The language that absolves Israel

A special political vocabulary prevents us from being able to recognize what's going on in the Middle East.

On Sunday night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech that -- by categorically ruling out the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state -- ought to have been seen as a mortal blow to the quest for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday morning, however, newspaper headlines across the United States announced that Netanyahu had endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, and the White House welcomed the speech as "an important step forward."

Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.

In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories -- and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.

The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country.

Let me give a classic example.

In the U.S., discussion of Palestinian politicians and political movements often relies on a spectrum running from "extreme" to "moderate." The latter sounds appealing; the former clearly applies to those who must be -- must they not? -- beyond the pale. But hardly anyone relying on such terms pauses to ask what they mean. According to whose standard are these manifestly subjective labels assigned?

Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are labeled according to an altogether different standard: They are "doves" or "hawks." Unlike the terms reserved for Palestinians, there's nothing inherently negative about either of those avian terms.

So why is no Palestinian leader referred to here as a "hawk"? Why are Israeli politicians rarely labeled "extremists"? Or, for that matter, "militants"?

There are countless other examples of these linguistic double standards. American media outlets routinely use the deracinating and deliberately obfuscating term "Israeli Arabs" to refer to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite the fact that they call themselves -- and are -- Palestinian.

Similarly, Israeli housing units built in the occupied territories in contravention of international law are always called "settlements" or even "neighborhoods" rather than what they are: "colonies." That word may be harsh on the ears, but it's far more accurate ("a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state").

These subtle distinctions make a huge difference. Unconsciously absorbed, such terms frame the way people and events are viewed. When it comes to Israel, we seem to reach for a dictionary that applies to no one else, to give a pass to actions or statements that would be condemned in any other quarter.

That's what allowed Netanyahu to be congratulated for endorsing a Palestinian "state," even though the kind of entity he said Palestinians might -- possibly -- be allowed to have would be nothing of the kind.

Look up the word "state" in the dictionary. You'll probably see references to territorial integrity, power and sovereignty. The entity that Netanyahu was talking about on Sunday would lack all of those constitutive features. A "state" without a defined territory that is not allowed to control its own borders or airspace and cannot enter into treaties with other states is not a state, any more than an apple is an orange or a car an airplane. So how can leading American newspapers say "Israeli Premier Backs State for Palestinians," as the New York Times had it? Or "Netanyahu relents on goal of two states," as this paper put it?

Because a different vocabulary applies.

Which is also what kept Netanyahu's most extraordinary demand in Sunday night's speech from raising eyebrows here.

"The truth," he said, "is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians."

In other words, as Netanyahu repeatedly said, there is a Jewish people; it has a homeland and hence a state. As for the Palestinians, they are a collection -- not even a group -- of trespassers on Jewish land. Netanyahu, of course, dismisses the fact that they have a centuries-old competing narrative of home attached to the same land, a narrative worthy of recognition by Israel.

On the contrary: The Palestinians must, he said, accept that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (this is a relatively new Israeli demand, incidentally), and they must do so on the understanding that they are not entitled to the same rights. "We" are a people, Netanyahu was saying; "they" are merely a "population." "We" have a right to a state -- a real state. "They" do not.

And the spokesman for our African American president calls this "an important step forward"?

In any other situation -- including our own country -- such a brutally naked contrast between those who are taken to have inherent rights and those who do not would immediately be labeled as racist. Netanyahu, though, is given a pass, not because most Americans would knowingly endorse racism but because, in this case, a special political vocabulary kicks in that prevents them from being able to recognize it for exactly what it is.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. He is the author of, among other books, "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation."

Source: The Los Angeles Times

Canadian Jewish Congress Once Again Caught Creating Events In Order To Achieve Their Ends

A Jewish-Canadian author is in a battle of words with the Canadian Jewish Congress after alleging the organization props up neo-nazi groups to get “hate crime” legislation passed and expand the role of the country’s Human Rights Commission.

Neo-conservative author Ezra Levant claims in his latest book, Shakedown, that the Canadian Jewish Congress hired ex-cop John Garrity to work for the Canadian Nazi Party in the 1960’s. In 1965 and 1966, Garrity was put in charge of membership for the group and organized the dozen or so “rag-tag band of losers” into an outfit that garned a lot of press coverage.

That media attention was used by the CJC to build up a precieved public threat that persuaded Parliament to abridge Canada’s freedom of speech, Levant contends. The CJC, which had been advocating restrictions on free speech in Canada since the 1930’s, used the Nazi Party’s publicity to successfully lobby for the 1971 “hate law” (Section 319 of the Criminal Code). The end result was the enactment of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which “empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.”

Levant’s claim has been floating around for some time now. Garrity came clean in a 1966 article for Maclean’s magazine, admitting that he handed member and donor information over over to the CJC; however, he did not say his final goal was to curtail free speech in Canada.

Garrity did admit that the Canadian Nazi Party did not conspire to or implement any violent or illegal activities. In fact, any violence Garrity saw was done by Jewish and anti-racist vigilantes. “Sadly, it is the [....] anti-Nazi extremists who, in their attempts to destroy Beattie, provide him with most of the publicity he craves. If it weren’t for the riots and the assaults and the public protest meetings they hold, there’d be no real news,” Garrity wrote in his article.

