Zionism=Nazism-The Great Lie

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk

This essay first appeared on Grizzly Groundswell



Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels
He would be proud.


The opponents of Israel has been pushing the idea that Israel is taking on the characteristics of the Nazis as they fight to defend themselves. In actuality, Israel's enemies don't really recognize Israel's right of self-defense since they regard her as an illegitimate state. The charge of Nazism by Israel/Zionists is not a new one, but it is being used with greater frequency in the light of recent fighting between the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the terrorist groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and Hamas in Gaza at the turn of the year 2008-2009. The idea of comparing Israel to Nazism is absurd on its face.

Much of the accusation is based on charges that in both of the above conflicts, Israel deliberately targeted civilians for death and, in effect, is attempting to commit genocide against the Palestinian people-a charge ridiculous in itself. It is true that civilians died in both conflicts. Civilian casualties in war are eventually inevitable. In Israel's case, they went to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties even as both Hezbollah and Hamas used the tactic of fighting from behind human shields in apartment complexes, schools and hospitals. In effect, they wanted their civilians to die so as to show a willing international media how bad the Israelis were. The media complied-virtually ignoring the causes of both conflicts. In the case of the Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon, it was a result of Hezbollah ambushing and kidnapping two soldiers from across the border. (After the fighting, those soldiers bodies were returned, dead, of course and showing signs of severe torture). In the case of Gaza, it was in response to hundreds of rockets being launched into southern Israel, many of which landed in schoolyards. During the resultant conflicts, the international media paid scant attention to the above as well as Hezbollah rockets lobbed into Haifa in 2006 forcing that city's residents into bomb shelters.

It is also conveniently ignored that in both conflicts, Israel dropped millions of leaflets warning residents in certain areas to clear out. In addition, automatic phone calls were made to residents giving them the same warnings. Contrary to Hamas' propaganda, the Israeli allowed outside humanitarian aid into Gaza during the conflict.

The Nazis never did those things. To be honest, neither did the Allies in World War II. German and Japanese cities were leveled knowing that tens of thousands of civilians would be killed. We were in effect, trying to destroy the will of the Japanese and German people to continue the war. I myself have visited Hiroshima, and it is a profoundly moving experience. This does not mean that I am condemning what we did in World War II. We were fighting for our very survival against two evil regimes that were committing horrible atrocities in the lands they had conquered and occupied.

But back to the comparison between Nazis and Israelis/Zionists. Some questions are in order.

Are the Israelis persecuting their Arab minority living within Israel proper-as the Nazis did to the Jews? No. Arabs/Muslims in Israel enjoy more freedom that they would in any of the neighboring Arab dictatorships. Have Israeli Arabs ever had to wear distinctive clothing in Israel marking them as Muslims or non-Jews?

Has there ever been an Israeli version of Kristalnacht against Arabs or Muslim in Israel? No.

Kristalnacht-November 1938-burning of synagogue in Michelsberg.

In contrast, ask yourself whatever happened to the centuries-old Jewish communities in Arab lands after 1948. The fact is that they were driven out. Today, only a few thousand remain here and there. Yemen's last remaining Jews are trying to get out of that country-where they had lived for centuries- as fast as they can due to persecution.

Do Israeli newspapers and magazines contain perverted images of Arabs or Muslims similar to Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer of the Nazi era? No-but neighboring mainstream newspapers in the Arab world still portray Jews in cartoons similar to Steicher's anti-Semitic images. Here are just a few examples:

Nazi newspaper "Der Stuermer"-headline reads, "Jewish murder plan against non-Jewish humanity uncovered."



The Jewish Blood Libel
Web site of the Arab European League, February 2, 2006





Al-Watan (Oman)
February 3, 2004


There are hundreds more like these that are regularly printed in the Arab media. They are readily available on the Internet. Have you ever heard about Jews rioting over these cartoons?

Who are the real Nazis?

