“The only question now is whether Kristof is a dupe for Hamas apologists who can’t be trusted to apply basic journalistic standards to his writing or a willing participant who doesn’t care about them. Either way, he doesn’t deserve to be a journalist”
David Harsanyi in “Nick Kristof’s grotesque journalistic malpractice”
“We want to believe that Nick Kristof and all the people who defended and shared his article are just like us—believers in honesty, men and women of integrity, a community of truth-seekers with a baseline sense of human decency. We want to believe this in part because of that very sense of human decency. But we are making a massive error. Kristof’s named sources not only provided no evidence for his lurid bestiality fantasies but themselves were also people with massive credibility deficits…And there’s another reason we want to believe that Israel’s critics are morally intact. Plenty of them are. Those are probably the ones we don’t hear from. Unfortunately, the ones we keep hearing from don’t believe this conflict has anything to do with where Palestinians live but rather that Israelis live at all.”
Seth Mandel in “The End of Our Illusions.”
I don’t cite these two pieces as an appeal to authority. I reached the same conclusions in my post here before I read either of them. They do, however, reinforce my conclusion that Kristof, the Times staff that published his swill, and anyone you know who cites it, defends it or believes it are not to be trusted or respected. They are bent, or they are stupid and ignorant. There is no less damning conclusion.
Ethics Alarms 
The timing of Nick Kristof’s article in the NYT is suspicious, maybe deliberate:
Here another quote from Seth Mandel’s article:
“There is another reason the timing is important. The Times’s evidence-free allegations against Israelis dulled outrage about the evidence-packed report of sexual violence perpetrated by Gazans against Israelis. The only beneficiaries of this timing are the Hamas foot soldiers who raped and tortured innocent civilians. Only the very worst people in the world have gained“.
I have some questions about the following X post, is there any attention in the legacy media to the Kristof story? Any rebuttal?
I don’t know the answer, but I can’t help thinking there’s some variant of a shark/lawyer joke in there.
And then there is another story regarding the NYT where they have to retract a story with a Pulitzer Prize winning photo about a starving boy in Gaza.
https://nypost.com/2025/07/29/media/new-york-times-stunningly-rolls-back-claims-about-viral-photo-of-starving-gaza-boy/
The note informs readers that Mohammed Zakaria al Mutawaq — the Gazan boy “diagnosed with severe malnutrition” and pictured in the article — also suffers from “pre-existing health problems.”
“We recently ran a story about Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, who is about 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition,” a spokesperson for the outlet said in a statement.
“We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems,” the spokesperson continued.
Of course he doesn’t deserve to be a journalist. Objectively no one who publishes these kind of vicious lies should be given a forum to spread them around the world. I am beginning to think that being an anti-semite or a self-hating and non-practicing Jew is a requirement for being a journalist.
As far as the journalistic community is concerned, Jews are good for expressing outrage at alleged White supremacists, bringing lawsuits about Christmas displays, and that’s about it. Otherwise as far as journalists are concerned they should just leave Israel and go back home to Germany and Poland and all those other places. Of course none of them will actually say it after they saw how saying it out loud brought the supremely ugly and long past her pull date Helen Thomas down.
The really scary part about this is that it is making anti-semitism and hatred as long as it’s the right kind of hatred respectable again. When you consider this comes right on the heels of the violent advocacy pushed during 2020 where journalists were saying go ahead and punch a Nazi, you are creating a toxic brew indeed. Essentially you are giving anyone who feels the right kind of hate whether there is a basis for it or not, to go out and knock a few heads. Right now at least the administration is trying to combat that, but what happens when we get another Democratic administration that simply looks the other way?
Seth Mendel said: “And there’s another reason we want to believe that Israel’s critics are morally intact. Plenty of them are. Those are probably the ones we don’t hear from. Unfortunately, the ones we keep hearing from don’t believe this conflict has anything to do with where Palestinians live but rather that Israelis live at all.”
That is a very good example of a rhetorically contaminated argument. I guess it will fool half of EA readers but thank Heavens not me…
There are plenty of moral people who are writing and talking about Israel, its history, the literal oppression and displacement of Arabs (as in W Bank), and certainly a great number who are very concerned about the genocide-level destruction of Gaza, so that is certainly correct.
