By Richard Edmondson
Caroline Glick is an editor at the Jerusalem Post. In the talk above, she seems to have forgotten who is occupying whom. Glick obviously believes it is Palestinians who are discriminating against Jews, rather than the other way around.
“What they (Palestinians) are saying essentially is that Jews should not be allowed to live there just because they are Jews.”
Glick tries to advance an argument that Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace, that the real problem is Palestinian racism, and she alleges that a Palestinian state in “Judea and Smaria” would be so “inherently bigoted” that Jews wouldn’t even be “allowed to live there.” She further claims that dismantling the illegal settlements that have been built would be tantamount to “ethnic cleansing.”
Are Palestinians calling for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews? I have never heard any Palestinian official issue such a call, but Glick is repeating a talking point that has been made by other Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is not simply a case of twisting the truth; it is standing reality on its head.
Three questions here should be asked:
- Does a sovereign state have the right to deport aliens who have entered the country illegally?
- Should sovereign states have the right to set immigration policies based upon concerns about national security and public safety?
- Should a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, were one to be established, have the right to expel settlers who have carried out, for instance, arson attacks on Palestinian homes, or poisoned Palestinian livestock, or destroyed olive trees?
The answer to all three of these questions is yes. But this is not the same as saying “No Jews allowed.” To the contrary, were Jews who have demonstrated their good will, and there are a number of these, a few of them quite prominent and whose names come readily to mind–were Jews such as these to apply for residence permits or even citizenship in the new Palestinian state, would they be turned down? The answer almost surely is no. But in Glick’s view “this is a racket.” She goes on:
Jews don’t have civil rights. We’re not allowed to live wherever we have property rights to build–just because we’re Jewish? And this is a moral argument? This is a reasonable argument? This is establishing what, exactly? Ethnic purity? This is where we’ve come to?
But wait–is it not Israel which demands to be recognized as a “Jewish and democratic state”?
Recently Stuart Littlewood published a commentary on a publication put out by a pro-Israel advocacy group called The Israel Project. The publication is a 116 page booklet entitled “Global Language Dictionary,” a document intended as a “guide to visionary leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel,” as an official with The Israel Project describes it.
Basically you could think of this as a manual designed to teach people how to stand reality on its head. Littlewood’s commentary on the Global Language Dictionary can be found here. The full PDF is here. Included is a whole chapter devoted to settlements. The following, described as “the best settlement argument,” provides the opener for the chapter:
“If we are to have real peace, then Israelis and Palestinians will have to live side by side. The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can’t be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don’t say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizen (sic) of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don’t accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable.”
You’ll notice that the future state of Palestine is referred to not as a country or nation, but as a “Palestinian area,” and that the passage fails to take into account any Jewish responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages that occurred in 1948, or for the near 70 years of home demolitions and denial of building permits that have occurred since. Moreover, the idea that Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy “equal rights”–as this “best argument” does claim–is preposterous to say the least. The chapter goes on:
The settlements are the single toughest issue for Israel and the hostility towards them and towards Israeli policy that appears to encourage settlement activity is clearly evident. Unless and until Israeli government policy changes, here’s the best communication approach:
The document then proceeds to list four talking points, followed by tips on how to obfuscate the whole issue with such irrelevant declarations as:
“Peace is not just about settlements. It’s about jobs, prosperity, and hope for all sides of the conflict–for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Every Palestinian child deserves a better future, and so does every Israeli child. If we can agree on that, and stop doing those things that hurt our children, we can start on the road to mutual understanding and mutual respect.”
And if you’ve any doubts this manual for standing reality on its head was written as a guide for fooling Americans especially, then consider that it also advises readers to:
Emphasize solutions wherein nobody has to leave their own homes. Americans are far more favorable towards solutions that are “just a redrawing of borders on the map” and do not require anyone–Israeli or Palestinian alike–to leave their own homes, businesses, and communities. Again–mutuality and the right to live in your home are the key themes to weave in.
Basically, the whole approach comes down to a simple tactic: accuse the Palestinians of being racists while portraying Israeli Jews as the very embodiment of liberal tolerance. And this in effect is the approach Glick takes in the video above. Glick, of course, is Jewish, and the Jerusalem Post, where she works, is one of the most prominent newspapers in Israel. In other words, she is a Jew who holds a high-ranking position in a major media outlet (albeit in Israel).