Back in November 2000, former Canadian Nazi Party leader John Beattie was scheduled to testify at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that he was a “dupe and a patsy” for the CJC. He was also going to explain how an agent from the CJC (presumably Garrity) “proposed legal maneuvers [sic] that were calculated to frighten and cause distress among Jews.” However, Beattie never testified, a point many have speculated upon.

Levant then contends that some twenty years after the collapse of the Canadian Nazi Party, Canada’s spy agency infiltrated another neo-nazi group, The Heritage Front. CSIS agent Grant Bristow wound up running the now-defunct group, using Canadian tax dollars to foment more hysteria that got Section 13 to expand even further.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission also actively engages in “hate speech” in order to catch and prosecute people for “hate speech,” Levant contends. The biggest offender of such a practice is former CHRC staffer Richard Warman, who has been the complainant in all but two cases heard by the CHRC tribunal this decade. In addition to making tens of thousands of dollars, the CJC bestowed Warman with a special award for his efforts.

The tables were stunningly turned on Warman last month, after the CHRC rebuked Warman for his anti-Semitic postings the White Nationalist website Stormfront.org. Warman defended himself by saying his posts that “Jews are scum” was an attempt to gather information on real Nazis, but the tribunal called his actions “disappointing and disturbing,” and ruled that he risked encouraging

more hateful messages himself.

“Warman’s actions appalled the tribunal, but apparently not the CJC,” says Levant. “Just as the CJC did with Garrity, Nazi opponents continue to stir up neo-Nazi incidents — as if there aren’t enough real threats to Jews as it is.”

Current CJC co-president, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, has dissmissed Levant’s allegations as “fiction” and that all the group did for the Nazis was “to purchase a bottle of rum” for them. Rabbi Bulka wants a retraction to the allegations published in a second printing of Levant’s book.

Source: The Right perspective

No one is aware the propaganda machine is on

We are blind to what is truly going on in the world, it is an unexplained mystery. After all that has happened in the last decade, how will politicians, religious leaders and financial institutions ever to regain our trust? The answer is simple, they don't have to. From the point of view of the masses, after the propaganda machine went on, they never lost our trust. We are blissfully unaware of what truly happened since we only read and watch the mass media.

None of them lied to us, none of them worked for their own interests, all is well in the best world there is, and salvation is just around the corner. Trust me, I know what to do, things will be much better afterwards. Trust me, you don't need to know anything about it. Although this is all done in secret, I'm working toward solving all humanity's problems. Here is the truth, or at least a distorted version of it.

Will we ever learn how bad things are? How close countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are to declare bankruptcy? I don't think so. We will learn about it when it happens, not even the day before. As to how this was made possible, it is unlikely the general population will ever know. After all, is it important that they should know? No one should be held accountable anyway, no one will at any rate. So let's just forget it, let's just bury everything. I think Madonna is trying to adopt another African baby.

If there is one thing every single kid learns early on, it is not to trust anyone. We learn very quickly that this world is filled with deception, as if lying was second nature to everyone on this planet. I'm sure there are some religions out there preaching of always telling the truth, but as more religious leaders are caught lying and promoting hate against even the teachings of their own religion, you might wish to think twice before trusting anyone.

In politics it is as bad, that no politician could ever survive by telling the truth, no matter the justifications and how nicely it could be presented. And about financial institutions, do I need to say more? Make a quick buck now, forget the consequences on the international financial markets in the long term, and suffer for an eternity afterwards.

Your parents will lie to you on a daily basis, most likely when you are young, so they can escape all sorts of traps and embarrassment. Just look at how Madonna justified to her kid Lourdes that kiss to Britney Spears. It was all about passing up energy. Why not tell your children the truth? Mummy is not a lesbian darling, it was just a marketing stunt. And it worked wonders, since it shocked the world. My God, this world is so easily shocked.

The truth is, no one was shocked by that kiss, we all understood what it meant, more marketing gimmick. Only a few journalists appeared to have been shocked by a kiss between two great pop stars. Those journalists are not allowed to report real news, so they report how shock we are supposed to be by anything unimportant, whilst none of us are shocked by anything these days. I wish we could all be shocked by what happened in the last decade, and maybe we are despite the appearances.

It is like at the height of the Russian propaganda machine, when those poor Russians were lied to by their government on a daily basis. At least then, none of them believed it, none of them were fooled. The government then did not try to hide the truth, they just expected you to hear the lies and shut up, or suffer the consequences.

In America it is quite different, as we will not believe that this is propaganda, we believe it is the truth. I tested it many times at work with the lightest conspiracy theories you could find, the most believable ones as they are mostly all proven already, and everyone thought I was a lunatic.

Of course, George W. Bush was such a great President, perhaps the best we ever had. And those religious leaders, what they are stating is so perfect for us, women need to go back to being home makers, serve their husbands and have babies, whilst gay people should be shot where they stand.

Teachers, managers, bosses, the prosecution and police officers in Court, none of them will tell you the truth straight, they will lie to safeguard themselves until it is proven that you are the one who's been lying all along for most of your life. Lying is definitely a law of human nature.

