Monday, March 12, 2012

Barack Obama's $1.3 billion dollars worth of colonialism: Why the US and Jimmy Carter want Egypt's military budget to remain secret

The people of Egypt are beginning to say, through their elected representatives, how they would like their foreign policy to be run. The Associated Press reports:
Egypt’s Islamist-dominated parliament unanimously voted on Monday in support of expelling Israel’s ambassador in Cairo and halting gas exports to the Jewish state.
The vote was taken by a show of hands on a report by the chamber’s Arab affairs committee that declared Egypt will “never” be a friend, partner or ally of Israel. The report described Israel as the nation’s “number one enemy” and endorsed what it called Palestinian resistance “in all its kinds and forms” against Israel’s “aggressive policies.”
The parliamentary report also called for the recall of Egypt’s ambassador in Israel and a revision of Egypt’s nuclear power policy in view of the widespread suspicion that Israel has a nuclear arsenal of its own.

“Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity (Israel), which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation,” said the report. “It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy.”

Monday’s vote by parliament could serve as an indication of what may lie ahead.
But the Post reassures us that Egypt's Parliament does not set foreign policy in Egypt, the pro-US dictatorship retains that power.
The motion is largely symbolic, because only the ruling military council can make such decisions, and it is not likely to impact Egypt’s relations with Israel.
A recent poll of Arab populations in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania (not yet fully released in English) show that the Egyptian people are not alone in their opposition to the policies of the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt and others.
  • Contrary to mainstream global media coverage, 73 per cent of those polled see Israel and the US as the two most threatening countries. Five per cent see Iran as the most threatening, a percentage that varies between countries and regions.

  • A high 84 per cent believe the Palestinian question is the cause of all Arabs and not the Palestinians only.

  • A high 84 per cent reject the notion of their state's recognition of Israel and only 21 per cent support, to a certain degree, the peace agreement signed between Egypt, Jordan and the PLO with Israel. Less than a third agree with their government's foreign policy.

  • When it comes to WMD, 55 per cent support a region free of nuclear weapons and 55 per cent see Israel's possession of nuclear weapons as justifying their possession by other countries in the region.
We've seen many times on this blog the military dictatorship's commitment to Western news organizations that it intends to prevent Egypt's citizens from controlling foreign policy.
The new majority is likely to increase the difficulty of sustaining the United States’ close military and political partnership with post-Mubarak Egypt, though the military has said it plans to maintain a monopoly over many aspects of foreign affairs.
We've also seen Jimmy Carter publicly expressing support for that type of arrangement.
" 'Full civilian control' is a little excessive, I think"
"I don’t think it is going to be detrimental for the military to retain some special status."
“If the civilian leadership decided to give the SCAF immunity from prosecution, say, for the death of the people in Tahrir Square over the last few months, I would have no objection to that,” Mr. Carter said. Protecting the military budget from full civilian scrutiny might be another point where civilian political leaders could compromise, he said.
Let's look at that last part more closely. "Protecting the military budget from full civilian scrutiny might be another point where civilian political leaders could compromise, he said."

Parliament's recent vote makes it more clear than ever that what the Obama administration is buying for $1.3 billion per year is policies that are in line with Obama's values, perceptions and sensibilities rather than those of the people of Egypt.

A foreign government that multiple polls show most Arab people consider one of the two biggest threats to them contributes 1.3 billion dollars a year to Egypt's military. The representatives of the Egyptian people are not to even see how this money is disbursed. Details of the financial relationship between the United States and Egypt are kept secret from the Egyptian people. Jimmy Carter has expressed no objection to that, at least for the foreseeable future.

The demand that the military budget not be under civilian oversight is crucial for maintaining the type of semi-colonial status the US hopes to retain if Egypt attains a democratic facade, and the modern way to implement Great Britain's classic colonialist effort to in 1922 to cede sovereignty to an Egyptian government but only over policy areas Britain was not concerned with. This is the single policy issue most important to look at to gauge Egypt's progress toward independence from the United States.

Rather than support a foreign-sponsored effort to impose a civil war on Syria that could not remove Assad without killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people at the very least, if Obama favored democracy he could simply inform the pro-US colonial dictatorship of Egypt that the US is no longer willing to pay it to oppose the policy preferences of its own people. Then he could do that for other pro-US dictatorships where the US has tremendous enough leverage to force them to pursue policies supported by fewer than a third of their people.