Did the Nazis allow Jews to continue in the Reichstag? Or the universities? The answer is no. Are the Israelis excluding Arabs from teaching or engaging in politics? No. Are the Israelis forcibly taking over Arab businesses and giving them to Israelis? No. Are the Israelis burning down mosques in Israel? No.

Is there anything in Israel comparable to the so-called Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which formally encoded the Jews' status as second class citizens? No. Israel is a democracy, where the rights of minorities are protected-unlike its neighbors, none of whom are democracies.

Do the Israelis punish their citizens for marrying across ethnic or religious lines? No-but Muslims do-they forbid a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim. The penalty is death. That may not be encoded in the legal code of any Muslim nation, but it is part and parcel of Islam. In contrast, Jewish women intermarry all the time.

Eisenach 1940-The sign says, "I am a race-defiler"



Aryan woman and Jewish man in Nazi Germany (same wording on sign)



Other than retaliating or trying to stop armed aggression against them from their neighbors, what countries has Israel invaded and occupied as did Germany, which took over almost all of Europe? True, they have gone into Lebanon in an attempt to defeat those who were at war with them and trying to deny their right to exist, but there is no Israeli desire to make Lebanon part of Israel. Had not Syria, Jordan and Egypt not attempted to destroy Israel in 1967, they would not have lost the Golan Hts, West Bank and the Sinai, which Israel occupied as buffer zones. Can anyone seriously suspect that Israel wants to take over Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and all the other nations of the Middle East? Along those lines, did Nazi Germany ever negotiate peace treaties with any neighboring countries by which they gave up disputed land? No.


Had the Arab world accepted the 1948 UN decision to partition the Palestine area into two states, which Israel accepted, probably none of this conflict would have resulted. The Arab world rejected it and immediately went to war-and lost. The hatred coming from that humiliation has existed ever since.

The fact is that Israel is simply trying to exist as an independent Jewish state-where minority religions are tolerated to this day. Instead, they are faced with a hostile Arab world which refuses to allow the presence of a non-Muslim nation the size of New Jersey to exist in its midst-notwithstanding the historical existence of the three major religions in the Holy Land.

Let's compare the start of World War II with the wars that Israel has engaged in. In 1939, after taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler manufactured a hoax to justify his invasion of Poland. A group of operatives were sent to the German-Polish border- a place called Gleiwitz, where they "stormed" a German radio site, left a few bodies behind in Polish uniforms (actually concentration camp prisoners) and made a fake broadcast. That led to the invasion of Poland which Hitler described as a self defense response. In contrast, Israel's wars against its neighbors have truly been in self defense including the last two incursions into Lebanon and Gaza. Unlike Gleiwitz, Israel had two soldiers truly kidnapped at the Israel-Lebanon border-who were eventually tortured and killed, and in the case of Gaza, Israel was legitimately responding to hundreds of rockets being launched from Gaza by Hamas-a terrorist organization which in its own charter, rejects any negotiation and calls for the destruction of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state. Yet American apologists like the discredited ex-professor Norman Finklestein, himself of Jewish heritage, propagate the lie to university audiences that Israel invaded Gaza because Hamas was becoming "too moderate" and "a real partner for peace". (He said that in my presence at UC-Irvine in January 2009.)


Much more importantly, have the Israelis set up death camps, where their enemies or non-Jews-specifically Muslims-have been systematically exterminated? No. Yet, their enemies charge them with "genocide". Why does not the world cry out over the Hama massacre in Syria in 1982 when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama while fighting elements of the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in an estimate of anywhere from 7-40,000 deaths? Where is the world's memory of the Black September massacre when Jordan expelled or killed thousands of Palestinians?

Do Jews in synagogues call out for "death to Muslims" or anyone else? No. Is Israel trying to exterminate the Arab/Muslim race? Of course not; it would be impossible to begin with.

