a good thing. IMO. If only the rest of us could understand the example set.

Unfortunately the example is understood very well. Many countries in the Middle East are also de facto theocracies where everyone is pressured to be Muslim, so you have all the Muslims sticking together in these places too. In traditional Christian countries this is not so much the case as we have become more and more secularized. This is what I think is a good thing: secularization.

In Israel, like I posted above, a Jew and a Christian aren't even allowed to marry each other. Or more precisely, a Jew and any non-Jew, where "Jewishness" is determined by family tree (ie race, as determined by the government) and not by a person's religion of choice. This is government-promoted racism, even though in today's world it's ridiculous to call Judaism a "race" when there are black, white, Arabic and even Asian Jews. And as a commentator pointed out, if any other nation prevented Jews from marrying non-Jews, there would be global outrage and talking heads howling about racism, "anti-Semitism." And yet the government of Israel prevents Jews (by "race") from marrying non-Jews and this isn't even an issue.

For anyone reading along that isn't aware of it yet, the modern state of Israel was actually created as a result of the Rothschild family lobbying the British government heavily after WW2. There are Rothschilds on Israeli currency today.

And it cannot even be said that their attitude with the Palestinians is "wrong".

By "attitude" you mean the Israeli bombing of hospitals, apartment buildings, marketplaces and children's schools?

It is lamentable yes, but not wrong insofar as one may have merits to call upon the jews to fix it.

Er... The "Jews" (you really mean the Israelis here -- not all Israelis are Jews) are trying to "fix" something in Palestine? Can you give some examples, or maybe I've misunderstood?

The issue boils down to one question: How far is too far?

Just a little bit farther. That's always the answer.

How much more does the government want? Just a little bit more. Then a little later, they'll want a little more again.

Same in the US, Brazil, and Israel.

This is actually the progression you're describing as it has occurred in Israel, and continues to occur:

[enjoy being]

It seems that in 'modern times' discussion of race has maybe expanded, but it is still potentially torrid, or more-so stuck in a loop at times because of semantics. Political Correctness or the like, really just word choice. The ability to combine the right words that are the proper ones to use in order to not offend anyone. This sort of thing is not limited to just discussions on race. All in all, I see often in various avenues of conversation, a division created just by the word wall. People seem to be less inclined to give someone a break and forgive them for bad choices of words. Or rather, they don't consider the person may have very balanced and wholesome intent which embraces equality and variety but are just not so good at communicating so with the vocabulary available.
So much of these interactions are from positions of cynicism and negativity. Quick to judge on just a few vowel sounds rolled together. It is indeed hard sometimes to remember that actions speak louder than words in these 'smaller' more frequent interactions we have. But as they say, take care of the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

[sandy]

Seems that Beings bullying other Beings is still a major concern around the world, including forum dynamics from time to time...............we have a long way to go to live and let live.

[lcam88]

It's funny that you mention the Amalekites because it's not a "tribe" you hear about every day...

Sound like an interesting topic, if you share, I'll listen. I only know of the name is used in a biblical context that doesn't really shed much light about who they where, except that they where "evil" and had to be exterminated to the last one. I'm interested.

By "attitude" you mean the Israeli bombing of hospitals, apartment buildings, marketplaces and children's schools?... The "Jews" (you really mean the Israelis here -- not all Israelis are Jews) are trying to "fix" something in Palestine? Can you give some examples, or maybe I've misunderstood?

Israel is supported by jewish around the world. And if not for that support, they likely wouldn't be bombing hospitals, Right? Or have I misunderstood? Being together...

My point is that it is not in the merits of the west to ask the Israelis, the jews or anyone else to fix their social issues (bombing hospitals etc). Western history is as despicable, if not more so, than what is happening in Palestine today and the west has largely done nothing meaningful to fix that. To then turn to Israel to make suggestions about their issues is hypocritical at best.

EDIT

Bill Clinton made what I can only describe as the best effort possible to find a resolution. It didn't work because nobody really wanted peace, not Palestine and not Israel, they squabbled over the details, shifted the goalposts then squabbled some more. The palestinians didn't want peace, they accepted everyone walking away without securing their place.