But Obama opposes democracy. Instead he commits to do whatever it takes to maintain Israel's regional advantage over any potential adversaries. Whatever it takes means Saudi Arabia, which outspends Israel 2.5 to 1 on military expenditures must remain under the control of a pro-US dictatorship rather than risk being influenced any group of voters in that country. It means the misery the US has recently imposed on Iraq should, if Obama is able, be extended to Syria and eventually even to Iran if the US could do so with little enough consequence.

On this issue of democratic oversight of the military budget, we will see if the people of Egypt are able to overcome Barack Obama's efforts to limit their sovereignty and hold the 85 million people of Egypt, on behalf of fewer than 6 million Jewish people in Israel, in a state of colonial subordination.

I'm actually optimistic that Egypt will break free, and while I hope as soon as June this year Egypt will be able to make foreign policy that reflects the views, sensibilities and perceptions of their people, I am even more optimistic that the US control of Egypt is disintegrating and even if it is not gone this year, like US control of Iraq, it will not be able to survive one or two electoral cycles. I believe that in the long term and even the medium term, US control of Egypt is over.

Unfortunately Barack Obama and the US' hold over the other colonies in the region: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE and others has not visibly begun to break. Hopefully we will see that next.


steve70638 said...

Because this treaty: 

Provides for the US to give Egypt exactly $1.3 billion in military aid annually.  Obama is complying with the terms of the treaty.

It is important to note that what made the treaty palatable to US special interest groups is that the aid is in the for of "credits" for Egypt buying US military stuff.  Thus it is a direct transfer of US treasury funds to the US Arms makers.

Arnold Evans said...

Are you sure? Because it seems like the treaty did not prevent the US from threatening to cut aid over the NGO case, which had nothing to do with the peace treaty.

Former International Atomic Energy Agency chief
Mohamed ElBaradei criticized on Thursday what he called “intervention in
judiciary work” in the trial of NGO employees.

On his Twitter account, ElBaradei wrote that
regardless of the circumstances surrounding the case, intervening in
judicial matters kills democracy.


The three presiding judges recused themselves
Tuesday from the trial of 43 foreign and Egyptian NGO employees accused
of illegaly receiving funds and carrying out political work unrelated to
their civil society organizations. The withdrawal was the result of
military pressure, Al-Arabiya news channel reported, citing an anonymous
source close to one of the judges.


The US, which is pressuring Egypt to dismiss the
case, and has threatened to cut aid, said Wednesday it believes the
situation will be resolved soon.


“I’m confident the US aid problem was politically
resolved," Islamist presidential hopeful Mohamed Selim al-Awa said
Wednesday, during an interview on the Islamic satellite channel Al-Nas


“If these organizations had received illegal
funding, they should have been convicted. If they hadn’t received any,
they should have been acquitted. The new president who will come in
three months should know the circumstances of the case," he said,
adding, “I wish the problem hadn’t been solved this way.”

Lidia said...

If MB and other not-so-progressive deputies feel the need to declare thus in Egypt, it means 2 things
1) Egyptian people feel the same and more
2) There is some democracy already in Egypt and there is a real possibility of power beholden to the people. Otherwise, the deputies would NOT do it.

Just to think that in USA elections there is a "choice" between 2 different ways to bomb Iran, to gutter social programs and to jail or murder without trial.

N. Friedman said...

Let's see. The Egyptian people do not like the Israelis. The Israelis do not love the Egyptians. The US maintains the peace between them. To you, this is something sinister. To me, it is called mediation and common sense. Does the US benefit from it? No doubt.

As for the Saudis, the US does not keep them in power. That is simply nonsense.

Perhaps, we should bow to every common prejudice that exists in the world. Consider: many Christians do not like Jews; and many, probably many more, Arabs do not like Jews. Your solution is to support their prejudices in service to your anti-colonialist ideology. It is, however, also in support of common prejudice.

Yeh, most Arabs do not want the Israelis around. They need to grow up.

Arnold Evans said...

Black Africans didn't want an enforced political White majority state around. They never grew up.  If you were a White South African, you would favor keeping the entire continent ruled by pro-US dictators so that a relatively small number of Whites could securely have a White political majority state.