But neither Jack nor Steve nor Ryan nor the Grandmother Lisa nor even perhaps Cees (no one except Edward has addressed any issue I have brought up) have acknowledged those people who are ‘morally intact’. And that is a failing of consequence. So, does Seth Mendel recommend examining what those people are saying? For example, Greenwald, Miko Peled, and various others I might name? I cannot say.
In order to understand this part: “the ones we keep hearing from don’t believe this conflict has anything to do with where Palestinians live but rather that Israelis live at all” requires a careful and honest back-tracking through the actual history of the region. And it will require a consideration and analysis of an element that will be really really difficult for most who write here (certainly for Jack), and that element is that part of the establishment of Israel as a ‘settler-colonialization project’ of the Occidental into the region. There is no way around this examination. Meaning that this is, very obviously and undoubtedly, precisely what the early Zionists intended and did in Israel. So, you have to go back at least to the 1920s when Jewish settlers first arrived (and lived relatively peacefully) and lived in the region. Later, the colonial settler project began in far greater intensity and at that point it trend literally (not figuratively) into an occupation and a displacement.
These are facts, not inventions. The entire region reacted against this because they saw it — as any of you would see it if you were living it! — for what it actually was: an invasion, an usurpation, a displacement and an occupation. See? Until you acknowledge this aspect, and deal with it, you will remain DISHONEST.
Nope. “If the shoe fits…” Calling Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack after almost 80 years of “from the river to the sea…” “genocide” is even worse—and more unethical— than calling the US dropping atom bombs on Japan genocide. It is signature significance for either willful blindness or bias. As I have said. The “Palestinians” were screwed over when Israel was established. That’s a fact. It has had several opportunities since then to accept the best deal they were going to get and achieve statehood. They refused, and have spent the intervening years to poison successive generations with hatred of Israel, poisoning the culture. That’s their fault, 100%, and is probably beyond curing. These are also facts. The rest of the Arab nations around Israel have reluctantly accepted reality, with the notable exception of Iran, because at it’s most radical, Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths. Like the Jewish faith. The use of “genocide” accusations against Israel is like the current Democrats calling Republicans “fascists” Your just parroting anti-Israel propaganda at this point, Alizia. Move on. Your analytical skills fail you in this area. Perhaps you were frightened by a Jew at an impressionable age.I’m sorry that happened to you.
But move on.
No one ever moves on if you tell them to, just the same as no one ever calms down if you tell them to, they just use it as a trigger to go back at you. Sometimes you just have to say “STOP!” and mean it and be prepared to enforce it.
However, the fact that whoever believes whatever doesn’t make it true, same as believing the earth is flat doesn’t make it true.
The fact is that the UK wasn’t going to hold the mandate together after WW2 (they were a little busy holding onto other places and preventing Greece and Malaysia from falling into the hands of the Soviets), and they had really no choice but to carve the place up into states.
One place in the mandate they absolutely couldn’t hold onto was Israel, where the Jews had formed something like a government already and were forcing them out…and forcing the Arabs out too. No sooner did the UK withdraw and Israel come into being than the Arab states tried to destroy it…and failed, leaving those Arabs who’d left thinking they could walk back in after the attack high and dry. No one else wanted them and no one still wants them, they are frankly a civilization of terrorists.
Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties in place with Israel, they are done. Syria withdrew from Lebanon in the wake of the Iraq war. Iran can posture all they want, but they really can’t do much damage to Israel. If they could have, they would have by now.
If I tell a commenter here to move on, they sure as hell better move on.
If by ‘move on’ you mean ‘move along out’ I can deal with that. As I wrote privately to you I think my presence, for many reasons, is not good for the readership of your blog, limited, circular and prejudiced as they are. It is literally an echo-chamber. I am not involved in this emotionally. I have my view, that’s all.
It is part of the way things are today: it is a time of war, suppression of contrary opinions, and all the rest. I did not create those circumstances and cannot control them.