Lastly, the US recently bombed a hospital, they are trying to make out like it is collateral damage.

Just a little bit farther.

And then a little more...

It seems like there is no real leadership that would be willing to actually fix things, we must manage things. Thanks for those images. Very interesting historic context.

It seems that in 'modern times' discussion of race has maybe expanded, but it is still potentially torrid, or more-so stuck in a loop at times because of semantics. Political Correctness or the like, really just word choice.

That is the result of ever more sensitivity and ever more division. We must measure ourselves, our words, our appearance and define ever more means to accommodate the newfound divisions else we may aggravate those who believe that such differences are fundamental to their meaning. He11, even referring to someone as handicap, the actual word that categorizes people with disabilities, is now shunned. And then someone writes:

Seems that Beings bullying other Beings is still a major concern around the world, including forum dynamics from time to time...............we have a long way to go to live and let live.

I feel bullied by your statement here sandy.

You make a point of bringing up bullying in a conversation discussing issues of modern society and humanity. I don't know if you wish to tell everyone that you discovered that feces stinks, or that you feel I'm bullying someone. Try writing something that isn't passive aggressive please.

I will take your meaning in the best possible way sandy. I hope you share some interesting ideas with us here.

[bsbray]

Sound like an interesting topic, if you share, I'll listen. I only know of the name is used in a biblical context that doesn't really shed much light about who they where, except that they where "evil" and had to be exterminated to the last one. I'm interested.

I haven't gotten too far in the book but the basic story (and Velikovsky presents this work as if he's arguing a court case, calling up ancient texts as "witnesses," and shows a lot of convincing evidence connecting all of these things) is this:

1. A massive natural cataclysm hit the Middle East at some time in the historical era (exact dating has not been established yet in the book).
2. The Egyptians recorded this in a text known as the Ipuwer papyrus, the Israelites recorded it in the Book of Exodus, and Arabian historians also recorded it.
3. The Egyptian record, mirroring the biblical account, describes a series of "plagues," in more detail than the Bible does, including what sounds like a "nuclear winter" (not from an actual nuclear bomb, but this is just what it is called when the sun is blocked out from a lot of dust in the air, cooling ground temperatures) as the sun was blocked out for days and people could not see well enough to even leave their houses, and catastrophic dust storms raged in the desert. Egypt was trashed, there were apparently earthquakes, social order was broken down, slaves flee, crops were ruined, people were starving, the king's records were strewn all over the street.
4. At the same time, similar disasters hit Arabia, where the Amalekites are. They migrate out of their region and take over Syria, as described by Arab historians. Once in Syria they hear rumors that Egypt is also in chaos, and they send a contingent of soldiers to check it out.
5. The Hebrews and others fleeing from Egypt manage to cross the Red Sea into the Sinai Peninsula. As described in the Bible itself, immediately after crossing the Red Sea the Israelites encounter the Amalekites and have a military confrontation. The Amalekites are described as having a massive army but they continue moving past the Hebrews and enter Egypt. The Ipuwer papyrus records that these foreign invaders came into Egypt and savagely killed and destroyed what was not already devastated by the "plagues."
6. This was the establishment of the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt. This chronology of events explains that why, even though according to the conventional chronology, Egypt is supposed to have ruled Palestine and Canaan while the Israelites invaded, the Old Testament never makes any mention or inference that the Egyptians were in control of Palestine/Canaan at that time. In reality it seems that Egypt had just been invaded by foreigners at this time and the Hyksos dynasty established. The Egyptians called the Hyksos rulers "Amu" and the Israelites called them "Amalekites," the sons of Amalek.
7. The Hyksos set up an empire from Arabia across northern Africa, extending north above the Israelite territories and causing seemingly endless problems for the Israelites. In the OT, when neighboring tribes invade, the writers commonly attribute their actions to the Amalekites, as if they were the ultimate cause, and in reality these neighboring tribes of the Israelites were vassals of the Amalekites. Conventionally, the Amalekites are considered today to have just been a poor nomadic tribe in the desert, but Velikovsky presents Bible passages and other historical sources to indicate that this was not the case, and that the Amalekites are described by Balaam in the OT as "first among nations."
8. The Israelites under King Saul mounted a massive military campaign against the Amalekites (Hyksos), and severed their empire from Egypt to southern Palestine. After having done this, Saul turned on the Philistines, who are presented as a mixed people of both Amalekite and Cretan/Cyprian ancestry (people from Mediterranean islands having migrated to the coast of Palestine during the earlier cataclysm and accepted the rule of the Amalekites). It was during his campaign against the Philistines that Saul was killed and David became king.