I, in service to my anti-colonialist ideology, would oppose you.

Barack Obama, believe it or not, looks like he'd be on your side.

I'm going to need you to answer this question honestly N. Friedman:

Do you favor Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and the other US-aligned dictatorships in the region being ruled by governments that reflect the values, beliefs and perceptions of their people?

N. Friedman said...

 Mr. Evans writes: "Do you favor Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and the other US-aligned dictatorships in the region being ruled by governments that reflect the values,
beliefs and perceptions of their people?"

Up to a point. I do not see the Ikwan or the other Salafists as any better than what is in place. And, realistically speaking, it appears that those groups are the actual alternative to what is in power. Being a Jew, why should I support the placement of Antisemites into power? Why do you?

N. Friedman said...

 One other point. In the US, where I am from, there was, at one time, extreme racial prejudice, most especially in the Southern states. On your view, I should indulge such prejudice. My view is that you are merely pandering to racists when you do so.

Arnold Evans said...

It is just as anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism as it is racist against Whites to oppose Apartheid.

Egypt's parliament issued a very anti-Zionist statement.  I didn't see anything anti-Semitic about it.

If you have a reasonable definition of anti-Semitism, then the opposition to Zionism of the populations of the pro-US dictatorships of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others is not inherently anti-Semitic.

You probably don't have a reasonable definition of anti-Semitism though.  But once you define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism stops being bigotry and starts becoming the absence of bigotry.

There are over 80 million Egyptians.  There are fewer than 6 million Jewish people in Egypt.  If it was true that democracy for one necessarily compromised the ability of the other to maintain power in a democracy, if one group had to live under a dictatorship so that the other could securely have a democracy that represents the views of its people, which would a non-bigot choose?

Now, which would you choose?

N. Friedman said...

We'll start with your misstatements. You write: "There are fewer than 6 million Jewish people in Egypt." No. That is not true. There are fewer than 100 Jews in Egypt. Most Jews were expelled, their property seized, in the 1950's. That is true, by the way, for the entire Arab world, where more or less 856,000 Jews lost their homes or otherwise fled.

I shall not play the definition game. Suffice it to say that the Islamist movement meets the same definition that would encompass the Nazis. Must I post the literally hundreds of thousands of nasty statements, calling Jews vermin, parasites, calling for the extermination of all Jews, etc., etc. You are correct that not every statement made by Islamists against Israel is Antisemitic. However, they are still Antisemites if they are Islamists as - most of them proudly so. And, if you do not believe me, read Sayyid Qtub, a proud Antisemite by the same definition which would encompass the Nazis.

I do not define Anti-Zionism as Antisemitism. However, that does not make it any less loathsome. And, frankly, all but a few Anti-Zionists hate Jews, which is why they obsess with Israel. So, here is my suggestion. Given that there is one Jewish state., if you hate it, you hate the Jewish people. And, since there is no movement directed, just yet, against Jews living outside of Israel, the movement which is most hateful towards Jews - the movement where Antisemites all seem to hang out - is the Anti-Zionist movement. So, whether or not Anti-Zionism is technically Antisemitic is irrelevant. At the moment, it is worse than Antisemitism.

Lidia said...

1) Jews were living in Egypt and in the ME for long time BETTER than in Europe, but it was BEFORE Zionism. It is Zionism - a European colonialist enterprise that ruined lives not only of Palestinians, but the Jews of the ME as well. Regarding Egypt, see here

I.e. for their dirty goals, Zionists endangered ALL Egyptian Jews.

2) Islam see Jews as "people of the Book" and even there is a noting that righteous Jews will go to Paradise (without need to them to turn Muslims). On the other hand, Judaism see ALL non-Jews as not-so-human. If I would to note ALL curse words that religious Jews use against ALL non-Jews, it would be MUCH worse than "Islamists" ones. More than that, Judaism COMMANDS Jews to see non-Jews as subhumans. 

3) Anyway, it is IRRELEVANT whether Islamists are anti-Semitic or no (they are NOT Nazis, esp. because Nazis were VERY helpful to Zionist enterprise and Zionists were using their help very much). Egyptians are against Zionism because Zionism is colonialism. Period.

