Footer Pages

How leftist “anti-zionists” are allied with Israel against Syria

By Mimi Al Laham (aka “Syrian Girl”) and Lizzie Phelan

The Myth

There has been a ridiculous notion amongst numerous left groups and those opposed to the Syrian government, that the Israeli regime does not want to see Assad fall. As self-professed “anti-zionists”, many in these groups are content to delude themselves into believing that both their enemies are on the same side. In the case of several socialist groups, they believe that this forcing of the Syrian crisis into their blanket “anti-authoritarian” narrative (regardless of the state in which they are applying that narrative to) enables them to maintain a facade of anti-imperialism.

London based socialist newspaper The Socialist Review writes: “Israel, although hostile to Syria, could depend on the Baathist regime to keep the frontier quiet. Thus criticism of Bashar is more muted in Tel Aviv.”

And Simon Assaf of the SocialistWorker writes:

The notion that ordinary Syrians struggling to change their country are the pawns of a ‘Western plot’ is absurd…In fact the Arab League is attempting to throw the regime a lifeline.

This view is also pervasive amongst the Islamic opposition to the Syrian government. Rafiq A. Tschannen of the The Muslims Times writes:

Israel believes that it would be safer under Assad regime than the new government whose credentials are unknown or the new Islamic extremist regime that would open a new war front with the Jewish state.

Israeli state media has actively fuelled this manipulation, as it has been beneficial to the Israeli state to both discredit the Syrian government in the eyes of Syrians and Arabs amongst whom cooperation with Israel has historically been a red line. Therefore the goal of these reports has been to create the false perception that Israel is uninvolved in the insurgency against the Syrian government. Similarly to how the NATO powers were keen to portray the Libyan insurgency as a “home-grown revolution”.

In this early 2011 Haaretz article entitled ‘Israel’s favourite dictator’, great lengths are taken to paint the Syrian president as a weak stooge of the Israeli state. The article regurgitates common Syrian criticisms and sources of frustration about the Syrian government’s failure to take back the Golan Heights. It even goes as far as to chastise Assad for not attacking Israel. The irony that an Israeli paper would be critical of a president’s failure to attack Israel is apparently lost on many. All the more incredible that these anti-zionist groups have chosen to believe the spin of Israeli state media.

The Turkish based Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), also jumped on this bandwagon. The now deposed leader of the SNC, Burghan Ghallion told Israeli paper Ynetnews “We are convinced that the Syrian regime’s strongest ally is Israel”.

Debunking the Myth

However the following facts expose all of the above as merely a part of the psychological warfare machinery directed from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the NATO countries, which is an essential part of the overall aggression against Syria, and that such leftists have willingly become a part of:

Israel’s most important ally, the US, has been amongst its other allies repeatedly calling for regime change in Syria

Israel’s strongest ally the United States has been pushing for regime change in Syria since before the first signs of insurrection began. Most famously in 2007, General Wesley Clarke, who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander between 1997 and 2000 said he had received a memo from the US Secretary of Defense’s Office which read that the Syrian Government would be one of the seven governments the US would destroy in the subsequent five years.

The Guardian’s recent headline “Saudi Arabia plans to fund Syria rebel army” is in the typical style of the liberal media based in the NATO countries a malignant manipulation. The text of that article is specifically about plans by the US’ and by extension Israel’s most important regional allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to pay the salaries of insurgents. But buried further down the very same article also reports that such support began months before. A less misleading headline therefore would replace “plans to fund” with “increases support for”, however a truthful headline would suggest external control over Syria’s insurgency has existed since its onset.

Indeed both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have a long history of hostility to the Syrian Ba’ath Party and Syrian foreign policy, a fact which is reflected in both of their leading medias (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya respectively) severely distorted coverage of events in Syria from the outset.

But to highlight this context would give too much weight to the Syrian government’s consistent analysis that the crisis within its borders is externally created. A fact which leftist groups also fall over themselves trying to downplay or dismiss with the result of boosting the opposing narrative which imperialism has made dominant through its media machinery.

Why did that same Guardian article, and western leftists who claim that Assad is good for Israel fail to mention that for example in early April, the US openly pledged to double its assistance to the insurgents to the tune of an additional $12 million, under the cover of “humanitarian aid”? Or the recent US admission that it is actively arming the insurgency using Qatar as a proxy? Or that in February, solid Israeli ally British Foreign Minister William Hague pledged more equipment to the insurgents, insisting there was “no limit on what resources” Britain would provide?

It shouldn’t have to be explained to anti-Zionists that US and Israeli foreign policy is one and the same.

Axis of Resistance

Syria is a member of the Axis of Resistance, which is the only effective military resistance to Israel left. It is made up of Syria, Iran and the resistance inside Lebanon with Hizbullah at the helm. Far from being a ‘safe’ option for Israel, as Al Akhbar writer Amal Saad-Ghorayeb sets out in her three part critique of the third-way position that has seized much of the western left, Syria has consistently put itself on the frontline, risking its own survival, and has been involved in every Arab-Israeli conflict since they took power. Syria has been the strongest supporter of the Lebanese resistance movements against Israeli occupation; Hizbullah has repeatedly unequivocally attributed its ability to effectively win the 2006 war against Israeli invasion of Lebanon to its support from Syria and Iran.
A year since the beginning of the insurrection in Syria, the ridiculous notion that Israel was not pursuing regime change in Syria began to crumble. Israeli Intelligence Minister, Dan Meridor was quoted on Israeli radio, pointing out what was obvious all along: Regime change in Syria would break the Iran-Syria mutual defence pact thereby isolating Iran and cutting the supply of arms to Hezbollah. Finally, Israel’s greatest adversary, Syria, would be crippled.

This was not reported in Israeli mass media, which ensured that the lid was kept on the obvious, clearly in the knowledge that it would make the position of the insurgent’s self-professed anti-zionist cheerleaders in the west and Arab world more untenable. Yet those cheerleaders who maintain that Assad is good for Israel have been unable to reconcile then why Israel relentlessly beats the war drums against one of Syria’s most important allies, Iran.

Aside from wanting to get rid of Assad to secure military hegemony of the region, Israel also has an economic interest in scarpering the Syria, Iran, Iraq oil pipeline which would rival both Israel’s BTC pipeline and the eternally fledgling plans for Europe’s Nabucco pipeline.

Pro-Israel Opposition

With increasing momentum, the already tenuous facade of being pro-Assad in the Israeli media began to crumble and increasingly, voices within the Syrian opposition have been crossing the red line of sounding friendly towards Israel.
MK Yitzhak Herzog, who has previously held ministerial posts in Israeli parliament, said that Syrian opposition leaders have told him they want peace with Israel after Syrian President Bashar al Assad falls.
Indeed, SNC member Bassma Kodmani attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference where regime change in Syria was on the agenda. Kodmani has previously called for friendly relations between Syria and Israel on a French talk show, going as far as to say: ‘We need Israel in the region’.

Another SNC member, Ammar Abdulhamid declared his support for friendly relations between Israel and Syria in an interview with Israeli news paper Ynetnews.

Earlier this year a telephone conversation between the SNC’s Radwan Ziyade and Mouhammad Abdallah emerged where they begged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack for more support.

Outside the SNC the children of former leadership figures now in opposition have joined the pro-Israel rat race. Ribal al-Assad, the son of Bashar Assad’s uncle and exiled former vice-president Rifaat al-Asaad welcomed the possibility of Syria making peace with Israel. And son of former Syrian prime minister Nofal Al-Dawalibi, said in an interview on Israeli radio that the Syrian people want peace with Israel. Dawalibi formed the “Free Syrian Transitional National Government”, another external opposition group rivaling the SNC for power in a situation where the Syrian government falls. This sectarian infighting and disunity, that is a mirror of post-Gaddafi Libya, is now threatening to plague the Syria.
Lower down the opposition hierarchy, pro-Israel voices are still to be found.
Syrian Danny Abdul-Dayem, the almost one-hit-wonder unofficial spokesman for the FSA, appeared on CNN begging Israel to Attack Syria.

And in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, Sheikh Abdullah Tamimi, an exiled Imam from the Syrian city of Homs, said that the Syrian Opposition does not have any enmity towards Israel. Tamimi proceeded to request monetary and military support for Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon.

Anti-Assad Zionists and Israeli Leaders

Socialists chosen to be blind to the fact that prominent Zionists have been backing the Syrian insurgency since its inception.

US Senator John Mccain and Joe Lieberman, both well known to be close friends of the zionist entity, met with the SNC and Syrian insurgents on the Turkish border, then called for the US to arm them. In fact Joe Lieberman has been calling for war against Syria since 2011.

Another well known zionist Bernard Henri-Levy, who spear-headed the destruction of Libya by NATO aerial bombardment, has also called for an attack on Syria.