Let the axe fall if it must! (There is sadly no guillotine emoji …)
“Move on” means move on to other ethical topics that you can approach with an open mind to the benefit of other readers. You are valued here. And if you want to submit a guest post as your ultimate brief on the topic of Gaza and Israel (or Iran), I’ll publish it.But just citing other writers and pundits rather than making your own arguments on a particular topic, which I have and will pass over as single transgressions from veteran commenters, becomes a problem if repeated. I have only dropped the “move on” hammer on a commenter a few times in 17 years. The next step is a “time out.” I urge you to put your energy on this topic into a guest post as Ryan suggests.
As I said I really am not emotionally invested in a need to make my points here. Anyway I already have, and with details! So, I will ‘go silent’ on this issue and the related issue of the war on Iran (and the ramifications for the US). If I understand correct, this is the option I have.
I am not interested in writing a ‘guest essay’ simply because I have already expressed exactly what I think (over numerous posts). None agrees.
As to “topics that you can approach with an open mind” I think you know, and there is no need to hammer about it, that I believe that I have the open mind and that you don’t.
Just so I will have made it clear: I always find your analysis of issues, culture and much else (especially the American presidency and related topics) very worthwhile. But on this issue there is no doubt that I fundamentally disagree. If I may say so it would be best if I were not curtailed in what I write here. But as someone once said, and I thought it made sense: “Your blog, your rules.”
Knock it off and grow up! Once again, you put on the mantle of “arrogant, yet misunderstood overseer” and try to determine what’s best for us, while simultaneously attempting to demean, insult, and/or grossly categorize the entire commentariat.
There is no “suppression of contrary opinions” here. Your opinions, contrary or no, have not been suppressed in any way, shape, or form by anyone on these forums, including our host. Not one jot or tittle of your content has been censored, redacted, dropped, or in any other way manipulated or edited to fit an “Ethics Alarms” narrative or this wishes of its members.
You have written before that you are often attacked in here. No one in here has ever truly attacked you – not verbally, physically, emotionally, or with any other adverb ending in “ly.” Not even once. Some have disagreed with you on occasion. I confess that I have “attacked” you more than anyone else, but it has nothing to do with 99.9% of your content. I have only ever called you out when you label yourself some ill-fated prophet (Cassandra, right?) engaging in some kobayashi maru, desperately and futilely trying to enlighten some witless, simple-minded, and (now today) “limited, circular, and prejudiced” responders on an ethics forum.
…and then you complain that it’s just “part of the way things are today.”
No it isn’t. Things are the way they are for you in here because sometimes what you write reads like “pompous jerk.” Stop doing that.
I appreciate you being here. You have a point of view and it deserves to be read and considered (and maybe supported and maybe poo-pooed) as much as mine. Share your point of view, leave the labeling and the insults at the door when you enter, and you will do well.
And I promise…I will not call you out on this again.
Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths. Like the Jewish faith.
Judaism is hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths?
Or, it should read, “Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths such as the Jewish faith”?
Now YB, if you understand the proper use of “like” and “as”, it should be clear to you that “like” refers to “competing faiths.) If my intent was to convey the idea you posted, I would have written, “as in the case of the Jewish Faith.”
If I were to diagram the two sentences, which are evidently really one sentence, I’d say the phrase “like the Jewish faith” modifies “religion,” not “competing faiths.”
In “Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths. Like the Jewish faith,” the period acts as a stylistic substitute for a comma. I think “Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths, like the Jewish faith” is similarly clear. If i intended the sentence to mean what you posit, I would have written, “Islam, like the Jewish faith, is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths. Because “like” does not properly imply a verb, the sentence as written shouldn;t be read as “Islam is a religion hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths, like the Jewish faith does. No?
Is it ever correct to use a period instead of a comma? “Like the Jewish faith” doesn’t have a verb and is a sentence fragment. It may even imply or create the expectation that “is” ends the fragment.
If I were editing the sentences, I’d have checked with you to confirm what you meant and revised it to make it clear. Old dogs, new tricks.
For emphasis, style, fun? Sure. Like other funky constructions, I wouldn’t make a habit of it. Victor Hugo’s famous telegram to the publisher of “Les Miserables” was “?” to which the publisher replied, “!”