4) I like the open admission of a Zionist that "Anti-Zionism ... is worse than Antisemitism". Sure, it is - for Zionists. Anti-Semites as Nazis, Russian Tzarist government and Christian Zionists were and are VERY useful for Zionists and of a great help for Zionism. Anti-Zionists who are NOT at all anti-Semites, are foes of Zionist colonialist enterprise, so Zionists fear and hate them. Simple. 

Lidia said...

Arnold, please pay attention that our new Zionist "guest" said "The Egyptian people do not like the Israelis". Technically, there are more than a million of Palestinians who are "Israelis" ie citizens of Israel (albeit of 3d or 4th rang - OFFICIALLY). Do Egyptians have NOTHING against those people? Sure, they are not. But, for Zionists Palestinians with Zionist citizenship are not really "Israelis", they are "demographic treat" (officially used term) - i.e. the threat to Israel being a pure Arian - sorry, Jewish state. So, NF just uses  word "Israeli" instead of "Zionist Jew". A detail, but a telling one.

Arnold Evans said...

Oh, no, you're squirming away from the question.

Fewer than 6 million Jews in Israel (sorry about the misstatement) versus over 80 million Egyptians.

Only a bigot can say the sovereignty of over 80 million people should be compromised to ensure that fewer than 6 million people of a different ethnicity avoid the fate of White South Africans - losing their majority state.

You say that, because you're a bigot.

Answer this question honestly: You'd rather see over 80 million Egyptians, live under a dictatorship than see Israel cease to be a Jewish state the way South Africa ceased to be a White state. Yes or no?

You really can't deny that at this point.  Just be an open bigot rather than ducking and weaving the questions I'll pose to you.

N. Friedman said...

Mr. Evans writes: "Answer this question honestly: You'd rather see over 80 million Egyptians, live under a dictatorship than see Israel cease to be a Jewish state the way South Africa ceased to be a White state. Yes or no?"

False dichotomy, in my view. The alternative here would be war. Maybe that is what the Arabs really want. Dumb choice, in my view, as the Israelis would humiliate them again.

However, to answer your question directly, the answer is "Yes," but with the proviso that the Egyptian people live under dictatorships not because of Jews, Israelis or the US government but because of the political ideas which are prevalent in the Arab regions.

The Arab regions have a long history of treating Jews as being less than equal. Note, the yellow badge, well known in Europe, owes its origins to restrictions placed on Jews in lands which, today, are said to be Arab. Note, the requirement over the years that Jews pay a special tax, called a Jizya, to live in Arab lands. Note, the requirement, on and off in Arab lands, that Jews wear special identifying clothing. These are not accidents. These are the product of the ideas held by the ruling classes throughout the Arab regions since the time of Islam's dominance. They are ideas, with the exception of the Jizya tax, largely borrowed from the Byzantine Empire, which treated Jews with similar contempt.

Of course, there have been periods where Jews were comparatively well treated by Arabs. But, the overall pattern was one of persecution and oppression - not on the level of the Europeans, for the most part, but enough for Jews to be unwilling to live, for the most part, under Arab rule. Only a bigot would want to return to the situation where Jews are at the mercy of others.

N. Friedman said...

 Lidia writes: "I.e. for their dirty goals, Zionists endangered ALL Egyptian Jews."

That, in a nutshell, is called bigotry. Blame those not involved for the behavior of others. Thank you for your honesty and well expressed bigotry.

Sineva said...

Sounds like that sad old excuse that the afrikaner racists used in apartheid SA,the same ones that the european empires used before them-The blacks are too stupid and backward to run their own affairs so we`ll have to do it[wether they like it or not]sadly pretty much all of your arguments go something like this the lives and rights of the jews matter more than the lives or rights of anybody else what really gets me about this is the fact that the last group of people,they weren`t arabs or muslims by the way, who were convinced of their own innate superiority over everyone else went around tossing jews into gas chambers,I would have thought that the very last people on the planet that the jews would want to emulate in thought,word,or deed would be the nazis!!,and as for humiliating war outcomes I think you`ll agree that the 2006 lebanon war didn`t exactly end to israels liking

N. Friedman said...

During a recent trip to Nazareth, I noted the hospitable sign placed outside the Basilica of the Annunciation, thus defacing a sacred Christian site. It read - in English and Arabic (but nothing in Hebrew): "whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." If that represents the views of Arabs of Muslim faith, they are making themselves outside the scope of legitimate society. Rather, it is a sign placed by a supremacist group.