Bernard Henri-Levy

More recently voices within the Israeli government have been more vocal and demanding in their desire to see the Syrian government’s replacement with a more friendly puppet regime.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, upon receiving the ‘Medal of Freedom’ from US President Barack Obama, said that the world had to get rid of Assad. That he was receiving such a medal requires its own article dedicated to psychoanalyzing such an event, but that he could also claim, while being part of a system that is responsible for some of the gravest abuses to humankind in history, that from a “human” point of view Assad must go, should really get so-called anti-Zionists thinking.
Other members of the Israeli government, such as Israeli Vice Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, urged world powers to mount a Libya style regime change in Syria.

And Israeli defense minister Ehud Barack called for the ‘world to act’ to remove Assad while Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon accused the “world” of wrong doing for failing to act against the Syrian government and then offered Israel “assistance” for Syrian ‘refugees’.

Finally, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon accused the ‘world’ of wrong doing for failing to act against the Syrian government. Then offered Israel offered ‘assistance’ for Syrian ‘refugees’. Thinly euphemism for arming insurgents on the border.

read more…

Share Button

95 Responses to How leftist “anti-zionists” are allied with Israel against Syria

  1. Laura Stuart July 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    It sickens me that everything has to be seen through a prism of “is this good or bad for Israel” – if it’s perceived as bad for Israel we support it no matter how brutal murderous it is regardless of how it impacts on the Syria people.

    Assad could do nothing against Israel anyway his land is occupied by the Israelis and he was unable to take it back for 40 years. Let the people make their future without always having to measure every decision by is it good for Israel or am I finding myself in agreement with some one who might support Israel.

    Let the people escape oppression.

    Israel will be destroyed and not by Assad

    • Roy Bard July 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

      “Let the people make their future without always having to measure every decision by is it good for Israel”

      Did you actually read the article?

      Indeed, SNC member Bassma Kodmani attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference where regime change in Syria was on the agenda. Kodmani has previously called for friendly relations between Syria and Israel on a French talk show, going as far as to say: ‘We need Israel in the region’.

      “Another SNC member, Ammar Abdulhamid declared his support for friendly relations between Israel and Syria in an interview with Israeli news paper Ynetnews.

      Earlier this year a telephone conversation between the SNC’s Radwan Ziyade and Mouhammad Abdallah emerged where they begged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack for more support.

      Outside the SNC the children of former leadership figures now in opposition have joined the pro-Israel rat race. Ribal al-Assad, the son of Bashar Assad’s uncle and exiled former vice-president Rifaat al-Asaad welcomed the possibility of Syria making peace with Israel. And son of former Syrian prime minister Nofal Al-Dawalibi, said in an interview on Israeli radio that the Syrian people want peace with Israel. Dawalibi formed the “Free Syrian Transitional National Government”, another external opposition group rivaling the SNC for power in a situation where the Syrian government falls. This sectarian infighting and disunity, that is a mirror of post-Gaddafi Libya, is now threatening to plague the Syria.
      Lower down the opposition hierarchy, pro-Israel voices are still to be found.
      Syrian Danny Abdul-Dayem, the almost one-hit-wonder unofficial spokesman for the FSA, appeared on CNN begging Israel to Attack Syria.

      And in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, Sheikh Abdullah Tamimi, an exiled Imam from the Syrian city of Homs, said that the Syrian Opposition does not have any enmity towards Israel. Tamimi proceeded to request monetary and military support for Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon.”

      You Tony and Benjy are relishing the idea of a change in despotic regime. Tony and Benjy are delighted that the new despotic regime will be besties with Israel. And you don’t seem to mind…..

  2. Gilad Atzmon July 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    L: It sickens me that everything has to be seen through a prism of “is this good or bad for Israel” – if it’s perceived as bad for Israel we support it no matter how brutal murderous it is regardless of how it impacts on the Syria people.

    G: This is a fair comment Laura, but since Israel and the J lobby dominate USA and British foreign policy, we have to take Israeli and J interests into account..

    L: Assad could do nothing against Israel anyway his land is occupied by the Israelis and he was unable to take it back for 40 years.

    G: You are right about it, he was probably waiting to the PSC and JSF to lead the battle..

    L: Let the people make their future without always having to measure every decision by is it good for Israel or am I finding myself in agreement with some one who might support Israel.

    G: “Let the people make their future”
    is exactly what we want. In other words, we say NO to interventionist wars…
    Let the people escape oppression.

    L: Israel will be destroyed and not by Assad

    G: Indeed,

    • Laura Stuart July 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

      Gilad your comment is so nicely set out with nice punctuation and spellings . . .

      The fact is Gilad that I am against the Russian meddling, the USA meddling and Iranian meddling. I do not want to point the finger only at the UK or USA in this conflict, there are many other forces at work, so when you say interventionist wars you have to mean all outside forces.

      As to the above piece of crap it is consistant with what you expect from lefties.

      It is very convenient for Israel to be able to point the finger at Muslims killing Muslims it deflects nicely from what they are doing. By the way we really should go on the annual Al Aqsa march in August because Harrys place have now made the connection between people who murder Jews in Bulgaria and people who protest against Israel in London.

    • adnan July 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

      Israel does not need to be destroyed, but it needs to be changed in a way Mandela changed S Africa.
      This will happen when Saudi Arabia (GCC) is liberated from Wahhabi regime what will finish petrodollar, and expose that both US and UK are bankrupt. Once empire is out of the way there would not be any other option for Israel but to become democratic country of all it’s citizens.

      • Blake July 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

        1SS called Palestine is the only fair practical solution.

  3. Alex July 20, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    “It sickens me that everything has to be seen through a prism of “is this good or bad for Israel” – if it’s perceived as bad for Israel we support it no matter how brutal murderous it is regardless of how it impacts on the Syria people.”

    What sickens your Brotherhood using Hamas and Palestine to pave its way to Power, and then sell Hamas and Palestine to please Hilary’s eyes

    • Laura Stuart July 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

      my brotherhood – you really dont have anything to say to do except make assumptions

  4. who_me July 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    this is a very useful, informative article, thanks for posting it up.

    the azz network is basically a “foxnews” network for the manipulation of the left. one can excuse your average fox tv watchers for being ignorant about how they are being manipulated by the israeli/jp/corporate fascist establishment, those dolts are little more than blubber and naked greed. but when it comes to the azz phony left, that doesn’t apply. these people know full well what they are doing and why. while the foxnews knuckledragger wouldn’t know news from an advert, the azz know obvious propaganda for what it is.

    taking the side of israel, and excusing and trying to hide israeli involvement in the crimes against the syrian people shows these to be much more manipulative than the rightwing automatons. when intelligent people propose obviously harmful and stupid (to there supposed stated goals), then something is very wrong. these people are not supporting zionazi policy out of stupidity, but out of cleverness. even in their cover id of being anti-imperialistism, they are betraying their true role as quislings, for the destruction of syria they are propagandising for israel, also serves imperialistic goals.

    there is another difference between azz and knuckledragger. that is of the ordinary bandit, robbing and killing to satisfy his simple greed, as opposed to the clever wife killer, who diligently painstakingly sets up the scene of his crime, carefully frames the neighbour down the street and fools everybody, almost. the azz is that extra step away from humanity who replaced their soul with multiple layers of duplicity. one can trust the knuckledragger to follow his greed. with the azz, one can not trust them about anything.

    • who_me July 20, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

      the azz pretend to care about the humanity of their actions in order get people to follow those actions, while at the same time, these azz know full well those actions are the exact opposite of what they claim they support.

      these people have the morality of a hannibal lecter.

      • Paul Eisen July 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

        I rather liked Hannibal Lecter. Come to think of it, I think everyone did and he did have a strange kind of morality.

        First of all, he never lied, but more importantly there was a kind of moral righteousness in his activities. You must have noticed how everybody he ate kind of had it coming.

        • who_me July 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

          “First of all, he never lied, but more importantly there was a kind of moral righteousness in his activities. You must have noticed how everybody he ate kind of had it coming.”

          poor analogy on my part then. been 20 years since i saw that film. i picked him because i remembered him as this smooth talking, very manipulative cannibal (which is what azz are when one peels off the layers of deceit).

          • Paul Eisen July 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

            So anti-Zionist Zionists (a very poor description from Gilad in my opinion) are smooth talking, very manipulative cannibals. Is that your analysis of Jewish power? Is that the best you can do?

          • who_me July 21, 2012 at 12:14 am #

            in that small number of words, i think it covers it pretty good.

            instead of poking sticks, why not provide something of substance to debate?

          • who_me July 21, 2012 at 1:35 am #

            Paul Eisen

            “So anti-Zionist Zionists (a very poor description from Gilad in my opinion)”

            we all have our own opinions on who these people are and what they represent and you got me thinking that maybe this is a good subject for its own thread for further discussion? i have no problem with azz as term to cover the whole genera on the zionist side, but there is a whole other team playing the old fashioned fascist capitalist side that isn’t zionist and their views often coincide with the azz.

            spelling out your disagreement with atzmon on the description azz might be a way to introduce this as a new thread?

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 20, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

          Is there anyone ever who “has it coming” to be dined on?