So my Kindle says I'm about 25% through the book and that's basically what it says so far. The amount of evidence and historical context presented to support all of this is really impressive and I recommend anyone interested in this period of history to read the book. I got it in pdf form online.

Israel is supported by jewish around the world. And if not for that support, they likely wouldn't be bombing hospitals, Right? Or have I misunderstood? Being together...

I'm confused as to why this would be a good thing to come together for, to bomb hospitals, if this is why it's good to work together. I'm sure I am misunderstanding something. The US bombed that hospital in Afghanistan and now the MSM is mentioned "war crimes." That's strange to me considering that no one ever mentioned it before when we bombed hospitals and schools in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush era, and Netanyahu has done the same in Palestine and no one mentioned it. But I think all of these things are terrible and it should be clear internationally that this kind of thing won't be tolerated.

My point is that it is not in the merits of the west to ask the Israelis, the jews or anyone else to fix their social issues (bombing hospitals etc).

The fact that the Israelis have been bombing 100% civilian targets in Palestine to terrorize and massacre them is not an Israeli social issue. Or at least that is not the real problem. The real problem is what the Palestinians are suffering. They are people too. Palestine is not part of Israel. That map I posted above shows Israel, and the Palestinian territory, where the Palestinian territory is completely separate politically. They are not the same nation, and it's mostly Arabs that live in Palestine, descended from the Arabs who lived in the territory that is now Israel before they were forcefully relocated to create Israel.

It would be equivalent to the US packing thousands of Native Americans into a small corner of the US, then claiming that there are terrorists in the Native American territory and sending powerful bombs to destroy schools, hospitals, marketplaces and apartments in their territory. If this kind of real war crime were portrayed as simply an American "social issue" I would think that would come across as pretty callous and unsympathetic towards the real human beings who are having to live in conditions where they are often living in ruins, with no running water, and never know when the next bombs will fall on them while they are totally defenseless and have committed no offense against anyone except to simply exist.

Western history is as despicable, if not more so, than what is happening in Palestine today and the west has largely done nothing meaningful to fix that. To then turn to Israel to make suggestions about their issues is hypocritical at best.

No one refrains from international politics today based on past atrocities. I can't think of a single country on Earth that hasn't been involved in some sort of atrocity in the past. So according to this logic we should all just say, screw it, and continue to unabashedly commit crime against humanity, massacring innocent men, women and children out of racism, because why not, we've done it before. The situation in Palestine is not a real problem for Israel at all, rather only a problem for the Palestinians themselves. The Israelis are not the ones having their hospitals and schools blown apart, and then having to live in rubble without food or water when their houses and apartments and marketplaces are exploded as well. So I'm not sure why anyone would have to make "suggestions" to Israel, as if this is a social problem in their own country. If Saddam Hussein had done this even once we would have never needed the WMD excuse to overthrow his country.

Bill Clinton made what I can only describe as the best effort possible to find a resolution. It didn't work because nobody really wanted peace, not Palestine and not Israel, they squabbled over the details, shifted the goalposts then squabbled some more. The palestinians didn't want peace, they accepted everyone walking away without securing their place.

My first problem with this is that political leaders are not truly representing their people and are more or less only actors. This is true for Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, on back. I'm not sure if you believe that what you see them say on TV in their speeches should be taken at face value and you can simply trust them at their word. These people say one thing and do another. More often they are making excuses to explain why they are doing something that they shouldn't. So I do not honestly believe that Clinton really had any reason to do anything that would not be in the best interest of the greatest military partner of the US in the Middle East at that time, which was Israel. And Israel wants Palestine's land. All of it.