One of the most disgusting aspects of the anti-Israel campaign is the insistence of many-especially in the Arab world- that the Holocaust never happened-or was greatly exaggerated. In a region where Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is still a best seller, as well as the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", many leaders are engaging in this ultimate of canards. They ignore the historical evidence of an era that is more well-documented than virtually any other. They ignore the images of the death camps once they were liberated. They ignore the testimony of the Nuremberg trials. They even ignore the confessions of the commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, who actually wrote his memoirs describing what happened as he was awaiting his execution in Poland after the war. Even a national leader, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to this mad idea as he and so many others plan their own "final solution" to the Jewish problem.

This is the real Holocaust. This is what real Nazis did.




This is what the Allies discovered when they conquered Germany






Who are the real Nazis of today?

Speaking of Nazis, it should be pointed out that during the war years, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was Hitler's guest in Berlin, from where he made anti-Semitic broadcasts to the Middle East urging his listeners to purge and drive out the Jews. More importantly, he even helped organize a Muslim SS Division in Bosnia, which made their own contributions to the Final Solution in that region.

Hitler and his ally, al-Husseini in Berlin

Who are the real Nazis?
The charge of Nazism and genocide is not one to be made lightly. To charge the survivors of the Holocaust is unconscionable. Yet, that is what Israel's enemies
do and successfully at that. They have convinced many in the Western World that Israel is no better than Nazi Germany; thus, they argue it does not deserve to exist. No doubt there are many in the West who will accept these lies. After all, so many in Europe are intimidated by an aggressive and radical Muslim immigrant presence, and after all, we need that Arab oil, don't we? So why not accept the lie that Israel is just another evil nation that should be eliminated so we can all live in peace? What naivete.

A more accurate argument would be that Israel is the lone democracy surrounded by Nazis.

Read more...

The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism

The question is raised: Is there a place for social conservatism in a conservative political movement? While it seems that many (informal personal polling) take the question seriously, and most often say yes – the more the merrier – there's influence in numbers – a few shrug it off as part of a vast left-wing media conspiracy to spit the coalescing conservative movement. Ignoring the question won't answer it and could easily weaken conservative influence before 2012.

The fiscal conservatives of the T.E.A. Party tend to insist that neither political conservatism nor social issues matter. T.E.A. is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already,” and despite a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power expressed among its mass of participants, founders and organizers press to limit their scope to purely fiscal concerns. This they assert, is the big enchilada, large tent conservatism that is needed. Money is the root of all political evil and keeping taxation and spending under control is the final solution.

The political conservatives in the bunch (the old-fashioned Constitution thumping classic political liberals – or in ObamaSpeak: “domestic terrorists”) can very well ask; Haven't we been down this road before? Isn't “liberal tax and spend” verses the “conservative” lesser of two evils a bit too reminiscent of “business as usual”; the usual business that got us into the great mess we're in today? This is a crowd worth considering. Their independent-mindedness stems from a love of country that far outweighs party loyalty. Many of them would gladly support a third party or not vote in protest in a continuing effort to break the old business as usual cycle. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen or more times and I might have to vote differently!

Real tension has been building around the divisions of varying conservative identities for decades. The great emergencies for Democrats today are nationalized medicine and global warming. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the great emergencies for both parties was that lazy, irresponsible people were weighing down the welfare system. Poor people simply didn't have the right moral character and needed the federal government to step in to “enforce personal responsibility.” (Fathers through the mid- 1990s followed by mothers in the late 1990s.)

To meet the challenge, socially conservative rhetoric was employed to expand the role, power, intrusiveness, size and cost of the welfare establishment and expand welfare entitlements. (That'll teach 'em!) A new era of bipartisanship emerged as both parties focused their zeal on “doing something” at the federal level; completely abandoning any thought of states' rights, privacy, and Constitutional limits to government. To be fair, it wasn't just poor people who needed forceful moral guidance from the new army of bureaucrat crusaders. For the first time in American history, the reach of the “welfare state” was expanded beyond its traditional boundaries (those in need) and into the general population. Fundamental changes in the relationship between government and the people went unnoticed by the mass media and through the 1990s, great battles ensued between the parties over repackaging and taking credit for reforms.