  5. who_me July 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31991

    ‘Don’t be duped by Western humanitarian rhetoric on Syria’
    Interview with Russia’s UN ambassador

  6. who_me July 20, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vud1qFrG1qU

    Wikileaks Syria Emails – NATO’s Final Media Card

  7. Jay Knott July 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    “There has been a ridiculous notion amongst numerous left groups and those opposed to the Syrian government, that the Israeli regime does not want to see Assad fall… many in these groups are content to delude themselves into believing that both their enemies are on the same side.”

    The ‘delusion’ does not follow from the ‘ridiculous notion’. Israel has never regarded the Syrian regime as being on its side, but it does not follow, except in the deliberation school of simplistic binary logic, that it wants to overthrow it. Or that US policy is a simple expression of the Lobby. Idiots who rant about ‘the israeli/jp/corporate fascist establishment’ make Atzmon’s ideas even more simplistic than they already are.

    But, “the ridiculous notion that Israel was not pursuing regime change in Syria began to crumble”. May ridiculous notions continue to crumble!

  8. Ariadna Theokopoulos July 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Huffing, puffing and spitting again, Jay?
    So…
    1. Gilad’s notions of Israel. JP, the Lobby’s influencing (others say directing) US foreign policy are “simplistic.”
    2. The “idiots” are making them even worse. They can’t help themselves, being simpletons possessed only of “binary logic.” You don’t say it but one can assume they wouldn’t know how to “falsify” a hypothesis if their miserable simpetons’ lives depended on it.
    But what did the “idiots” say to send you running to the magic words bag, frantically grabbing all of them (kept “stalinist” for me, I hope) to throw like darts?
    (a) They said that there is:
    “a ridiculous notion amongst numerous left groups and those opposed to the Syrian government, that the Israeli regime does not want to see Assad fall…
    Where did they get such an idea? Could it be from all those who claim — in various media–that any aggression on Syria will be, like the war on Iraq, an “imperialist” aggression (perhaps using tne pretext of a humanitarian mission, itself direly needed), but no way-no how-never a zionist agenda? I do remember you too claiming that Israel had nothing to gain from the war on Iraq.
    They also said that [
    (b) the leftists) ” delude themselves into believing that both their enemies are on the same side.”
    But they did not say that Israel’s pursuing “regime change in Syria” is to be deduced from (a) or (b). That is the little straw man you made. Your hind legs footwork is fast but not fast enough to cover it up
    That Israel is fully vested in a”regime change” in Syria is practically an axiom, Jay. In fact the Israeli government says it in deafeningly loud voices. Are you hard of hearing? That does not need to be deduced.
    Or… wait… is this a conspiracy theory of the “idiots” who do not believe that the bad imperialists are running amok, doing whatever they want, even against Israel’s interests, despite the Lobby’s pleas to leave Syria alone? Simpletons!

  9. pgg804 July 21, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    There is no doubt that Syria is one of Israel’s most important enemies and Israel would love to see the “revolution” succeed. Violence, dissent and destruction in Syria weakens it and a new government that doesn’t allow weapons to flow to Hezbollah could be the end for them and the Palestinian’s would lose one of the few governments in the world that supports them. I think these would be major victories for Israel.

    If a new government took power, Israel would initially allow it to go its way. As long as the new Syrian gov’t didn’t interfere with anything that was contrary to Israel’s interests and allowed Israel to bomb Lebanon or kill a thousand Palestinians when it felt the need, everything would be fine between the two governments. If the new Syrian gov’t supported Hezbollah and the Palestinians, Israel would support another revolution and more death and destruction in Syria.

    Supporting this group or nation only to attack them later is not unusual at all in dirty politics which is practiced by all the powerful nations.

    The USA helped the Mujahideen overthrow the Soviet backed Afghan government in the 1980′s only to bomb Afghanistan and overthrow its new government in 2001.

    The USA supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein in its war against Iran in the 1980′s, with the American Defense Secretary Rumsfeld going to Iraq and shaking Saddam’s hand in the early 1980′s (a video of this is available on youtube) so the USA could supply Iraq with weapons. In 2003 the same Rumsfeld presided over the USA’s military attack on Iraq and later the USA presided over the murder of Saddam and his son, with his daughter escaping to Syria. Pretty disgusting, don’t you think.

    If you go further back in history Germany signed a non-agression pact with the Soviet Union in 1939 only to attack that same country two years later. The USA supported the USSR and entered WW II allowing the communists to take over half of Europe (and the world) only to become the USSR’s and communism’s biggest enemy immediately after WW II ended.

    If the people making policy think its in their best interest to make a agreement with people they would like to see destroyed later on, they will make that temporary agreement.

  10. Deadbeat July 21, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    And Simon Assaf of the SocialistWorker writes:
    The notion that ordinary Syrians struggling to change their country are the pawns of a ‘Western plot’ is absurd…In fact the Arab League is attempting to throw the regime a lifeline.

    It is time to come to an understanding that these “Socialist” outfits are nothing more than outpost for Zionism and out to control the opposition by pretending to be it. The pseudo-Left had the very same position against the Libya Jamahiriya last year. They claimed the murderous-racist-CIA-Zionist backed Libyan traitors were leading a “workers” revolt. Now the pseudos are using the same Zionist playbook with Syria.

    It is vital that the pseudo-Left and their mendacious tactics are exposed.

    • Jay Knott December 30, 2012 at 5:24 am #

      ‘It is time to come to an understanding that these “Socialist” outfits are nothing more than outpost for Zionism’.

      Simplify, exaggerate, select, don’t look for evidence which might falsify your hypothesis… Atzmon for Dummies.

      • Deadbeat December 30, 2012 at 5:42 am #

        Simplify, exaggerate, select, don’t look for evidence which might falsify your hypothesis… Atzmon for Dummies.

        Really? Please prove where I made a “simplification”. The ISO, WSWS, WSM, CPUSA, and a plethora of alphabet soup “Socialist” organization supported the “rebel uprising” against Qaddafi. Many of these organization aligned with Zionism against Qaddafi and printed outright falsehoods of the Libyan Jamahiriya. If you are gullible to believe their position was a mere “mistake” then please use the term “simplify, exaggerate, select” to describe your own views. The record is out there.

        Now if you have specific of where I erred then I’d gladly admit it. Otherwise all you offered are generalization which are meaningless.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 30, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

          I would paraphrase Harry Truman’s description of Somoza (and turn it around) to say: “Jay” is our troll but he is a troll.
          Like any troll he emerges every time what he considers important to defend/dissimulate comes up for discussion. The issues that set his whiskers aquiver are:
          – Jewish Power (JP). He takes a prissy dance around it with minced steps lecturing in his schoolmarmish way on the ‘distinctions’ that need to be made: yes, Jews may own and rule the media and entertainment and perhaps even banking but you cannot prove that by giving him numbers. That’s a simplistic way of thinking. Numbers are useful only when he gives you the list of Jewish Nobel winners in physics. How did they get to own/dominate those paramount corridors of power? There is no proof of collusion, no, they are simply “better at it.” Racially superior? No, he will tell you he got it from Kevin McDonald: it’s all about evolutionary psychology, you see.
          Imagine the surprise of the directors of the Federal Reserve Board—many of them, I am sure, did not even know they were Jewish (it happens, see Madeleine Albright) when they realized they were all Jews! “You’re Jewish too, Allen? Yes, and so is…” Now, that’s an incredible coincidence! ALL of us? Every single one, …” “What are the odds, Allen? Well, not that slim, … We are favored by evolutionary psychology. “No, shit! What’s that?” Something a goy said but it made sense to me.”
          Well, maybe it is not ALL evolutionary psychology because jay’s favorite list — the Jewish Nobel winners in physics is left dangling. And I don’t mean the puzzling fact that Jews seemed to have gotten dumb between Einstein and the late 40s when, in the US, they started showing up again. No, I mean the fact that brilliance in physics is not necessarily helpful in surviving eternal persecution. I guess they just could not help their own brilliance and the hell with the practicality of surviving by making shitloads of money.

          – Events pointing to JP’s lethal global reach:
           — 9/11
           — Iraq
           — Libya
           — Syria
          For 9/11 he has his spiel and is not embarrassed to parrot himself relieving himself of it every time, pretending to be deaf to the real message of those who refuse to drink the Kool Aid, and claiming that the most absurd concoction is the “most economical” explanation. He spits and throws feces at anyone who approaches the 19/14 Boys with Boxcutters cage he inhabits.
          His instincts are correct: 9/11 is the most dangerous explosive package to unwrap. It has been leaking fumes but should it truly explode, nothing would save Israel and identifiable JP from the wrath of the American people — and they are all armed……
          On the wars carried out by the PNAC prescription, his position is precisely that described by deadbeat: the fake left, “anti-imperialist.”
          But let’s not forget: he is all pro-Palestinians and a fierce critic of Israel. He can give you his bibliography and a list of names of those who called him anti-semitic. He got besotted with the phrase “binary logic” somebody explained to him once. He thinks it means any faulty syllogism. And he has graphs….
          He is not devoid of a certain amount of accuracy of self-perception: he never takes Atzmon on directly (“Atzmon, yes, cult no”) although he would love to if he felt up to it. He just nips at his toes once in a while and then runs. For everyone on deLib he has contempt (“Atzmon for dummies”) and feels he can dispatch them with his little graphs and set phrases that probably mean a lot to him.
          His is our troll, but he is a troll

        • Jay Knott January 2, 2013 at 1:27 am #

          Ariadna objects to me drawing an analogy between her approach and Stalinism, but then writes a long comment proving me right. She thinks that if you don’t agree with her fantasy about Israeli involvement in 9/11 you must be a Zionist. The communist parties claimed anyone who didn’t agree with Stalin’s paranoid ravings was working for ‘imperialism’ and so on.