The other thing is that people in the Middle East do want peace. I've talked to a lot of Middle Easterners and I don't know of any who would not be happy with an end to the constant violence. It's the politicians who make sure this doesn't happen. It's the CIA who is, by our own politicians' admission, still funneling weapons and training to "freedom fighters" in the Middle East who are then paid mercenary wages. If the CIA, MI6, Mossad and other underhanded intelligence agencies didn't do this kind of crap then I am convinced that terrorism would be virtually non-existent in the Middle East, because we have no examples of terrorism in the past decades that have not had some connection to a group or organization that the west is supporting.

And again I don't think this is just poor leadership, or coincidence, or just a mistake. Our leaders only try to make things appear by mistake or misfortune when everything is being done intentionally, and no one is stupid about the consequences of their actions, such as training and providing weapons for extremists in these countries. From the past few decades it is extremely clear, TOO clear, the Israel is after every acre of Palestinian land they can get, and then some, and the US, as an ally, has never really been interested in standing in Israel's way on this. For the US to be acting as a "mediator" between it's closest ally in the Middle East, and a nation that it does not even respect enough to recognize as a nation, is a farce. Again I refer you to the map I posted above showing how much Israel has expanded from its original agreed-upon borders. By any standards of international law this is not appropriate, but the US has never had a problem with it.

Another problem here is the fact that Palestine is not even recognized as a nation, internationally. It has no standing at the UN, and cannot have standing, because most nations of the world do not recognize it as a nation at all, for political reasons (though this is beginning to change). It is a non-state. That means it has little to no recourse to the UN when Israel commits war crimes against it. If we really want to pretend that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a problem between two equal powers then Palestine should be recognized as a nation just as Israel is. But this is in fact one of those deal-breakers with Israel, where Israel's leaders will plug their fingers in their ears and walk away as soon as anyone starts mentioning granting statehood to Palestine. Palestine requesting recognizition as a nation is in fact the exact kind of totally unreasonable demand (sarcasm) that being referred to when you talk about shifting goalposts and squabbling. The Palestinians also want a lot of their land back that Israel has taken illegally and built walls around, and then build subdivisions and apartments for Israelis. I also don't believe this is at all unreasonable but it is something else you will never see the Israelis agree to, and in fact they just continue to take more and more land. This is why the armored bulldozer is used as a symbol of Israel so often in the Middle East today.

It seems like there is no real leadership that would be willing to actually fix things, we must manage things.

Yes, and we have to do it through pressure. People in the US and Europe were both staging large boycotts of Israeli businesses last year when Israel was mercilessly pounding Palestinian civilians with military bombs. It had enough of an effect on Israel, that Israeli businesses started labeling and selling their merchandise abroad as if it had been produced in neighboring countries.

Also I think the US is finally abandoning military support for Israel, which is a great thing, a game changer in fact. We've made peace with Iran, which has enraged Netanyahu, and now Russia and China are moving into the region and they are not going to tolerate Israel running wild. Israel was bombing Syria with American jet fighters and claiming it was doing so by mistake, but since the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are moving in I doubt you will see many more "mistakes" of this nature.

[lcam88]

Thanks the the posting bsbray. And for the summary too. I must say, I'm honored with the time and effort you put into the posting.

I'm confused as to why this would be a good thing to come together for, to bomb hospitals, if this is why it's good to work together. I'm sure I am misunderstanding something. The US bombed that hospital in Afghanistan and now the MSM is mentioned "war crimes." That's strange to me considering that no one ever mentioned it before when we bombed hospitals and schools in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush era, and Netanyahu has done the same in Palestine and no one mentioned it. But I think all of these things are terrible and it should be clear internationally that this kind of thing won't be tolerated.

It is generally not a good thing to bomb hospitals. We could open a new thread about how hospitals are in the business of controlling the dying process... The institution is yet another socio political cornerstone that has lost its way. But that is off-topic.