Social conservatism had become the perfect compliment to social liberalism in American politics and fiscally conservative rhetoric the perfect wood from which to build the bridge. Every expansion of government, along with its fancy price-tag was justified because in “theory” it would save tax-payers money. Poverty was a result of poor moral foundation and Bigger Government could fix that. Of course, it didn't work out according to the theory – something many “skeptics” concretely predicted on the basis of observable facts and figures. The media beating those skeptics received make the global warming debate seem quite civilized in comparison. Critics were considered enemies by both partisan camps, and what a filthy beneath human scum type you were to oppose Big Brother this time – right down there with the immoral, low-life deadbeats moral reformers aimed at reforming.

When the facts supporting the morally fiscal “theory” were proven false by their own history, it didn't matter. It's the principle that counts. But like the fiscally conservative theory that yielded unnecessarily higher costs, the adjoining socially conservative “family values” theory yielded an opposite as well – the legal destruction of marriage.

Pushing social issues onto the federal agenda is always a bad idea. The Constitution does not include social issues in federal jurisdiction. It is structured for for the exercise of different types of power and particular treatments by courts for issues that at federal, state, and personal levels. Allowing federal take-overs of state (and private) issues is a formula for destruction. Everything becomes arbitrarily politically defined and manipulated. In the case of marriage, this is exactly what the unmitigated social / fiscal conservative perspective delivered.

Marriage was, legally, a sacred, protected private institution. Under the cover of welfare reform, it was legally destroyed through successive unconstitutional intrusions into marriage and family law. The institution of marriage was transformed (legally) into a politically defined element of a federal welfare program; and generally redefined as a public rather than a private issue. Once this was accomplished, its protected status disappeared and courts began ruling on it as they would any other aspect of government programs.

Republicans blamed the destruction of marriage on "activist judges," but the real problem with judicial activism was that judges had not been active enough in fulfilling their oaths to protect the Constitution by protecting the American people against the intrusion. Applying "equal protection," courts extended the new social policy entitlement of marriage to same-sex couples. This was not an extension of a civil right to traditional marriage. In a legal sense, traditional marriage no longer existed. The overall effect was to deny the legal status of traditional marriage to everyone.

You can call me a skeptic when it comes to solutions formulated by the same minds that created the problem, or in this case a similar coalition of self-defined social and fiscal conservatives. The movement to restrict the federal program entitlement of marriage to “a man and a woman” through a US Constitutional amendment collapsed. State initiatives can do little to address the real underlying problem because it was created at the federal level. Now we've moved on to other emergencies – the de facto plan apparently being that we'll all just have to get used to living with another big mess. If the same minds get together to tackle Cap-n-Trade, health care reform, and government take-over of the economy, the mess will just get bigger.

A serious conservative revolution cannot be designed from a formula for a return to business as usual. Merely using different rhetoric to expand government and increase its arbitrary use of power is not sufficient to define a philosophical difference from the political left. The genuine grass-roots conservative movement is defined by the mass of participants who have a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power. Without that translating to the expulsion Big Brother from American soil, there is little reason to suspect that conservative unity will be maintained for long; nor would the movement have any appreciable effect if it did. We really need a return to Constitutional rule to limit the destructive power of government; and that requires (by definition really) a conservative movement that meets in a politically conservative tent.

Related articles:

Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?

How America was Destroyed – The Rise of Big Lie Politics

Tea Party March Hijacked at the Podium

McCain Palin Losing the Gender Gap War

American Politics: We are on a Dangerous Precipice

Why John McCain is Losing

GOP Platform 2008 on Preservation of Marriage

Read more...

The Rise of Despotism in America

After reading an article like this, it makes me weep for my country and the rule of our Constitution:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure. 

It is beyond my comprehension that something as preposterous as this tactic is being considered for something as big as the health care debate. 

This is now the rise of despotism in America. We have moved way beyond the idea of electing representatives to vote on our behalf, and into a world of totalitarian government.

When does this end....and when is the R3VOLTUION!


"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Read more...