          She wants to discourage having a serious discussion about evolutionary psychology. I’ve often said I don’t know how well this explains Jewish success, but she keeps on repeating the statement that I do. She hopes that if she keeps distorting what I say, she’ll tire me out and I’ll give up encouraging readers to seriously consider the evolutionary approach.

          Now to Deadbeat’s own simplifications, which at least have the merit of sincerity. “Printed outright falsehoods” is an opinion. How do you know which statements about Ghaddafi’s regime are true? “Nothing more than outpost for Zionism” is extremely simplistic, in fact it’s false. Leftist groups are actually quite critical of Israel. I think their claim that it’s a tool of US imperialism is wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s a deliberate diversion.

          • fool me once... January 2, 2013 at 2:20 am #

            “I’ve often said I don’t know how well this explains Jewish success,”
            If you did say “evolutionary psychology” is the explanation for jewish success, everyone would burst out laughing. Why search for the ridiculous when the obvious is in plain sight? You could title your research paper with, The Chosen Ones Success – A Journey Into Historical Ego-Maniacal Malevolence.
            Just a thought.
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 2, 2013 at 2:28 am #

            1. “Ariadna objects to me drawing an analogy between her approach and Stalinism”

            No, I only ridicule you.

            2. “She thinks that if you don’t agree with her fantasy about Israeli involvement in 9/11″

            A typical jay lie. Can you point out ANY comment I ever made where I described this “fantasy”?

            3. “She wants to discourage having a serious discussion about evolutionary psychology.”

            Another lie. When was it you tried to have a serious discussion about it? Do you think name dropping is a serious discussion?

            4. “I’ve often said I don’t know how well this explains Jewish success, but she keeps on repeating the statement that I do. She hopes that if she keeps distorting what I say, she’ll tire me out and I’ll give up encouraging readers to seriously consider the evolutionary approach.”

            Another series of lies. You said –remember it can be verified–that you cannot think of any other explanation of jewish success except that they must be “better at it.”
            I don’t think a liar like you can be tired out–you just repeat the same lies like an automaton–it doesn’t require any thinking effort.
            How can you encourage anyone to consider anything you push: (1) you don’t seem able to articulate what it really means (other than it sounds “good for the jews”) and (b) you have made such a fool of yourself on this site that you can’t be taken seriously.

          • Jay Knott January 4, 2013 at 2:18 am #

            Ariadna asks `Can you point out ANY comment I ever made where I described this “fantasy”?` (of Israeli involvement in the September 11th 2001 massacre).

            There are numerous examples. Google “site:deliberation.info ariadna israel 9/11″:
            http://tinyurl.com/b9nbs9o etc. My favorite is
            http://tinyurl.com/bb2r8cc – which is funny, at least.

            I don’t know if I’ve ever said “I can’t think of any explanation of Jewish success except they must be ‘better at it’” – but I didn’t need to – it’s a tautology!

            When I said Ariadna attempts to discourage having a serious discussion about evolutionary psychology, I referred to her comments (see above): “No, he will tell you he got it from Kevin McDonald: it’s all about evolutionary psychology, you see” and “We are favored by evolutionary psychology. `No, shit! What’s that?` Something a goy said but it made sense to me.” Ariadna is trying to use sarcasm to discourage readers from finding out about evolutionary psychology for themselves, and seeing if MacDonald, despite his far-right views, has anything to contribute to our understanding of Jewish power. This is unhelpful.

            I’m not accusing Ariadna of lying, but she has no hesitation of accusing me of deliberately promoting falsehoods. This self-confirming cult-talk sabotages debate. Stalinism was an extreme version of this.

      • Roy Bard December 30, 2012 at 7:27 am #

        JK: “Simplify, exaggerate, select, don’t look for evidence which might falsify your hypothesis… Atzmon for Dummies.”

        So Jay, 39 minutes after writing: “If Dawkins shouldn’t sneer, I definitely shouldn’t”, you’re doing it again…..

        If you think there is a flaw in Deadbeat’s claim why don’t you show us what it is – preferably without falling into the “Simplify, exaggerate, select” trap that you’ve exposed, and without sneering.

        That way we can all start learning how to be as wise as you :-D

        The added bonuses would be that you’d appear more likeable and we wouldn’t be left suspecting you were a concern troll.

        • fool me once... December 30, 2012 at 11:28 am #

          …and
          Jay;
          December 28, 2012 at 4:46 am
          “Is Deadbeat heading in the opposite direction from Mark Weber? :)
          25 days after writing;
          December 3, 2012 at 1:59 am
          ““Placing a smiley emoticon at the end of a statement is like laughing at your own joke” – that’s why I NEVER use emoticons.”
          Hey, here’s your own personal tune Jay, you’ll especially like the lyrics at 2.34mins :D :D :D
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhe0UpFFOYg

          • Roy Bard December 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

            “Hey, here’s your own personal tune Jay, you’ll especially like the lyrics at 2.34mins :D :D :D”

            I’m looking forward to learning from Jay what three consecutive emoticons in a comment means!

            I bet no-one has ever identified consistency as one of his strong points…..

          • Jay Knott December 31, 2012 at 5:39 am #

            To be pedantic, it’s true that I never use emoticons. They are inserted by the software that manages this website.

        • Jay Knott January 2, 2013 at 1:39 am #

          Roy – hopefully my comment above explains my criticism of Deadbeat’s position less sneeringly.

    • Roy Bard December 30, 2012 at 8:30 am #

      Deadbeat: “It is time to come to an understanding that these “Socialist” outfits are nothing more than outpost for Zionism and out to control the opposition by pretending to be it. The pseudo-Left had the very same position against the Libya Jamahiriya last year.”

      I think Bricmont’s article on the Anti-Anti-War Left is useful in thinking about how swathes of “the Left” have come to support military interventionism and pro-imperialist propaganda.

      Whilst Bricmont isn’t looking at the influence of AZZs on the movement, he does note that the Anti-Anti-War left “calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism…”

      This paragraph certainly reminded me of some ex-posters on this site:

      A favorite theme of the anti-anti-war left is to accuse those who reject military intervention of “supporting the dictator”, meaning the leader of the currently targeted country. The problem is that every war is justified by a massive propaganda effort which is based on demonizing the enemy, especially the enemy leader. Effectively opposing that propaganda requires contextualizing the crimes attributed to the enemy and comparing them to those of the side we are supposed to support. That task is necessary but risky; the slightest mistake will be endlessly used against us, whereas all the lies of the pro-war propaganda are soon forgotten.

      • David Holden December 30, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

        the Bricmont article is interesting. i “accidentally” came across a paradigm case of the “AAW Left” when during a browse a few monbths ago i discovered something called The Euston Manifesto – actually i didn’t see much “left” about it, but it appears that some of its leading lights regard themselves in that way.

        a popular pseudomeme suggests that there is an entirely natural progression from youthful leftie to middle-aged liberal reactionary. to my mind spreading this pseudomeme is mainly a propaganda exercise undertaken by the pedagogic department of the Axis of Evil, but such apoaristerasis is perhaps an accurate description of the Weltanschauungsflugbahn of the average “intellectual” whose principles have shallow roots – they serve for a time, buoyed up by the youthful conflation of political enthusiasm with sexual adventure, but for the longer haul are inadequate to compete with more primitive but also much more powerful self-serving instincts. the angrily expressed, but flabby and compromised views of a David Aaronobitch are the intellectual counterpart of the middle-aged beer-belly. the anger is not revolutionary fire – it is a compound of spitefulness and dyspepsia.

        i think Bricmont may be wrong in laying the entire blame for the current lack of opposition to imperial war-mongering on these AAW “lefties”. unless one naively views “peace movements” as never being anything but entirely spontaneous arisings, it would be natural to suspect that the dismantling of Soviet power greatly weakened the Comintern-type support available for those building and maintaining “popular-front” peace institutions in the Western capitalist nations. for example one could not imagine the history of CND separated from the support of the activity within trade unions of the post-entryist British Communist Party diaspora.

        • Roy Bard December 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

          “actually i didn’t see much “left” about it, but it appears that some of its leading lights regard themselves in that way.”

          The fact it supports Bantustans for Palestinians and that it was signed by Harry’s Place and Nick Cohen says it all really!