Consider, if your enemy is made stronger because of a hospital... And, if your enemy later seeks shelter in or around the hospital as a measure to reduce the effectiveness of your effort, because you have an inkling to try and preserve the institution, or because you have a respect for what it symbolizes, how many casualties are you going to accept to continue with an idealism that only weakens you?

I think MSM has more influence because of how the doctors are more associated with the western power structure. A doctor out of South Korea (arbitrary non-western country) wouldn't be able to make the issue as big.

I especially agree with the underlined portion above.

The fact that the Israelis have been bombing 100% civilian targets in Palestine...

No one refrains from international politics today based on past atrocities. I can't think of a single country on Earth that hasn't been involved in some sort of atrocity in the past.

I hear you.

I would go so far as to say that rocket attacks are easy enough for a Mossad agent to do too. I'm not flip-flopping on the issue bsbray.

I'm only presenting a viewpoint regarding the who, how and whys another country could use to stimulate a change. Nobody has clean hands. What we are seeing is that nobody really cares about atrocities in general until it becomes a political tool. By Nobody I don't mean you are me as we really can only talk about it; we have no real power.

...So according to this logic we should all just say, screw it, and continue to unabashedly commit crime against humanity, massacring innocent men, women and children out of racism, because why not, we've done it before.

That is what seems to be happening even if you and I disagree with the logic. Nobody is really innocent. And innocence is not something that really matter in the grand scheme of things; life should be respected independently of that, and so many other categories too.

The situation in Palestine is not a real problem for Israel at all, rather only a problem for the Palestinians themselves.

And the powerful will step on the weak. This goes on and on and on. How far is too far?

It would be equivalent to the US packing thousands of Native Americans into a small corner of the US...

They did it slightly differently... same result.

If we really want to pretend that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a problem between two equal powers then Palestine should be recognized as a nation just as Israel is.

I know what we have is a bunch of rock throwing mal-nourished brainwashed youth up against a well organized and well equipped army, perhaps the 2nd or 3rd most powerful in the world.

I also don't believe this is at all unreasonable but it is something else you will never see the Israelis agree to, and in fact they just continue to take more and more land. This is why the armored bulldozer is used as a symbol of Israel so often in the Middle East today.

As opposed to a man with a musket posing over a buffalo in a field full of dead buffalo. Nobody is doing anything to fix it. Some may try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ben_Zygier

...It had enough of an effect on Israel, that Israeli businesses started labeling and selling their merchandise abroad as if it had been produced in neighboring countries.

wow, I did not know of that.

I think the US is finally abandoning military support for Israel

... a standing ovation and applause by the house for a full 10 minutes, before Netanyahu when he addressed the legislative branch as though it where his own... I think that US support for Israel being abandoned is unlikely.

When you have central bank that has floated your entire operations, and your operations involve policies like bombing hospitals in Afghanistan, funding terrorism and playing war games with Russia, threatening an all out nuclear WWIII, there is always money to give away. Free money. The FED sponsors US activities basically. If not for their TBond buying program there would be no money to do anything.

I won't go so far as to say that the FED is controlled by jewish interests because I don't know for sure. But certainly if they had a problem with funding IDF in their Palestinian operations things would be different. They don't hand money out because they have some idea the the USG is "too big to fail". Rather they do it because there is a nice little symbiosis going on where everyone is happy about the way things are going.

Lastly, yes, my argument about past atrocities being an obstacle for policy changes is very very weak position. But bsbray, while we are going on our rant about idealisms, indigenous populations in North and South America deserve meaningful remands the atrocities they suffered perhaps just as much as Palestine. For a long long time I had serious misgivings with humanity in general, simply because of how much and for how much time atrocities have been committed.

The fact of the matter is that being atrocious seems to be either a part of our nature, or perhaps it is a disease that has been introduced by the Archons, perhaps a contamination or whatever.