Islam is hell-bent on wiping out competing faiths, first and foremost, Judaism.
Yeah, that’s better and not ambiguous.
Actually for all of my life I was very Zionist. And spent many times arguing the point. There is a process by which my view changed, and it had to do with my time years ago on Ethics Alarms! To really ask the ethical question of oneself.
I could still make a Nietzschean argument (“power decides”) for the Israeli state, and the same for all power usages, but I now am committed to the posture I describe. Because it is right in essence. And your argument is terrible, in comparison.
The “Palestinians” were screwed over when Israel was established. That’s a fact. It has had several opportunities since then to accept the best deal they were going to get and achieve statehood. They refused, and have spent the intervening years to poison successive generations with hatred of Israel, poisoning the culture.
At least you have that base to build in. You do not decide, nor does Israel decide, what the “best deal” shall be. And you have no right to assume that they must have accept at any point. But American arrogance is like that. You believe that you can decide.
Jewish history is not over. And given Israel’s present course (so say those Jewish thinkers I pay attention to) there is much trouble ahead. This is written about extensively and you are (I think) unaware about it). But overall my concern is simply to say what is true (about the situation). Just that.
The greater ramifications are obviously Israel determining or strongly influencing the Iran situation. And there, as I say, is the likelihood of damaging failures. Both for Israel and our side: America.
Alizia,
Actually, I think your journey from Zionist to anti-Zionist would make a great guest post. (I don’t know how much your conversion from Judaism to Catholicism and then to Gnosticism is a part of that, either as a catalyst or a consequence, but I’d be interested to hear that journey, as well…)
This is an incredible day for me! Two posts actually went through and are visible! I did not have to write and beg!
Sadly, 2 others on the MadMen thread simply disappeared and never made it. 😢
Oh well … I consider myself lucky!
You simply need to ping Jack about comments that don’t post…sometimes they just get lost in WordPress and he can resurrect them for you.
(She does.)
Read this, Alizia: October 7 barbarism beyond all imagination: New report details how terrorists performed almost unimaginable horrors – which some on the Left STILL cast doubt on | Daily Mail Online
Hello Bill, I have been following the Nova Festival attack, the resulting destruction and death, as well as the Gaza attackers assaults on the military barracks, and additionally the Israeli military’s machine gunning of escaping Nova Festival kids in their cars. I think the toll of killed by Israeli fire (from Apache helicopters) was 35-40% of the deaths overall. There are pictures of dozens of exploded and burned cars by the highway from those attacks. They also machine gunned kibbutz homes.
The “truth” about rapes and all the rest is extremely hard to discern. I mean quantity mostly. Some Israeli VICTIMS of the Al Aqsa Flood attack have disputed some elements of veracity in the government reports. Myself, knowing about the cruelty and savagery of military men during war, I do not doubt some sick and cruel incidents. Israelis hate Gazans (Palestinians) with bottomless hatred. And the same on the part of Gazans.
Jack is spot on to note that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was handled very badly. He is also correct that during our lifetimes sensible plans have been offered and rejected.
Some of the other commentary refers to Zionist settlers, harkening to the early 20th century. But Jewish history in what is now Israel is 3-4,000 years old; at some time the Israelites were the majority population, successful and prosperous. Conquered over the centuries by Assyrians, Macedonians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Muslims, Crusaders, Arabs, Egyptians, Mongols, Turks, Brits … not even a complete list … population waxed and waned through the centuries. And while there was great interest in creating a Jewish state in the early 20th century and post WWII, for hundreds of years Jews have immigrated to Israel to escape persecution or as a result of expulsion.