          “a popular pseudomeme suggests that there is an entirely natural progression from youthful leftie to middle-aged liberal reactionary. to my mind spreading this pseudomeme is mainly a propaganda exercise undertaken by the pedagogic department of the Axis of Evil,”

          I know -I think its just an attempt by those who’ve sold out to make the act of selling out respectable

          I think Bricmont does note that the collapse of the Soviet Union brought about change – but I also do see a lot on the so-called Left cosying up to Imperialism in a supposed belief that bombing people will liberate them. Over Syria Mary Rizzo who used to be with Palestine Think Tank unfriended any fakebook friends who didn’t support Western military interventionism….. and plenty of others crawled out of the woodwork with the same demands.

          So I think the idea of the Anti-Anti-War left has some validity and describes what is happening all over the place.

          I don’t think you can really support Western Imperial adventures without lying to yourself and disregarding a mountain of evidence that the Imperialists only ever act in their own interests, and that the propaganda is never the truth.

          • David Holden December 30, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

            yes, i didn’t intend to challenge Bricmont’s main idea – was just adding a footnote to the effect that the peace movement has lost a key structural support in the transformation that has occurred in Russia, whose geopolitical strategy was premissed on opposition to the imperialists. nervertheless, since the Soviet bloc was not a completely angelic force, its fellow-travellers often ended up having to compromise their own moral intuition.

            perhaps the non-Aligned movement offers a promising way forward. one can support such an initiative without being forced into an insufficiently critical position.

            your remark :

            I don’t think you can really support Western Imperial adventures without lying to yourself and disregarding a mountain of evidence that the Imperialists only ever act in their own interests, and that the propaganda is never the truth.

            i agree with. though for many people the lying takes place away from the spotlight. simplistically;

            many who identify themselves as belonging to the “middle” classes readily identify their interests with those of the dominant social order. consequently, to the extent that the mechanics of society are delivering the goods OK there is a pressure to believe everything the establishment does has at least some arguable basis in morality. this is a lazy and mistaken perception, perhaps, and easily played upon by the empty rhetoric of plausible liars, but it is common, and has influence.

            here i might tentatively suggest that a parallel error leads astray some of the more conscious observers amongst the lower orders – squaddies are our lads. since their job is dangerous they deserve praise. they are heroes. therefore there must be some sound moral basis for what they are doing.

            the majority of people are mostly focussed on narrow personal concerns, and are constantly propagandised to see this narrow focus as entirely right and proper. a cynically but skilfully administered regime of school, TV, films, newspapers and magazines, porn, computer games, celebrity ‘culture’, DIY, cosmetics, fashion, gardening, drink, drugs, gadgets, toys and other consumer delights, together with the ever-present threat of debt that is an inevitable accompaniment to indulgence in these glories, serve more than adequately to keep them confined in their cages of ignorance and apathy.

            btw what happened to Who Me? this theme would have been just up his street.

          • Roy Bard December 30, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

            “btw what happened to Who Me?”

            The last who_me post sees to have been on October 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm ….. before slipping away. Hopefully not for too long!

          • David Holden December 30, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

            10 weeks can be a long time in politics…

            well located, anyway. since the last comment was about G__d, maybe Who Me got raptured?
            anyway, there was no vitriolic argument, which i thought might have been the cause of absence – despite lack of any supporting evidence. my beliefs are often very sui generis

            i do entertain a certain curiosity about people i have e-met – perhaps it’s the nearest thing i do to affection, i
            guess. for me, a person with a tenuous grip on materiality at the best of times, it’s one slightly disturbing characteristic of the online electronic existence that what seems real and substantial can, the next moment, simply disappear without a trace, never to be seen again, like the dramatis personae of a datura hallucination.

            though i seem to remember that Ariadna mentioned she has some (non-bloodline) relation to Who Me, so news might be forthcoming.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 30, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

            “Ariadna mentioned she has some (non-bloodline) relation to Who Me”

            remind me, please. i feel terrible about the wasteful and negligent way i treat my relations and most times don’t even remember where i put them so they’re as good as lost

          • David Holden December 31, 2012 at 9:24 am #

            we would need FMO to locate that! (not that i am suggesting it would be a good use of his valuable time. i’d guess it was about mid-august, but that is not reliable. Roy has given October 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm as a useful terminus ad quem.

            i guess it was a joke which i took seriously ;-) even though the a priori probability of such a thing didn’t seem that high.

          • fool me once... December 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

            @DH&AT
            My first thought when I read…
            “Ariadna mentioned she has some (non-bloodline) relation to Who Me”
            was AT’s anecdote about a urine soaked homeless man whom she passed on her way to work, who would hurl abuse at passers-by. AT recounted the advise of her colleague, who suggested trying to discern the fragrances in the piss, as a distraction technique. AT mentioned that either who_me or myself might be that colleague.
            At the time of reading the comment I must admit that I thought she (AT) was a bit harsh on the homeless guy, and it may have been more benevolent to try and help the man. But since the moment was gone, may have been humour and I not being in possession of the facts, I thought it, rightly or wrongly, better not to reply. Although the anecdote did stay with me.
            Anyway, is this the comment you refer to?
            July 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm
            AT says;
            “A colleague with whom I always made the trip…Not knowing your identities, I am just wondering if either you (who_me) or fool me, is in fact my colleague…”
            http://www.deliberation.info/despite-all-odds-the-palestinian-cause-is-gaining/

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 31, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

            FMO:
            In the Laura & K scene you quote, what I was trying to suggest (inaptly as it turns out now) was this:
            When assaulted by a strong, unpleasant sensation (e.g., stench), some opt to hold their breath and escape asap, while others claim that you can negate or at least diminish its effect if you actually dive into it and focus on its details.
            At the time it seemed to me that you and who_me had chosen the latter strategy of dealing with the emanations from L & K.
            Is that clearer now?

          • fool me once... December 31, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

            @AT
            Hi Ariadna, thanks for the explanation, it is clearer now. You didn’t explain it inaptly. I was distracted by a memory. At the time, when reading your comment about the homeless guy, the story you told rekindled a memory of two tramps who frequented the local train station when I was a boy. One was called Amon and the other George. Amon was similar in behaviour to the man you described. Whereas George was more coherent. When I left school I bumped into George in a cold, damp derelict windowless building. He was huddled up on a rotten mattress and covered in an old curtain. I vividly remember a line of mouldy Cox’s Pippin apples he’d stored on the unlit fire’s mantelpiece, next to his tobacco hoard of tab-ends he’d found. We struck up a friendship.
            Anyway, I understand what you was saying now, and also, it was not the required comment ;) cheers.
            The “right-wing white supremacist” accusation thing…hmmm maybe a daft question but is it a possibility he was got at, as he’d alluded to being targeted before? His unfounded accusatory outbursts
            seemed well out of character going by his previous comments.
            “My image –not I– misses who_me.”
            Not sure what you mean by “image”?
            Are you saying he’s not gone under but still remains upstream to the bridge and is sat drying out on the bank?
            btw
            Happy New Year

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 31, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

            My image –not I– misses who_me.
            He gave it some balance by appending “right-wing white supremacist” to the contralateral side of jay’s “stalinist.” Without the right-wing supremaicist, the stalinist in it makes it wobble like a defective drendl.

          • Jay Knott December 31, 2012 at 5:44 am #

            “The last who_me post sees to have been on October 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm ….. before slipping away. Hopefully not for too long!”

            I disagree. When I don’t agree with something, I don’t want to discredit it by having morons defend it. I have more integrity.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

          Love “Weltanschauungsflugbahn” but what is “apoaristerasis” of which I recognoze only “apo”?

          • David Holden December 30, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

            it was an attempt at “a movement away from the left” – perhaps the root is wrong? there is, anyway, an awkward clash of vowels, but to have elided them in a neologism would have only heaped paraffin on the flames of obscurity.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos December 30, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

            levo = left

          • David Holden December 31, 2012 at 9:07 am #

            i was misled by google translate. though i notice wikipedia has the same mistake:

            Greek Left (Greek: Ελληνική Αριστερά, Elliniki Aristera, abbreviated EAR) was a Greek leftwing political party.

  11. who_me July 21, 2012 at 3:32 am #

    it’s not just here that webspam has been ramped up in support of zionazi warmongering. i mentioned recently that the ziospam has been massively increased at rt recently. the russian english language media killed its +- voting because of it. now i noticed it was also a problem at pcr’s site. he dealt with it in a nice way. :) i have not looked at the msm zionazi commenting, but i bet it is off the chart.

    the zionazis really want syria to be a wasteland.

    • who_me July 21, 2012 at 3:33 am #

      like libya is now.

      • Laura Stuart July 21, 2012 at 10:10 am #

        In fact Libya is amazing people with it’s recent elections and how peaceful everything is going. I assume when you say wasteland you meant big desert, which would be factual.

        Does anyone actually believe that Syria Girl is genuine? I have great reservations about anyone who has had that much plastic surgery, botox and fillers, not really compatible with a “girl”.

        The massive counter movement against the Arab spring to destroy any chance of Arab people from enjoying their freedom and rights is being won through a huge misinformation war trap which many are happy to fall into.