But if you breath in deeply and feel the air enter you lungs, you can feel an aspect of what it is like to be a human being. The now, the reality and the understanding that things are the way they are as a result of careful "carpentry" that has been building the scenario meticulously over years and years if not centuries and centuries. Change can only be built on an equally stable foundation in an equally meticulous way.

And in our division, we trust our corporation more than our neighbors. (silent discrimination of people) And now this fascination to ET's I must say! <facepalm/>

And let's suppose hypothetically, that you find a way to fix a problem. ET's show you free energy, for instance, for to you distribute to everyone. Do you think you will have a chance to do what you think is best? Perhaps only if this problem of being divided can be solved you would have a chance.

Our problem is not Israel or the USG or historic atrocities of any kind, those are symptoms. The problem as I see it is simply that we are divided. No point pointing fingers at Mossad or Israel, or Japan or Russia or anyone else.

Things will continue to go as per their design... That may be sad, but it is true until a new design is made. Maybe?

[bsbray]

... a standing ovation and applause by the house for a full 10 minutes, before Netanyahu when he addressed the legislative branch as though it where his own... I think that US support for Israel being abandoned is unlikely.

Congress might have kissed Netanyahu's boots after Boehner invited him in (and Boehner recently announced his resignation, coincidentally, though there is still some funny business going on about that), but the US military is not about to help Israel with its pipe dream of war with Syria, Iran and its other neighbors anymore.

There are other indications that relations are changing. For one thing, the MSM in the US has changed its attitude towards Netanyahu. When the Knesset was dissolved and Netanyahu had to run for emergency re-election (and won by just 1 vote, 61 to 59, in the Knesset), the US was not giving favorable news coverage to Netanyahu.

Since then here are some other examples of how MSM is spinning relations with Israel lately.

Here's one from Time, of course a propaganda mouthpiece for certain American factions:

The U.S. and Israel Are Divided — and That Won’t Change

Obama and Netanyahu don't like each other, but Israel and the U.S. will have problems even when they're both out of office

[...]

Begin with the “two-state solution.” In Washington, leaders of both parties will continue to prioritize the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security. But Obama isn’t the only U.S. official who publicly supports the idea of an eventual Israeli compromise with Palestinians. Former President George W. Bush described himself in 2008 as the “first American president to call for a Palestinian state.” Support for this aspiration remains part of the Republican Party platform.

Israelis, on the other hand, even those who support a two-state solution in principle, are far more aware of the challenges in creating a viable country that connects Gaza and the West Bank—to say nothing of the political nightmare of trying to evict thousands of Israeli settlers from disputed land. Support for a two-state solution is not dead in either country, but Americans and Israelis do not look at this question with the same eyes. With every surge in Israeli-Palestinian violence, that gap becomes more obvious.

Obama and Netanyahu also hold opposing views on how best to ensure that Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons, but that difference reflects divergent ideas within their governments on the role Iran might play in the future. For the Obama administration, Iran might one day become an agent of change in the Middle East, because it’s a country that holds genuinely contested elections, however flawed, and it’s one in which a sizeable majority isn’t old enough to remember the religious revolution that the country’s leaders say gives them their mandate. For Israel’s government, Iran’s hardliners remain in firm control. Whatever the aspirations of its young people, Israel believes Iran must remain isolated until its elections are fully free and fair and its leaders recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nuclear negotiations have widened this gap.

These differences are made possible by the reality that the United States can afford to be less involved in the region’s rivalries than it once was. First, following the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is limited public support in the United States for any military commitment that might require a costly long-term occupation of territory. Bombing ISIS is one thing; invading Iraq all over again is another. Americans are not ready for a war with Iran. Second, the remarkable surge in U.S. domestic energy production of recent years leaves the U.S. less vulnerable to Middle East conflict. By the end of this decade, the United States will produce almost half the crude oil it consumes. More than 80 percent of its oil will come from North and South America. By 2020, the US could be the world’s largest oil producer, and by 2035 the country could become almost entirely energy self-sufficient.