I raise this point about the views of Arabs to note that people hold different views. Presumably, not all Arabs stand behind this monstrous sign. Yet, it is fair to state that it is the message sent by the Arab community of Nazareth to visitors - and, since the sign is not in Hebrew, not to Israelis.

So, when I state that the Israelis likely have no love for the Egyptians, I am not speaking for all Israelis or even all Israeli Jews. However, I think I expressed the sentiment of most, who find the Antisemitism of the Egyptians appalling and realize that such nasty words tend to promote violence - hence, the lack of love for the Egyptian people.

N. Friedman said...


No. I have nothing against Arabs running their own affairs. I do, however, have something against Antisemitism, which is part and parcel of political thought in Arab lands. It is Antisemitism, not Israel, which is what drives Arab opinion as it has been and remains the common view among Arabs that Jews, by their inherent nature, are not suppose to be rulers.

If the Arabs want Israel to vanish, that is a problem with Arab politics. It is time for Arab politics to grow up. Pasting a neo-colonial analysis on the return of Jews their ancestral homeland smacks of bigotry.

Lidia said...

a Zionist racist has a gall to tell me about "Blame those not involved for the behavior of others."

Now, see what the Zionist racist has written in the comment to the SAME post 

"I raise this point about the views of Arabs to note that people hold different views. Presumably, not all Arabs stand behind this monstrous sign. Yet, it is fair to state that it is the message sent by the Arab community of Nazareth to visitors - and, since the sign is not in Hebrew, not to Israelis."

So, ONE sign about Islam  is a fault of ALL  "the Arab community of Nazareth" (including Christians, I suppose). But Zionists using Egyptian Jews as a terrorists for their dirty goals is OK, because NO ONE by bigots would call it endangering Egyptian Jews.

N. Friedman said...


Actually knowing something about the topic you are addressing would help you. Mr. Shahak is a phoney who knows nothing about Judaism. His quotes count for nothing, as he has been shown, repeatedly, to make up things. He also confuses the views of Jews from 2,500 years ago with those that developed over the years, something you have done here as well.

Judaism does not take the view that its law is inerrant, fixed by the ancient rabbis. Rather, it is subject to change, as has occurred frequently, much in the way that common law ideas change in the West.

At one time, the dominant view of Jews toward non-Jews was similar to that of Islam for non-Muslims, except that Jews did not demand Jewish rule over non-Jews. Given the amount of Islamic teaching common to Judaism, I would think you would realize the origins of the dhimmi idea in Islam. The difference is that Jews did not tie the idea of non-believers to an ideology, only to the practicality of the moment. Hence, the notion, which you derive from the phoney Mr. Shahak confuses (a) ancient Judaism with the views that developed roughly 1,000 years ago and (b) makes eternal ideas which were, at best, circumstantial.

I would suggest you read Maimonides, who is considered the greatest Jewish thinker of all time. He wrote, by the way, in Arabic and did not hold the views you ascribe to Judaism and, in fact, he was instrumental in altering how Jewish thought came to consider the views of those who believed in other religions.

How about, before making a fool of yourself, doing your homework.

N. Friedman said...


It would help if you had read what I wrote. I made a point of indicating that it is wrong to judge all by some but that such is a natural inclination.

Again, please explain to me how it was not prejudice which drove Arabs to turn on Jews - e.g. those living in what is now Libya - for what Jews in what is now Israel are accused of doing. How is that anything but racist bigotry? I bet even Mr. Evans would not support you on this point.

Lidia said...

1) A Zionist racist STILL cannot get that I am NOT talking to him :( I stopped it long before. I only comment and unmask their hasbara (I have some experience in it now)
2) Shahak was brought up in a religious Jewish family and knew very well what he wrote about - because of it he is an object of hate for Zionist racists :)
3) while Islam is NOT the most progressive and egalitarian ideology in the world, it is still NOT racist - unlike Judaism, because in Islam every one, no matter the origin could become 100% Muslim from the minute of conversion. Not mentioning that in Islam there is NOT an idea of non-Muslims being non-humans, and Jews and Christians have special status.
Judaism still  discriminates
for  several generations.
4) Maimonides, of course, was a great Jewish thinker (and religious authority) and not only wrote in Arabic, but cited Islamic philosophers. But he was a Jewish racist as well. 

the same Shahak

Maimonides16 explains:"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage18 he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'"of course, it could be argued that 

Maimonides lived in not our time, but, as we could see, racist Zionists are NOT going to admit his racism and try to whitewash it. Not mentioning that in the same time there were a lot of people - NOT racists, including Muslims. Jews were OBLIGED by authority of 
Maimonides to be racists (and STILL are obliged) to see non-Jews as not their "fellows".