        • who_me July 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

          “Does anyone actually believe that Syria Girl is genuine? I have great reservations about anyone who has had that much plastic surgery, botox and fillers, not really compatible with a “girl”.”

          that’s some serious jealousy at work there. :D

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 21, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

            There is always the burkha–cheaper than plastic surgery and allegedly less painful

          • fool me once... December 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

            Laura said;
            “Does anyone actually believe that Syria Girl is genuine?”
            Here are two recent videos of SG. The first one is taken from a discussion show called “Insight”.
            SG at 1.07mins;
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEPadG0pQk
            SG at 2.35mins;
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvDVb1sDCSA

          • David Holden December 29, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

            ah, FMO, the archive! i wish i had your facility to delve. anyway this threw up a collectible Jayknottism:

            …it does not follow, except in the deliberation school of simplistic binary logic…

            i think the context implies he is exempting himself from the implied critique. assuming him right about others this provides a case of pragmatically sanctioned exceptionalism.

            it is unclear whether the way forward for those aspiring to join Jay on his pinnacle of clarity – like all such eminence it must occasionally be lonesome – is to adopt a non-binary logic, or to attempt to hobble along using a binary logic with a few modifications to allow greater sophistication in applications.

          • fool me once... December 30, 2012 at 12:01 am #

            Hi DH, ha ha caught me creeping around the back catalogue stores. I remembered that who_me had said SG was worth a listen to, so I was updating the info.
            Interesting what’s said at 3.15mins in the above first video link in connection with what Laura had asked.
            The full “Insight” show on Syria is here;
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUniwJGQizI
            .
            “assuming him right about others” – and there’s the rub.
            Regarding binary logic, I thought I’d better read up on it. After half-way through a page of this jibber jabba;
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-valued_logic
            …I decided I was ambivalent ;) , that’s not to say I’m not down for a bit of learning though.

          • Jay Knott December 30, 2012 at 5:09 am #

            This article is an outstanding example of binary logic: Israel sucks, Israel doesn’t like the Syrian government, which has opposition, therefore, Israel is behind it. It tries to discredit anyone who doubts its hypothesis, in the first sentence. This should raise a red flag. Talking of which, it’s just like the left’s mistakes about Stalin’s, Mao’s and Ho Chi Minh’s regimes: anyone whom the Western countries oppose must have something going for them.

            The comments from Winnie & co. add the “ad-hominem” fallacy to the logical errors in the article. Atzmon, yes. Cult, no.

          • Blake December 30, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

            This article is an outstanding example of binary logic: Israel sucks, Israel doesn’t like the Syrian government, which has opposition, therefore, Israel is behind it.

            Or merely ask Cui Bono Jay and please do not say the usurping zionist entity does not benefit from sectarian violence in the region.

          • Jay Knott December 31, 2012 at 5:54 am #

            ‘Please do not say the usurping zionist entity does not benefit from sectarian violence in the region’. It’s not quite as simple as that.

            When there wasn’t much sectarian violence in “the region”, Israel did very well. Now there’s more. Israel still seems to be doing pretty well. Blake needs to learn how to test hypotheses. Here’s a good introduction: http://tinyurl.com/cqg2gfa

            ‘Cui bono’ can be used to generate hypotheses, but not to prove them.

  12. Ariadna Theokopoulos July 21, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    I have time on my hands today since the Prado is too crowded on Sunday so…

    “with it’s recent elections”
    with ITS recent elections

    “how peaceful everything is going”
    how peacefulLY everything is going

    “I assume when you say wasteland you meant ”
    I assume when you SAID wasteland you meant
    or
    I assume when you say wasteland you MEAN

    “to destroy any chance of Arab people from enjoying their freedom”
    to destroy any chance FOR Arab people TO ENJOY their freedom

    You’re welcome

    • David Holden December 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

      i hope Laura took your excellent instruction to heart, and has found fruitful application for her now-well-honed syntax in a new sphere of charitable activity ;-).

  13. Lasse Wilhelmson December 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Perhaps I did not get all the small talks in this debate, but I do not think it is so complicated. We do not have to support Assad regime to support Syrias right to defend itself from the new “internaltional brigades”. What give u the moral right to go to another country and kill their people, whatever international law says and whatever good reasons u have…

    In Sweden the “left” is devided, and the followers of the bolsheviks, eg mainly the trotskyits support the new “international brigades”, and those syrians that fight against Assad. But there is also some old maxists that supported Stalin in his national socialism to save Ryssia befor and under WWII, at least to 60 % as they (we:)) then said. They are in favour of Syrias right to defend itself, and they do not love Assad, but they only talk about US imperialism, and neglect the role of sionism, Israel and Jewish power in the West.

    And of course the AZZ goes with the trotsyites.

    The main problem with the left is that it has not yet divorced from zionism or choose not to realice the marridge. And probably never will …

    So in any case “the left” is not to count on.

    And it is up to the syrians only, to decide on their own future. To be abel to do that all forreigners must be driven out of Syria.

    And to be honest, I really donot understand why Hamas have to fight Assad, instead of beeing a mediator for peace. I think this will lead to a split in Hamas and may be even in the Muslim Brotherhood. In Gaza I am pretty shure that Islamic Jihad will take over the lead of liberating Palestine. They are mor advanced in politics – I think.

  14. Deadbeat December 31, 2012 at 3:33 am #

    . We do not have to support Assad regime to support Syrias right to defend itself from the new “internaltional brigades”.

    I’ve seen and heard this argument and I think is a dangerously fallacious example of middle ground fallacy and is reflected of muddle thinking. By default being against the “international brigades” makes us allies of the Assad regime.

    It also fails to take into account that Assad and his father before him stands against Zionist aggression of his nation. It ignores Assad has also made overtures to Constitutional reforms and that the best chances of self-determination of the Syrian people comes from Assad and not the “traitors” who are lackeys for Zionist power.

    As pointed out, Syria under Assad doesn’t have a central bank and is not under the control of the banking system controlled by International Jewry and their people are not debt slaves.

    Thus being against Zionism means that we are defacto supporting Assad. If not what are we for? anarchy? or the people? This is cliche because the people cannot form a government while their nation is in a life and death struggle against International Jewry. To promote such ideas, IMO, is sheer wishful thinking if not outright dangerous to humanity.

    • Jay Knott December 31, 2012 at 6:04 am #

      “Thus being against Zionism means that we are defacto supporting Assad. If not what are we for? anarchy? or the people?”

      I’m sorry if I was a bit brusque to Deadbeat before. He’s a long-standing opponent of Zionism and lefty-Zio confusion.

      Still, I maintain that this “we are defacto supporting” idea is reminiscent of the massive errors of the sixties/seventies. Of course world Jewish power is more dangerous than Assad’s government, but this does not lead me to support the latter. I don’t have to ask ‘what am I for – anarchy or the people?’.

      Deadbeat’s argument is a variant of the ‘plucky little Serbia’ argument. Oddly enough, that argument served both imperialism and the Bolsheviks.

    • Lasse Wilhelmson January 1, 2013 at 11:06 am #

      I do not quite follow your thinking DB. I do not support any regime, religion or ideology as such. I did not even vote for the Swedish parlament in 40 years.

      F ex I support the iranian regime when they fight zionism and support the palestinians, but critizise them when they stoped the shiits in irak to participate in the armed resitence against the ockupyers. I support Irans right to defend itself and the right of the iranian people to choose their own destiny. But I do not support the iranian regime as such or their system for rouling the country. Wrote about these things here on deLib

      http://www.deliberation.info/the-uprisings-in-the-arab-world-reflections-on-democracy/

      I am not a muslim and I live in Sweden. I donot think it is my cup of thea to engage in the split between sunni and shia, but I ask who benifits from different political standpoints and acts on the ground.

      Also I think the kind of thinking going “If u r not with us, u r against us” is a kind of tribal thinking that the zionised Bush jr used. Why not use both eyes and also try to se different levels of reality, and a timeline? Mybe I get u wrong DB, but anyhow I cannot do better than this to explain what I mean.

      • Deadbeat January 2, 2013 at 5:56 am #

        As Syrian Girl writes …

        Syria is a member of the Axis of Resistance, which is the only effective military resistance to Israel left.

        It is pretty simple to me. “Syria” in this case is the Assad regime.

        Also I think the kind of thinking going “If u r not with us, u r against us” is a kind of tribal thinking that the zionised Bush jr used. Why not use both eyes and also try to se different levels of reality, and a timeline?

        It cannot be a “Zionised” line of thinking since my stance is totally against Jewish supremacy. Bush Jr. rhetoric is designed to shut down resistance to Jewish supremacy. Is that what you are attempting to do?

        The Assad Regime represents a line of defense against Jewish supremacy and that is a line I support therefore DEFACTO I support the Assad regime.

  15. Deadbeat December 31, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Deadbeat’s argument is a variant of the ‘plucky little Serbia’ argument. Oddly enough, that argument served both imperialism and the Bolsheviks.

    I don’t how you can distort my commentary into pro-Zionist advocacy in order to make a fallacious argument.

    I support the Assad regime because it is in a life and death struggle for the past 40 years against International Jewry and Zionism. As I previous remarked, Assad has made concessions but the people of Syria are firmly supportive of their leader.