Even a cursory review of the history takes a lot of time and thought. And we hear over and over, it’s complicated. But one thing is clear, Israel comprises .01% of the world’s land mass. Centuries of history reveal that the Jewish population has been subjected to persecution, discrimination, impoverishment, expulsion and attempted genocide. Allowing this tiny spot on the world map as a refuge, a place to call home doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
The implicit question, really, is therefore: What is a Jew? Answering that question is more difficult than it seems. Were those who devised Zionism (late 19 century) Jews? Yes, because of bloodline. But in the eyes and conception of Orthodox Jewry they were not really involved in the practice of Judaism, and therefore they had deviated. And the Zionist movement was both atheistic and socialistic. As such Zionism, from a fundamental Jewish Orthodox perspective, sets itself in direct opposition to every Orthodox value. I.e. what makes Judaism and what makes a Jew. And from one Orthodox perspective, the forced return to Israel turns directly against God’s will for Jewry: because Jews and Jewry were in exile (Galut) and only God in the traditional view could reestablish Israel. To be a Jew, therefore, is in fact to be in a state of Exile. That is why (largely) there is a Jewish Diaspora. Jews remain where they are and live Jewish lives.
If the term “Jew” no longer has a definition, and secular Jews often only have a very slight “identity” resulting from nothing more than birth to a Jewish mother, then in truth the identity is pretty weak. What is the commitment? When Judaism is practiced the commitment is total. But when Jews assimilate into the general society they become quasi-Jews. And the actual fact of the matter is that modern israel was founded by quasi-Jews who had resolved in their minds to step out of Jewish life and Jewish fate. In sone ways their desire was to become a nation like any other nation, but that is directly against Jewish fate. And the fundamentals of Judaism.
The only reason I say this (I resolved to step out of Jewish fate when I became Catholic) is to point out the inconsistencies that connect with the re-founding if Israel as a nation. It involves 1) ethno-nationalism and, make a comparison, what corresponds to Jewish ethno-nationalism is American Christian nationalism and similarly to the nationalism of the German National Socialists. And both involve race-concept at a fundamental level.
I only wish to point out that the re-establishment of Israel is not only complicated but extremely problematic. The very act of establishing a State on the terms of other typical states, actually and honestly turns against Judaism in principle in many different ways. Perhaps you and I deny Judaism, or the notion of “being a Jew” and if that is so then in that one has resolved not to be subject to “God’s will” and therefore to Jewish mission and Jewish destiny. If that is so then yes, Zionism is the go-to alternative. It denies every aspect of original Judaism by acting just as “the Nations” act.
Now the point is just in this: Israel became enormously problematic in so many ways, and these ways need to be understood. Not only is it complex and problematic it is also very interesting. Your view (what you expressed) is fundamentally shallow and reductive.
Presently, within Israel, the government that has control of the state is as close as you could come to being “fascist” as is possible. I use the word judiciously and carefully. And to understand the use you would have to read Jewish and Israeli theorists who write on the topic the larger area of Jewish history. To have become a “nation” is to have become — fundamentally — non-Jewish. To become a nation entails becoming an Ethno-State that must drive out of it those who do not conform racially to Jewish identity. The status of “Jew” depends on birth and race-connection. Obviously then, you could be born a Jew but have no connection to Judaism. Thus: the secular state arises. And this is problematic through and through.
The problem of what to do with a large ethnic population that the entire world had allowed to be substantially wiped out because of embedded bias and bigotry was classic ethics zugzwang. There were no completely fair and ethical options. There was collective guilt by the European nations, and should have been As I have said, the Arabs displaced by the establishment of Israel had every reason to feel abused and unfairly treated. Their beef, however, was not with Israel itself, but the other nations that decided (correctly) that establishing a refuge and homeland for Jews was the best among many options. In hindsight, yes, this almost guaranteed that the Middle East would be a source of conflict, essentially forever. In other words, “problematic.”
The view that you present is pretty much ‘established view’ and there is no reason not to accept it. But in a larger framework, and especially one that understands Jews and Jewishness through a religious lens — which, if I am correct, is completely outside of your interests and of what you could consider to be conceivable: because you are a secularist and all your points of reference are secularist and agnostic (which does really mean atheist) — it all get even more problematic.
I am aware that everyone who reads my thoughts, which have a critical, non-conventional thrust in them, can only believe that I am an ‘anti-Semite’. I am sure that there are many who dislike Jews and also Israel. But that is not my focus. The fact is that I am not anti-Semitic except if you (I mean one, someone) defines any disruption, even intellectually, of this particular phase of Jewish history, as an act of anti-Semitism (In fact this is how they do define it, and this makes what I am saying problematic and conflict-producing).