N. Friedman said...


Unlike you, I actually have a degree in the study of religion. Mr. Shahak is a fraud and his claims are mistaken. His understanding of Judaism is simply wrong.

In that there are Jews of every color, claiming that Judaism is racist in its nature seems a bit rich of you. Perhaps you mean that Judaism does not seek converts - something which, had the other monotheistic religions taken the same path, might have led to a lot less war - and that it places obstacles in the path of  those seeking to convert while, in fact, permitting conversion.

Note: I do not claim that Islam is racist in nature due to its laws that govern and restrict the lives of non-Muslims living under Islam. That would be silly since the restrictions are based on religious discrimination. I said that its dhimmi laws - laws that discriminate against non-Muslims - are based, in part, on distinctions derived from Judaism; distinctions that are also part and parcel of Christian theology as well.

One would ask, if Judaism is so evil, Lidia, why have Christianity and Islam borrowed so much from it? Why is Islam a religion of laws - something derived expressly from Judaism - if Judaism is so bad? Why is Islamic law so very similar in content with Jewish law, if Judaism is so evil? Why did Jesus believe himself to be a good Jew, if Judaism is so inherently evil?

Where Judaism differs most from Christianity and Islam is that Judaism does not teach that it is the only path to truth or that other religions are only half-truths (i.e., Islam), only that Judaism is the religion revealed to the Jewish people, who are taxed, not privileged, to be a light among the nations (i.e., that Jews play a special part in God's plan, not that Jews are either different or superior, just that they are taxed to play a different role in the rolling out of the world's creation.), the aim of that tax is to heal the world - in Hebrew, tikkun olam.

On the Jewish view of things, those of any religion who follow what Judaism calls the Noahide Code - a set of rules followed by all monotheistic religions, Hinduism and Buddhism - are regarded as a Righteous Gentiles, assured of a place in the world to come. The Noahide Code provides:

Prohibition of Idolatry;
Prohibition of Murder;
Prohibition of Theft;
Prohibition of Sexual immorality;
Prohibition of Blasphemy;
Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive; and
Establishment of courts of law.

Please provide me with a scholar of Judaism - and note, Mr. Shahak has a degree in chemistry, not anything related to the study of Judaism, so your claim that he is a great authority speaks little regarding your knowledge of the subject - which says I am wrong in claiming that Shahak's work is a fabrication.

I also note AND, MR. EVANS, PLEASE TAKE NOTE - Lidia's assertions against Zionism are based on the view that Jews hold to an evil religion. Please tell me that I have not uncovered a true Antisemite. Lidia supports my claim that Anti-Zionism is a view held, for the most part, by Antisemites.

Also note, Mr. Evans, that Lidia refuses to address the issue I raised about Arab countries driving out their Jewish population, which goes directly to your claims that the real issue is Israel, not bigotry/prejudice of the type displayed by Lidia. Instead, she throws up the view that one can not debate with Zionists - which is a traditional Antisemitic assertion, except that she substitutes Zionist for Jew. She really means Jew, as her claims about Judaism show.

It is a lot of fun posting with people like Lidia. They always show their true colors.

Lidia said...