    However your stance illustrates a lack of understanding of the struggle and what the Assad government has done for her people especially when it comes to confronting Zionism and Jewish power.

    You are using the same line the “Zio-Left” used when Libya was being attacked. “I don’t support Qaddafi” but stand against NATO. Yeah right. To make such a muddle remark really says you have no solidarity with the self-determination of the people in their struggle against Jewish power and global domination.

    Your position is a concession — not a stance. You cannot stand on the knife’s edge. You have to take a firm position of what you stand for. Thus your stance against the Assad regime who is the last line of defence for the Syrian people places you on the wrong side of humanities equation in the global struggle against International Jewry.

    • Jay Knott January 2, 2013 at 1:05 am #

      Deadbeat has adapted sixties leftism to recognize Jewish power. He tells me “you have no solidarity with the self-determination of the people in their struggle against Jewish power and global domination”. I plead guilty.

      I didn’t see the North Vietnamese government, or the IRA, as ‘the self-determination of the people’ either. At least I managed to avoid some of the delusions of my generation.

      • fool me once... January 2, 2013 at 1:36 am #

        “I plead guilty.”
        What’s it gonna be for your last meal then Jay? A romantic single bite of a freshly picked apple as you leave Eden and slip into the eternal sleep? A Pol-Pot Noodle? A bagel with a knob of butter?!?
        What will it be?

        • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 2:34 am #

          “I plead guilty” is a joke. You think you have a sense of humor, but you don’t. You’re more ‘p.c.’ than you think.

    • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 2:43 am #

      Deadbeat: “The Assad Regime represents a line of defense against Jewish supremacy and that is a line I support therefore DEFACTO I support the Assad regime.”

      This is more serious mistake. It’s like anti-imperialism and anti-fascism: the belief that one faction of the people who live off our labor are worse than another, so we must support the second against the first. This mistake has led people who have no interest in either side to support one side against the other.

      Jewish supremacy is a big problem. It does not lead the obligation to support Assad’s regime in Syria.

      • Roy Bard January 3, 2013 at 10:38 am #

        jk: “It does not lead the obligation to support Assad’s regime in Syria.”

        What about if most Syrian’s support Assad? Should we support him then Jay?

        And as someone who seems to find official stories plausible, maybe you can help me out on this one:

        If Assad is as unpopular as we are told he is, why would the USA want Assad disqualified from future elections?

        An unpopular dictator being soundly rejected at the polls seems like just the kind of event that the democracy loving USA should be welcoming with open arms, no?

        • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 6:09 pm #

          Roy: “What about if most Syrian’s support Assad? Should we support him then Jay?” Most Americans support Obama!

          I’ve never denied that Assad is popular in Syria. I find some official stories plausible (‘smoking is bad for your health’, ‘al Qaeda destroyed the WTC’) and some not (‘Saddam helped al Qaeda’).

          • Roy Bard January 3, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

            JK: “Most Americans support Obama!”

            I must have missed the part where other countries started arming and funding insurgents to kill Americans so they can effect a regime change.

            Or were you not making a direct comparison?

            Its hard to tell…..

          • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

            Roy – you simply asked “what if most Syrians support Assad?” as if this is a reason for supporting him. I’m simply making the point that a large number of a ruler’s fellow citizens supporting him isn’t a criterion for doing so, which is what I thought you were implying.

          • Roy Bard January 3, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

            My bottom line is that it is for the Syrians to decide – I’m not in favour of imperialists manipulating regime change – and not swayed by the propaganda. But then again I wouldn’t call myself an Assad supporter ….

          • Roy Bard January 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

            “But then again I wouldn’t call myself an Assad supporter ….”

            Q: How can you tell if someone is an Assad supporter?

            A: Wait for them to incite violence against Alawites!

            Or so Ali Abunimah (bookburner) appears to think ………

            Bookburner

            More here and here.

          • David Holden January 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

            perhaps comrade AA’s website has received or is hoping to receive funding from the House of Saud?

          • Roy Bard January 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm #

            along with the Wiesenthal Centre……

  16. Lasse Wilhelmson January 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    DB, I think the discussion now is only repetition. You did not comment on my exampel with Iran, but just choose something that was easier to use for your aganda. And I do not accuse you for anything else :), just try to understand your thinking.

    I will try another exampel. I was one of those in the lead of the Vietnam movement in Sweden. My camp was leading the whole soladarity work. And this movement was perhaps the strongest and biggest at that time in the Vest – relativly speaking.

    We supported Vietnams right to national selfdetermination, because their struggle was also our, against the two superpoweras at that time. All the money we collected and sent had no destrictions what so ever. Ho Chi Min was one of our heros, in that struggle, but we never supported the ideology of his regim in North Vietnam. Because we knew it was socialimperialistic, and we did not criticize them for that at that time, because we thought it would hurt their struggle. But we critizised the policy of the Sovjet union, because of Tchekoslovakia and their adventures in Africa waving with red flags together with the Cubanians.

    The North Vietnam regime then sent their ambassadour in Moscow to try to stop us from critizising the Sovjet social imperialism. We told him that they knew best how to fight US-imperialism in Vietnam, but we know best how to support their struggle in Sweden. We never told the Swedish people about this.

    After the liberation of Vietnam it did not take long before Vietnam attaced Cambodja. I was then among the first to demo outside the Sovjet embassy. And today I wonder if our silence about the pressure from the Vietnamese ambassadour was more good for the liberation of Vietnam than bad for the attac on Cambodja.

    To me DB it is very strange, that u can not make a difference between supporing a cause of a nation without restrictions and the regim (including its politics and ideology) that happens to be in charge at the same time.

    For those who are interested in theese things I wrote an article some years ago. In a way it is also about the end of the ´68 left.

    http://lassewilhelmson.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/we-who-knew-it-all-comments-on-a-book-about-the-68-movement/

  17. Deadbeat January 3, 2013 at 5:44 am #

    DB, I think the discussion now is only repetition. You did not comment on my exampel with Iran, but just choose something that was easier to use for your aganda. And I do not accuse you for anything else , just try to understand your thinking.

    You are right that I failed to comment on your remark regarding Iran and I’ll that this opportunity to comment on it. I do apologized that I failed to comment on your example in my rejoinder.

    In your article you write the following …

    While Islam formally influences the rule of the people in, for example, Iran, Zionism has an informal influence on the rule of the people in the western world, with the exception of Sweden which is quite unique, considering the role of the state as producer of Zionist ideology through the government agency Living History Forum (FFHL (2). However, in both cases the forms of government include free general elections and neither has a dictator.

    Now we see once again from you your rhetoric of false equivalency where you use Zionism to subtlety smear those who stand up to International Jewry.

    This time we have your equivalency of Zionism to Islam under the facade of “tribalism”. Prior to this you used a similar equivalency to associate National Socialist Germany to Zionism. Both are the enemies of Zionism. Both resist and resisted International Jewry and Jewish Imperialism. Clearly that is the primary distinction that sets Islam and National Socialist Germany apart.

    Why didn’t you draw a an equivalency between Liberal Democracy and Zionism as Israel has both “popular” elections and a parliamentary system. You saved that comparison only for “Islamic Theocracy”. Apparently if you look hard enough you can spin equivalencies of Zionism to just about anything.

    [The Uprisings in the Arab World] is about freedom and human dignity and doing away with oppression, corruption and insensitive leaders, especially those who are puppets of Anglo-American imperialism and its Zionist masters.

    There are many who argue that these uprisings has been coordinated or at least co-opted by the U.S. The “uprisings” was used by the Zionists and NATO to topple Qaddafi and are being used by the Zionist in their attempt to overthrow Assad and to take complete control of the occupied Golan Heights. You must be aware that Israel is building yet another “separation wall” in the Golan — a war crime.

    The U.S. and the Zionist attempted to rig the elections in Iran with their so-called “Green” members claiming that Ahmadinejad stole the elections and staged protests and disruptions in Iran. Honest polling showed that the MAJORITY of the Iranian people support their government — a government like the Assad regime is struggling AGAINST Jewish power.

    To support a regime doesn’t mean to agree with all their policies. But what it means is that you support their survival because without that regime International Jewry takes control of that nation and humanity loses yet another member in the “axis of resistance”.

    Therefore I support the Iranian regime, the Syrian regime, Chavez in Venezuela and any other regime that resist Jewish power. Because Jewish supremacy and global domination are the greatest threats to humanity in the 21st Century.

    Zionism (1) – its supporters widely outnumbering the number of Jews in the world, significantly because of the support it receives from Christians.

    This is MISLEADING and conceal a great deal. Jews control the monetary system of Western government which in turn has a monopoly of FORCE and COERCION. Therefore there is no democracy in the west. What you have are SHEEP who know what good for them and ignorance is what is good for them. Should those people wake up they have the pseudo-Left to misguide them a heap of confused and misleading rhetoric about the current situation.