However, my position is complexified more because I accept Christianity as the New Dispensation. But only if Christianity is taken gnostically. (That is, if it is understood on the inner plane). However, this can only be described and presented by reference to metaphysics. And metaphysics by nature is not verifiable. Because it deals with things ‘beyond the world’. Más allá de lo físico.
For this reason, everything religious today, that deals on metaphysics, is deeply problematic. In fact it is all inconsiderable from modern vantages. However, and this is the weird part, everybody still is thinking in such terms! And especially I refer to Christian Zionists and Evangelicals in America. This must be stated! Every American recent president has been, in varying form, Christian Zionist. That is the reason why America supported Israel.
And their views determine policy and history. And they are longing for events that will bring about the end of the world in absolute, consequential wars. I refer for example to the younger Bush. And religious Jews, in Israel, are longing to take actions that will spark that moment that the ‘Messiah’ of their tradition returns. This is part of the strangeness of it all. To be quite frank it is all MADNESS. That is why I say that we are forced to sit, strapped into viewing chairs, as we witness the images flash across the screen. The screen is our *imagined world* but it is also the world that plays out in front of us. The real focus of the metaphysical Messiah, which is ever-existent in this world and all worlds, pertains to the inner dimension, not the outer.
They will bring the world right to the very edge, and there may indeed be catastrophes and other upsetting events, but in the end the only MEANING or effect is interior. The world, and men and their ambitions and madness, are careening out of control. And this is why everything in the Middle East is ‘problematic’ and consequential.
We must realize: All criticism of Israel as Israel is defined as ‘anti-Semitism’. That is one of the main beliefs of secular proponents of Zionism: If you criticize Israel as such you are denying the ‘right to exist’ of Jews. But this is false. Religious Jews (some at least) cannot accept Israel and cannot be Zionists.
Since all I have to offer is my opinion, this is what I opine: The state of Israel, in all probability, will not succeed in standing. It has no entered its true ‘fascistic’ phase and it sees itself in its own ‘final battle’. It does not matter if it was the *right* thing of the world to do in getting it established (or allowing it to be established). It is a movement within Jewish history, and within Jewish fate, that will not be able to stand. I personally think this is understood by everyone intuitively. And because that is so it makes the game that much more intense.
What is the value of even saying this? Maybe there is none, I do not know. But that does not matter. Because I am free to think and see things in a realism light.
(I am actually sort of trying to answer Ryan a bit more: A man who has what I gather is a basic, traditional, post-Vatican ll Catholic stance).
(I am actually sort of trying to answer Ryan a bit more: A man who has what I gather is a basic, traditional, post-Vatican ll Catholic stance).
Very accurate, though I hope my stance is more than just basic.
Regarding Antisemitism vs Anti-Israel vs Criticism of Israeli politics, I do want to make one thing clear about my own beliefs. I do not believe in (and I am borrowing from Catholic apologist Mark Shea for this phraseology) the Immaculate Conception of the State of Israel. I do not believe it was divinely ordained any more than the establishment of the United States of America. I believe it is perfectly fair to criticize Israel’s politics and policies, just like it is fair to critique the politics and policies of any other nation. I do not believe that the Israelis are any more ethical than anyone else in the world, but I do believe they have their own share of crazies. I also believe they are fallen men like the rest of us, and we will find the same vices among them as in the rest of the world. So I will argue, if need be, that it is not antisemitic to criticize Israel, or even to believe that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state was a mistake. Where I draw the lie in arguing someone has stepped into antisemitism is when the Jews are targeted as a whole, just for being Jews. I also believe it is essentially antisemitic to call for the violent destruction of the current state of Israel, as many are calling for, because that level of hostility to the state of Israel seems, to me at least, to be based on hatred of Jews on a whole.
I feel, Alizia, that you have gone to great length to establish that you are criticizing, not Jews as a whole, but certain movements in Judaism (like I would criticize certain ultra-liberal or ultra-traditional movements in Catholicism), and feel strongly that the establishment of the state of Israel was an injustice. So I will defend you against accusations of antisemitism, because I don’t think your stances here cross that line.