A couple of days ago I put up a post that included the following graphic:
One picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and the artwork provides a perfect illustration of how the western mainstream media basically stand reality on its head. In addition to the Palestine-Israel conflict, other areas in which mainstream media news organizations are hard at work inverting truth into its mirror opposite include:
- Syria, where a democratically elected president is depicted as a dictator and where terrorist, head-chopping cannibals are rendered as “moderate rebels” deserving of Western support;
- Russia–accused of “aggression” even as NATO builds bases and holds war game exercises on its borders;
- Ukraine, a country portrayed as a peace-loving democracy but which in reality is ruled by a US-installed puppet government that has been rejected by a sizeable portion of the population–ethnic Russians who have broken away and established a de facto independent state in the country’s eastern region
So far as I’m aware, “Global Language Dictionaries” have not been published in these other areas, but the pattern of “reality reversal” is the same. Reporting on 9/11 has also followed the same pattern, with the “terror attack” vs. “false flag attack” dichotomy serving as the antipodal opposites, and in this case the equivalent of a “Global Language Dictionary” has been published–in the form of the official 9/11 report. The most obvious tip-off that the media are engaged in willful deception on 9/11 is the stubborn and persistent refusal to report the overwhelming body of evidence assembled by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth pointing to controlled demolition as the cause of the collapse of Building 7, but were the media to report even a sliver of this information it would cause the whole house of cards to fall.
So here we have a small group of people who together enjoy the vast majority of ownership and/or executive control of the mainstream media, now engaged, in almost perfect sync with each other, in a number of deceptions so utter and absolute that the truth in each case is almost literally inverted.
Never before in history has one group of people exercised such power.
So what can be said of such people? Well, a starting point might be their “singularity.” That at least is the word used in a book review, here, published by Daniel Lazare, a liberal Jewish writer whose articles have appeared in The Nation.
“Eventually, nearly every discussion of the Jews, pro or con, sympathetic or hostile, gets around to their alleged singularity,” Lazare writes in an article which poses the question: “Are the Jews Unique?”
Jews, he says, have always been “stubborn, clannish and standoffish, and even when they stopped wearing those funny clothes in the modern era and tried to blend in–especially when they tried to blend in–something about them remained at odds with the larger society.”
The article, as I say, is a book review. The book Lazare is reviewing is The Jewish Century, by Yuri Slezkine, a Russian-American Jew who holds a faculty position at the University of California at Berkeley. Slezkine’s thesis is that the human race is comprised of two different types of people, “Apollonians,” or food producers, and “Mercurians,” who provide a variety of services to the food producers. Comments Lazare by way of his review:
In Greek mythology, Apollo is the god of livestock and agriculture and hence of settled existence in general. Hermes–Mercury to the Romans–is, by contrast, a trickster god who serves as “the patron of rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens,” i.e., less permanent types who prefer to live by their wits. Rather than settling down and blending in, the Mercurians seek the opposite goal: to keep themselves apart by deliberately cultivating strangeness‚ strange customs, strange languages and so on.
In what seems to be an exercise in public relations (perhaps not unlike the Global Language Dictionary), Slezkine argues that the Jews are not the only population group that has played the Mercurian role, and he names others, including the Koli such’ok people of medieval Korea along with a number of tribal groups in northern Africa, who have played similar roles–but of course none of these peoples presently find themselves perched at the pinnacle of world power.
So in evaluating Glick’s comments in the video above, along with similar speeches and commentaries by other Zionist speakers, should we perhaps keep in mind the “trickster” and “Mercurian” tendencies which may be at play?
Back in December I wrote and posted an article entitled “Light and Darkness,” which included a commentary on the following passage from the first epistle of John:
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
Modern day scholars, as I noted in the article, have argued that the “antichhrists” John referred to were the Gnostics, but the early Gnostics–as I also noted–held a reverence for Christ, and I argued that the reference in reality is to Jews–specifically Jewish Christians who, at the end of the first century, abandoned the faith and returned to Judaism. This is what John means by “they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.”
Jewish Christians were persecuted (by other Jews), thrown out of the synagogue, and following the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, the intensity of these persecutions increased. The “Mercurians” apparently wanted nothing to do with any teaching about loving one another or seeing all peoples as fellow children of God.
In the video above, Glick seems well aware that the settlements are “the single toughest issue for Israel,” and she lays the blame for the turbulent situation on the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Iraqis, Syrians, the British–everybody pretty much is at fault…except of course for the Jews.
And so we find ourselves in a world of inverted realities–where Palestinians who have had their lands stolen are the “racists” and Jewish settlers who believe that “one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” are absolved of blame; where Russia is an “aggressor”; where terrorists are “moderates”; where light becomes darkness and where darkness is celebrated.