    Christian Zionism is part of the tactic to control and to attack Christianity — a religion that the Jews hate and want to destroy. John Scofield was paid by the Jews to annotate the bible and people like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell are or were paid shills for Jewry. What you are doing is again making a false equivalence of these DE-CHRISTIANIZE and badly indoctrinated people and labeling them “Christians” in order to misleadingly argue that this is a “Judeo-Christian” problem rather than a JEWISH one.

    Is “Democracy” the solution to the problems of the Arab world?

    Having given some thought to the concept of democracy, we may now say “yes” if a form of government evolves in the Arab world that includes considerable power of the people and is sustainable, and “no” if it is simply a form of government named “liberal democracy” or something similar with very limited power of the people.

    Who do you think you are Muammar Gaddafi? Did you ever read The Green Book?

    There was a working structure in Libya — FOR FORTY YEARS — destroyed by the Zionists this is why I have come to question your comments and rhetoric. This is why I support the regimes you “don’t support” because they are fighting Jewish power.

    Iran, Syria, Venezuela, The Libyan Jamahiriya, regimes may not be your cup of tea but their fight (were in the case of Libya), a fight for the whole of humanity as they are on the front lines of resisting Jewish power. To me it is absurd to stain these resisters to Jewish power as “Zionists” in whatever subtle manner you choose. Such rhetoric won’t win you allies.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

      DB, you’re right in your general analysis, but, as I said before, wrong on Lasse.
      Whatever you felt needed sharpening/clarifying, even correcting, could have been done without the supposition that he is intentionally trying to deceive, which he is not.
      People who say “I don’t necessarily support Assad but I am dead set against foreign intervention in Syria” are not zionist tools. They merely make a point that EVEN IF you may not be a fan of Assad (as you did not need to be a fan of Saddam Hussein) you have to support SYRIA against USrael’s assault against it. Syria happens to be led by Assad so one implicitly supports Assad.
      “Dictator,” “tyrant” are labels applied to him by those who claim to support Syria’s “liberation.” What kind of leader he is, however, is NOBODY’s business but of the Syrian people.

      • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

        Ariadna – “you have to support SYRIA against USrael’s assault against it”. Not necessarily. You could be a pacifist, or an ultra-leftist, and say “down with both sides, it’s a capitalist conflict” etc..

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 3, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

          I apologize–I forgot to state “if you have both brains and a conscience.” If not you can append any manner of fig leafs to your private parts and prance about doddering about stalinists.

          • Jay Knott January 3, 2013 at 8:41 pm #

            Ariadna thinks that you MUST support Syria “if you have both brains and a conscience”, dismissing anyone who doesn’t as either dumb or unethical. That’s not Stalinist – Stalinism would be calling these hypothetical people ‘Zionist stooges of USrael’ or whatever. But it might be just that they somehow haven’t been overwhelmed by the clarity of comrades Ariadna’s and Deadbeat’s arguments.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 3, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

            “That’s not Stalinist..”
            BUT
            “comrades Ariadna’s and Deadbeat”

            You want to insult but you lack even the most basic imagination so you come back to the same hackneyed echolalic inanity. (Even that you borrowed from your sharper cohorts)
            I would not say that being deadly boring is your worst problem but it ranks pretty high up there with your inability to embarrass yourself.

      • Deadbeat January 4, 2013 at 11:14 am #

        DB, you’re right in your general analysis, but, as I said before, wrong on Lasse. Whatever you felt needed sharpening/clarifying, even correcting, could have been done without the supposition that he is intentionally trying to deceive, which he is not.

        I have no idea whether the intent is intentional or not and never spoke to it. My observation, comments and analysis are based on what is being conveyed by his writings.

        The greatest threat to humanity is Jewish Power. Therefore Lesse’s attempt to equalize Zionism to NSDAP Germany and to Islam if not insulting is rather careless, reckless and ahistorical. It is the kind of comparison that is common of the pseudo-Left and what you read on ICH. It is the same tactic used by the hasbara to smear their opponents. So to see that being conveyed here needs to be firmly rejected.

        My rejoinders, are based on Lesse writings which is why I italicized his comments before commenting so that they are not taking out of context in my response.

        People who say “I don’t necessarily support Assad but I am dead set against foreign intervention in Syria” are not zionist tools. They merely make a point that EVEN IF you may not be a fan of Assad (as you did not need to be a fan of Saddam Hussein) you have to support SYRIA against USrael’s assault against it.

        You’ve misread what I have written and my critique of Lesse. What I said is that such rhetoric is MUDDLED THINKING. I never accused anyone of being a “Zionist tool”. What I also said is that such rhetoric is common of the pseudo-Left. What I said is those who support Syria in their struggle against Jewish power are DEFACTO in supports of the Assad regime therefore one cannot be on the knife edge with such fallacious middle ground rhetoric but must take a firm stance in support of the regime’s survival.

        The Assad regime has been fighting against the West and Jewish encroachment and power for more than 40 years while Saddam Hussein was a tool of Zionist power (see photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein who took Iraq to war against Iran at their behest.) betraying her citizens and when Zionists was done with Hussein disposed of him and ruined Iraq.

        I’m sorry Ariadna but perhaps Lesse is the one here who should rethink his rhetoric.

  18. Lasse Wilhelmson January 3, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

    DB, do you read my inner thoughts? Why r u so eager to put me in a “box” that suits u own thinking? Do u want me to put u in another “box”? If so, I must make u dissepointed, I am not going to.

    1. My article on “democrazy” was a try to deconstruct this concept that everybody use in their own way. I am sorry if it was not god enought. The contenta of it is that there r many different rouling systems that in praxis may be good or bad for “peoples power”.

    2. Did I smear Iran? I wrote earlier what I support and what I critizise. But I admire Iran as a nation in many ways.

    3. It could be desputed to what extent the beginning of the uproars in the Arab spring were genunie or orchestrad by Zionism, but I think, so far, it is quite clear that they were taken over, in different ways, by USrael, Nato et alt. Do I have to say I am opposed to that? And we have not seen the end yet.

    4. Did I “stain” those u name as “Zionists”? Come on DB, its all in u own eyes.

    5. Now when u specify what u mean by “supporting a regim”, I can see that u mean something similar to what I tried to say, even if we do not make exactly the same conclusions.

    6. I think that my experiances from the vietnam movement in Sweden, I described earlier, is worth a thought …

    With this I will finnish the discussion with u DB, and thanks for u comments.

  19. Deadbeat January 5, 2013 at 5:32 am #

    DB, do you read my inner thoughts? Why r u so eager to put me in a “box” that suits u own thinking? Do u want me to put u in another “box”? If so, I must make u dissepointed, I am not going to.

    I didn’t “read” your inner thoughts nor put you in any “box”. I only FIRMLY critiqued what you wrote.

    1. My article on “democrazy” was a try to deconstruct this concept that everybody use in their own way. I am sorry if it was not god enought. The contenta of it is that there r many different rouling systems that in praxis may be good or bad for “peoples power”.

    So why suggest that the Arabs need “Democracy” when for 40 years a workable form existed in Libya. The West could take a page out of the Green Book.

    2. Did I smear Iran? I wrote earlier what I support and what I critizise. But I admire Iran as a nation in many ways.

    So why are you even equating Iran to Zionism? This is the second time that you’ve equated Zionism to the regimes that are standing against it. Like I stated before this is kind of rhetoric you’d see from the “Progressives”.

    3. It could be desputed to what extent the beginning of the uproars in the Arab spring were genunie or orchestrad by Zionism, but I think, so far, it is quite clear that they were taken over, in different ways, by USrael, Nato et alt. Do I have to say I am opposed to that? And we have not seen the end yet.

    Here’s what you wrote in your article …

    [The Uprisings in the Arab World] is about freedom and human dignity and doing away with oppression, corruption and insensitive leaders, especially those who are puppets of Anglo-American imperialism and its Zionist masters.

    Apparently you wrote that with CERTAINTY that the uprising are for freedom and human dignity rather than for subversion and Zionist advancement. Your response now is more in line with doubt regarding the nature of the uprising. What we do know is that Qaddafi is dead and the Libyan Jamahiriya destroyed while the Left aligned themselves with Zionists cheering on the “uprising”.

    What we do know is that Syria is in a life and death struggle against “rebel” forces standing up against International Jewry and the REGIME who has been in the front line protecting Syria for 40-some years deserve our FULL support and not some muddle and wishy-washy stance.

    4. Did I “stain” those u name as “Zionists”? Come on DB, its all in u own eyes.

    No you “stained” those who are RESISTING Zionism by equating them to Zionism. Unfortunately that is in your text which is why I reply within the context of your commentary.

    5. Now when u specify what u mean by “supporting a regim”, I can see that u mean something similar to what I tried to say, even if we do not make exactly the same conclusions.

    When I support a regime standing against International Jewry I certainly won’t equate them to Zionism.

    6. I think that my experiances from the vietnam movement in Sweden, I described earlier, is worth a thought

    Kudos to you for taking the proper stance against the Vietnam War. I hope you didn’t equate those Vietnam resisters and the North Vietnamese regime to Zionism.

Leave a Reply