1) I would not give a damn about the academic status of a Zionist regarding Judaism. The very nature of Zionism is to look ONLY to "is it good to Jews"? Zionists could NOT be trusted in such matters, no more than imperialists could be trusted in matters important to imperialism. After all, Obama holds a law degree. A world of good it brought to his victims - he managed to break even the laws designed for USA imperialist states especially.
2) My opinion of Zionism is based on REALITY - i.e. colonial nature of it. I happen to be a Marxist and a foe of EVERY colonialism. 
3) I am an Atheist and I would NOT say that Judaism is the main source of Zionist crimes (in this, I disagree with Shahak). But it is TRUE that Zionists provided the place for the worst traits of Judaism to prosper to the detriment of the colonized natives and Jews themselves. 
4) Every religious or non-religious Jew who is NOT honest about the racist nature of Judaism practiced by colonialists in Palestine is guilty of racism. Anyone who tries to whitewash the issue is guilty even more.
5)About the Noach rules - they still NOT make non-Jews the same humans as Jews. In IDEAL world where the MOST human traits of every religion are practiced, not just stated, thus, from Muslims POV EVERY righteous Jew and Christian is going to heaven. And from Judaic POV ONLY non-Jew who abide to JEWISH-made rules could go to heaven. As I have said, I am an atheist and have no plans for heaven, but any non-biased person could see Islam as MORE tolerant than Judaism even in this case.
6) I would NOT started the topic of Judaism at all here, if a Zionist racist took a time to read my other posts, he would see I usually am NOT mentioning it, but the Zionist racists tried to use Islamophobia as a tool of his racism, so I merely reminded him that he is NOT in position to lie here - there are people who are aware of his(not his, really, but common) methods of whitewashing Zionist colonialism and racism and know a bit also about religious part of Zionist racism. 

Lidia said...

Arnold, I suppose a racist Zionist has outstayed his welcome with such slander 

"... believe, as Lidia does, that Jews are foul creatures".

I suppose I should NOT tell you that I have NEVER said anything stupid like the words a Zionist racist is slandering me with. 

Of course, given that Shahak was a Jew himself, it is a bit funny that a Zionist racist could not even try to made his slander LESS stupid, but it is a Zionist racist to you. 

N. Friedman said...

 Lidia's statements, so that we know what we are dealing with here:

"while Islam is NOT the most progressive and egalitarian ideology in the world, it is still NOT racist - unlike Judaism, because in Islam every one, no matter the origin could become 100% Muslim from the minute of conversion."


"But it is TRUE that Zionists provided the place for the worst traits of
Judaism to prosper to the detriment of the colonized natives and Jews


"Every religious or non-religious Jew who is NOT
honest about the racist nature of Judaism practiced by colonialists in
Palestine is guilty of racism. Anyone who tries to whitewash the issue
is guilty even more."

This filth speaks for itself.

N. Friedman said...

Regarding Shahak,

This links to a reasonably fair-minded article about the "scholar" Shahak - - that does not get into religious detail, just deals with the honesty of Lidia's source.

Here is a portion which is relevant to the rant by Lidia:

'One of Shahak's charges has been taken very seriously. Some thirty years ago Shahak reported to the press that he had personally witnessed the following incident: an orthodox Jew saw an injured non-Jew on the Sabbath. To save the man's life, it was necessary to call an ambulance. The Jew had the phone handy but would not allow a violation of the sabbath, i.e. use of the phone, because the injured was a non-Jew. In Shahak's version, with which he begins this book, the Jew here followed the ruling the of orthodox rabbinate. The story was taken up by Ha-Arets in Israel, then by the Jewish Chronicle in London and other publications, all joining in a clamor against the barbaric orthodox. (Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity).

Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident. In the Summer 1966 issue of Tradition, an orthodox Jewish journal, we have the much more credible account by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits (later the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth). First of all, according to Rabbi Jakobovits, and contrary to Shahak's allegation, the rabbinate had ruled clearly that not only can the Sabbath be violated under such circumstances, but such violation would be a religious duty, to save a non-Jewish life no less than a Jewish life. Moreover, we also learn that Dr. Shahak, when challenged to produce his "orthodox Jew," was forced to admit that this Jew did not exist.'

Note the last line. Shahak is not a scholar. He merely draws words, fails to place them in context.

As a more detailed point, one might read religious debates kept by Jews regarding their faith. Has Lidia read any of this? Of course not. She relies on a non-scholar who had an ax to grind.

One can still be opposed to Israel. However, no one can claim with a straight face that Shahak is anything but a fabricator!

Lidia said...

A Zionist racist is citing "reasonably fair-minded article" which used wordings like "whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case" - i.e. a Zionist racist one.

Of course, the Zionist rav is MUCH more credible source for a Zionist racist, but NOT for me and any sane person. Zionist ravs on the Zionist state payroll (in Zionist colonies on the West bank) are publishing and endorsing book about the DUTY of murdering non-Jewish babies - NOW. The racist rav in question is not a nut loner but a influential head of religious education institution, which, by the way, means that his murderous racism is taught to his pupils - future troops of Zionist racist colonization of Palestine.