That advantage allows the U.S. President to shift security and trade policy toward a stronger focus on East Asia, the region more important than any other for the strength and resilience of the global economy over the next generation. The men and women hoping to succeed Obama as President can afford to offer familiar reassurances on America’s commitment to Israel’s security, but the shifting international landscape, the challenges and opportunities created by China’s continued rise and new trans-Pacific trade opportunities will occupy a growing percentage of the next administration’s time.

http://time.com/3768165/us-israel-re...t-iran-divide/


Fox News, from the "other side of the fence" as far as the political charades go, acknowledges the decline in relations but in a back-handed way, by saying that things will be better between the US and Israel in the future, after this whole Iran deal thing blows over, and pointing out that Israel has "other friends" that it can rely on and it'll be okay (but none of them will be writing blank checks for weapons systems and then not caring how Israel uses them against civilians). The Israelis themselves, realizing that the US is beginning to give them the cold shoulder, are already putting out media articles about how relations with Russia should be improved even though they admit to themselves that Russia's support will come with major strings attached (Russia is an ally of Syria and Iran, of course). Israel is about the size of the state of New Jersey and wouldn't make it far on its own without someone's support in the Middle East, as aggressive and violent as it's been in the past, and Israeli leaders surely realize this.


Here's an article from the BBC, the British propaganda mouthpiece:

Have Israel-US relations reached a new low?

These are turbulent times for the relationship between Israel and its closest ally, the US.

In part, it is due to the lack of chemistry between the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the US President, Barack Obama. But there are issues of substance too.

Their difficult relationship was hardly improved by Mr Netanyahu's decision, during Israel's recent general election campaign, to accept an invitation from the Republican Party leadership to give a joint address to Congress.

The Israeli prime minister used this as an opportunity to lobby against the nuclear deal that Mr Obama is seeking to negotiate with Tehran.

Then there is also the moribund peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Earlier this month, President Obama gave a revealing interview to Israel's Channel 2 television station.

It was an opportunity to speak directly to the Israeli public; to try to convince them of his fundamental support for the Jewish state. But he injected a warning note too.

He argued that if the current "status-quo" between Israel and the Palestinians were not resolved, then demographics and the frustration of the Palestinians would force Israel into a choice "about the nature of the Israeli state and its character".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33181782


And here's an article from an Israeli website suspected of being a Mossad propaganda outlet, which speaks of Russian movement into the region (before they began the airstrikes in Syria), and notice that they seem to have no hope of the US providing any pressure on anyone, and are simply abandoning their goals to force out Assad:

But when the fresh influx of Russian troops and hardware to Syria became known (first revealed by debkafile on Sept.1), Netanyahu began to appreciate that, not only had Israel’s military and strategic situation with regard to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean been stood on its head, so too had foreign investment prospects for development projects in Israeli gas.

Israel’s strategic landscape had in fact changed radically in four respects:

1. Its government can no longer accept as a working hypothesis (which never, incidentally, held up) the short term expectancy of the Assad regime. The injection of Russian military might, combined with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces, have given Assad a substantial lease of life.

The Israel Defense Forces must therefore revamp its posture on the Syrian front, and reassess its sponsorship of the select rebel groups which are holding the line in southern Syria against hostile Iranian or Hizballah cross-border attacks on northern Israel.

The changing attitude was suggested in views heard in the last couple of days from top Israeli security officials, who now say that leaving Assad in office might be the better option, after all.

2. The new Russian ground, air and sea buildup taking shape in Syria provides a shield not just for the Assad regime but also Hizballah. This too calls for changes in Israel’s military posture.

3. The Russian military presence in Syria seriously inhibits Israel’s flexibility for launching military action against Iranian or Hizballah targets when needed.