Regarding any efforts to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, I think they are all doomed to failure, but I’ll agree that efforts to rebuild the Temple will bring down all manner of havoc in the Middle East.
Regarding Mossad, you write: “Israeli intelligence (Mossad etc.) corresponds to every negative connotation of Secret Police or Military Police or paramilitary force that we could think of.” My only response to this is: have you looked at the CIA?
Regarding Christian Zionists, or more particularly those Christians who see the reestablishment of the state of Israel as a sign of the end times, I agree that those beliefs given them an overly rosy view of the state of Israel. However, I think you are maybe too pessimistic about their overall impact on the world stage. We’re almost 80 years out from the establishment of Israel, and longer we go without the Parousia, the more tenuous their beliefs in this matter become. (It was already on life support when we crossed key years of 1988 and 2007, and the end of the world did not come.) Though perhaps the thought process is (and I have not spent any time researching this) that the clock to the end times does not start ticking until Greater Israel is achieved?
Regarding the influence Israel has on the United States, my thoughts are that the United States finds the existence of Israel as a geopolitical boon, an ally that makes ventures in the Middle East possible. I see the US using Israel as much or more than Israel using the US. Whether that’s a good thing is something we could debate.
The most bizarre thing that no one understands (certainly no one on this blog understands it!) is something so bizarre that it bends the mind. One element in traditional Judaism is an extreme command not to become “idolatrous”. In the Torah the punishments for breaking faith are terrible. And being a Jew involves being faithful in that sense. I am going to point out sonething really bizarre: All those youths dancing on LSD under blow-up statues of Buddhas and Shivas at the Nova Festival in S Israel were in absolute violation of Jewish practice and Judaism philosophy. And it is just that which calls down the Wrath of God. Read Deuteronomy. And so (I am only referring to the imagery) out of the sky came the flying monkeys of Jewish destiny with murderous intent. And the inspiration of that attack — called Al Aqsa Flood — was to counter the declared Israeli intention by some religious Jews to rebuild the Third Temple. You see most non-Jews have very little conception of what is REALLY going on in Israeli society, so they do not know of the immense clash between secular democratic Israel, and that theocratic Israel that is the ultimate object of those Orthodox that attempt to gain control of the State. Most just see ‘superficially’ but in fact the Jewish-Israeli state is in many levels of profound crisis. And may not survive in its present form.
Christian Zionists are the worst influence possible on Israel. They long for then predicted destruction and Final War that, in their insane minds, will herald The New World.
All I try to sketch here is the deeply bizarre and problematic nature of what Israel is! It is an historical movement with a very long and strange history that is in no sense guaranteed to succeed or to prosper.
You know the saying “Man proposes, God disposes”.
Finally, and in their insane minds context that I briefly sketched, the Israeli manipulation of the US nation has to be seen and understood. I said that Israel is ‘fascistic’ and I said that I use the word carefully and accurately. And it must be exactly that to attain its purposes. They are very separate from US principles. Israel is using the US as a tool in its attempt to attain what it belives to be its mission: Greater Israel. If you (plural) cannot draw the parallel to Lebensraum I doubt I can help you. But I only suggest that you do make the connection.
Israeli intelligence (Mossad etc.) corresponds to every negative connotation of Secret Police or Military Police or paramilitary force that we could think of. And it is these operatives that have sought, and have achieved, significant control and influence over US government and policy. In this sense, and here I guarantee you, you can really understand the degree to which the modern Israel project must necessarily become actively fascistic. State power, state industries, extreme propaganda and both a covert paramilitary establishment operating globally, and one that controls and directs the US state and has used the US to wage wars in seven Middle East regions.
You can wake up and make sense of these ramification, or you can simply drift along in deep sleep with no concerns. Personally, I suggest examining everything with open eyes. It is unlikely you will be able to influence or change trajectories, but at the very least you might become more honest.
This is why I (I think cleverly!) refer to myself as Cassandra. You will read what I say and believe none of it!
I’m enjoying this conversation and appreciate the input that Alizia is providing.
charles w abbott
rochester NY