ALL facts mentioned in this publication are WELL-KNOWN and could NOT be disputed. 

The quotation from the "holy book" of a Zionist rav

"XVI. InfantsWhen discussing the killing of babies and children - why on the one hand, we see them as complete innocents, as they have no knowledge, and therefore are not to be sentenced for having violated the Seven Laws, and they are not to be ascribed evil intent. But on the other side, there is great fear of their actions when they grow up… in any event, we learn that there is an opinion that it is right to hurt infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation the damage will be directed specifically at them." 

N. Friedman said...


Your source, of course, does not make Shahak a legitimate source.

I have not claimed that Jews exist who are not nuts and who do not hold insane views. I claimed, instead, that Judaism is not a racist religion. And, what you have cited does not make it a racist religion.

However, your ascription of the views of some nuts, including their nutty racist rabbis, to a religion as a whole, when the religion as a whole does not hold that view, makes you a bigot and Antisemite, in the normal sense of the word. That most Jews, including devout religious Jews, do not hold that view, speaks for itself. TAKE NOTE, ARNOLD.

The very same Bible cited by the lunatics in the noted settlement is also holy to Christians. Does that make Christianity a racist religion, Lidia? And, some Christians also use such passages in nasty ways. Are you that ignorant?

You have a complete inability to distinguish between a group of nuts and what a religion teaches. As a claimed Marxist, you give a bad name to Marxism. And, frankly, your continued attempt to claim a religion racist, falls in the same tradition which the world calls Antisemitism. I see that you hold to that view with considerable pride. Take note, Arnold.

N. Friedman said...


I correct one matter I stated above. The quotes are from a book which quotes the Bible. I might also note, Lidia, that the quoted material includes material that explicitly rejects the views of Shahak. Shahak claims that Jews cannot break the Sabbath to help a non-Jew but your new source for Judaism's supposed perfidy states otherwise: "To save the life of a gentile, one does not violate the Sabbath rules," which, of course, is the traditional rule enshrined in Jewish law. However, the assertion that non-Jews are not the equals of Jews is an anomalous view in Classical Judaism.

Brutes yoke together likes and unlikes without the slightest care.

Another point:

The most traditional Jews of all - holding to the old view that only God - or, as they might write, G-d - could restore the land of Israel to Jewish rule, not the Marxist ben Gurion, but who live in Israel anyway, do not accept Israel. If Judaism is such a racist religion, why do these people oppose what, to you, is a racist state?

Lidia said...

1) Shahak wrote about breaking Shabat for non_Jews (including in links I posted). In short, it is permitted sometimes to to it, but ONLY if not doing it could bring an anger of non_Jews and thus harm Jews. It could be done NOT out of common humanity, but out of fear for well-being of Jews. 

The same Shahak also stated that a lot of good-hearted Jews did help non-Jews even without such possible threat, but they did it AGAINST religious rule.

2) I am aware of Neturei Karta and their position. They are anti-Zionists, and every reader could see that I esp. stressed Zionist colonialist reasons and not pure religious for Zionist crimes. Zionist ravs just see non-Jews in Palestine as being at the mercy of Jews and demand their treatment accordingly.
Anti-Zionist religious Jews are willing to live as a protected minority under non-Jewish rule as it was for a millennium in the ME and to wait for Mashiah. So, they are against Zionists whom they see as heretics, and they treat non-Jews according the rules for Jews living under non-Jewish rule - i.e decently. I have NOTHING against their relationship with Palestinians. It also mean that the slander of a Zionist racist against me  IS a slander. Jews are NOT all good or all bad as a rule - they are different, just like any others, depending on their views.  

Certain individual said...

"We've also seen Jimmy Carter publicly expressing support for that type of arrangement."
Actually carter hoped to see the military give full control to a civilian government.

A "certain individual" pointed this out to you, you got pretty hostile to the fact that you misread a simple times piece, this certain individual then provided other sources which further emphasized that you misread the piece which forced you to back track and claim that carter supported democracy but at a "distant time", this back tack was weak for carter actually hoped to see the military turning over full control in the summer, this is hardly distant.

What do you expect from someone who has difficulty counting to small numbers and believes that gaddafi had strong support in libyas main cities :/