4. Three aspects of the new situation stand out prominently:

a) The Russian air force and navy are the strongest foreign military force in the eastern Mediterranean. The US deplloys nothing comparable.

b) Israel’s military strength is substantial but no one is looking for a military clash with the Russians, although this did occur four decades ago, when Israel was fighting for its life against Russian-backed Arab invasions.

c) In view of the prevalence of the Russian military presence in the eastern Mediterranean, it is hard to see any foreign investor coming forward to sink billions of dollars in Israeli gas.

d) Although Russia called Saturday, Sept. 12, for “military-to-military cooperation with the United States” to avert "unintended incidents" amid its naval "exercises" off the coast of Syria, the tone of the call was cynical. It is more than likely that Moscow may revert to the original Putin offer of a Russian defense shield for Israeli gas fields. But with such strong Russian cards in place in Syria, he may well stiffen his terms for this deal.

http://www.debka.com/article/24885/P...ildup-in-Syria


Though the MSM is complaining about Russia's involvement in Syria, it's apparent that, at least for now, the US military doesn't plan on doing anything about it. As the Israelis point out above, the US military does not have anything in the region comparable to the forces which Russia has deployed in Syria. Russia is also going to be setting up a regional command headquarters in Baghdad, Iraq.

I won't go so far as to say that the FED is controlled by jewish interests because I don't know for sure. But certainly if they had a problem with funding IDF in their Palestinian operations things would be different. They don't hand money out because they have some idea the the USG is "too big to fail". Rather they do it because there is a nice little symbiosis going on where everyone is happy about the way things are going.

I don't know this for sure but all of the chairmen of the Federal Reserve since 1913 have supposedly been Zionists. The most recent ones have definitely been Zionists. But this western banking cartel has been having massive problems of its own.

Lastly, yes, my argument about past atrocities being an obstacle for policy changes is very very weak position. But bsbray, while we are going on our rant about idealisms, indigenous populations in North and South America deserve meaningful remands the atrocities they suffered perhaps just as much as Palestine.

I agree with this completely. I have Native American ancestors, who were part of a tribe that doesn't exist anymore, but what little is left of their cultures should be preserved and promoted as much as they themselves are willing to have it preserved. The least they deserve is to be aided by the US government in preserving their cultures and traditions. However I would also say that since the US government is no longer actively killing them and running them off their land (at least so far as I know), it's not as urgent, necessarily, as the problem in Palestine is today.

The fact of the matter is that being atrocious seems to be either a part of our nature, or perhaps it is a disease that has been introduced by the Archons, perhaps a contamination or whatever.

I definitely think it's part of a control mechanism. I think most humans would prefer to work together peacefully and only a huge imbalance of energy and uncannily persistent parasites as leaders have brought us to the current situation.

But if you breath in deeply and feel the air enter you lungs, you can feel an aspect of what it is like to be a human being. The now, the reality and the understanding that things are the way they are as a result of careful "carpentry" that has been building the scenario meticulously over years and years if not centuries and centuries. Change can only be built on an equally stable foundation in an equally meticulous way.

Agreed, and I think there are actually signs that this is exactly what is happening. Only time will tell though.

Our problem is not Israel or the USG or historic atrocities of any kind, those are symptoms. The problem as I see it is simply that we are divided. No point pointing fingers at Mossad or Israel, or Japan or Russia or anyone else.

I think there are individuals in these nations and institutions that won't stop what they're doing until they're made to. These are the people we have to get out of power, one way or another, and awareness of the situation is the first step.

[lcam88]

You are much more in touch with Israel related news than I am bsbray. Perhaps Netanyahu has lost a bit of flair when it comes to US Israel relation, but he has accomplished what he set out to in relation to Palestine. Iran perhaps not as much as he would have liked.

Furthermore, as soon as the next PM is elected relations can warm up again.

Russia becoming involved is interesting; I don't know how sustainable their presence is in the long term though.

I think there are individuals in these nations and institutions that won't stop what they're doing until they're made to. These are the people we have to get out of power, one way or another, and awareness of the situation is the first step.

Indeed.

[lcam88]

I am rather in agreement with most of what Sam Harris has to say about Atheism and Religion.

I found an audio clip where he addresses a very "uninteresting" question: "Why don't I criticize Israel"

I think his answer is so well articulated and so logically oriented I thought to post it here, even after the previous subject has rather gone away.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2HC2rwB2IE


His position on the palestinian use of human shields, and the examination of the hypothetical reversal of roles perfectly exemplifies the the predicament of what is happening there, IMO.