Even animals lie. Apparently the more intelligent they are, the more likely they are to do so. The less elaborate the language, the more they will use subterfuge instead, bluffing and deception. It has to be said that these are instincts link to survival, to avoid punishment, embarrassment or losing everything. So should it be forgiven that we are all liars and deceivers? It could very well explain why humans are today at the top of the food chain in the animal kingdom. We are what we are.

At the very least we need to be made fully aware of it, so we can protect ourselves. So many still think they live in such a perfect world where everyone is working so hard to make it all so much better for the rest of humanity. I could puke just about now. I have read enough on the independent news websites to be aware of what has really gone on this last decade, even this last year alone is quite something no one in their right mind could forgive.

Trust is not something to be taken lightly, as I find it almost unthinkable that you could trust anyone on this planet, perhaps you should not even trust yourself. Isn't that a sad statement? That the truth needs to be hidden at any cost, at every level, and if truth needs be told, then many white lies here and there might make it more acceptable.

What is this thing we all have about lying? What is it that is so frightening about the truth? Some utopian world would first have to eliminate all lies from its ranks, so trust would not be such a hard concept to grasp and accept. Unless of course we were already living in a corrupt world.

The saddest part about trust is when you reach the point where when reading a newspaper or watching the news on TV, you feel it is all false, that someone somewhere is manipulating everything and feed spoon you the most unconceivable things. Whilst you are completely aware of it, worried that the rest of the population might buy it, even brainwash them, or at least condition them. It works most of time. It is crippling me at times, makes me wish I could find out the truth and shout it everywhere, expose it all so everyone will be aware of what everything is really about.

Please, please, please, at the very least stop reading that freely distributed Metro newspaper. It is the first step to get out of your lethargic lifestyle, living unaware of what is truly going on in the world. You should only accept and read news from independent sources, there are plenty all over the Internet freely downloadable to your mobile phone every morning. Enough propaganda, stop the conditioning, get really informed about the real issues this world is dealing with.

Yet, better be aware that the source cannot be trusted, than be blind and gobble it all up. For a long time I was naive enough to believe everything I heard, I trusted everyone and everything. I was never however a weak mind. I do not state any opinion which is not mine in the first place, neither should you.

I have seen that there is a tendency in society to simply adopt the opinions of everyone else as our own, and so from my point of view most of the population is simply weak minded, and this is how lies can be fed so easily and trust gained so quickly. Most are just parrots repeating over and over again all that comes from some unknown and untrustworthy source. You should think and make up your own mind.

I have been called paranoid several times, yet, paranoia serves me well. It stops me from being mindless, from accepting for cash anything I am being told. I feel this world would be a better one if everyone was just a bit more paranoid, or at the very least, aware that what they read and watch on TV might not be all the truth, and so they would not be so trusting and feel that all is right in the world.

There is a whole branch of psychology dealing with deceptions and how to detect them, I think it is not going far enough. I believe they're not reaching out at all, because we have not been prepared to detect lies, question everything that is being served to us, to stop for a second before trusting any bit of information reaching us.

What is the point of psychology if, in the end, it only serves psychologists trying to help problematic individuals on an individual basis, instead of collectively teaching us how to see the world as it really is globally? As soon as something becomes a science, that is it, it is closed to everyone else except the experts of that particular field. So no one understands what public relations mean, whilst PR is all governments are about these days.

Well, I may have a small contribution to make, apart from stating that no one should trust so easily, or consider that everything is the truth until proven otherwise somehow. You need to always have these questions at the back of your mind in all situations:

What is this person telling me? Why is this person telling me this? What does it really mean? What is at the back of his or her mind? What is the real source of that new information? What can I read between the lines? What is the real truth behind all this? Who profits from this? What are their real motivations and the interests at stake? Does it really benefit me, and if so, how? What do I lose compared with what I seem to be gaining? Finally, how should I respond to this?

I believe these simple questions could get you a long way before you go on granting anyone a well deserved trust, as if you cannot find cracks after answering these questions, then that statement or information may be worth taking into account and accept, to a certain extent.

How could you go on with life without constantly re-assessing everything you are being told? You must be a lunatic indeed if you trust everyone implicitly without questioning the motivation of everyone around you, if you believe everything everyone tells you, including the media, the admitted government propaganda machine, and what else.

Trust should never be easily acquired or given. If you can trust someone or a source of information once, never assume you can trust him, her or it twice. And once you think you found the truth, dig deeper, there's probably a second truth underneath the neatly prepared one.

Anyone who appears to be working for your wellbeing, your own interests, stop right there and ask yourself how probable it really is when we all know that most people only work for their own personal interests. It is true for anyone with any kind of authority or power in this world, they care little for you, why should they? If you are honest, you certainly don't care for them or anyone else yourself. It is human nature.

You can only count on yourself for anything in this world. If you believe everyone is up to get you, you are damn right, because everyone is up to get something out of you. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and this expression has never been so true. And if you cannot even trust yourself, where does this leave you then? In a pitiful state indeed.

It is not easy, but if you learn to observe more carefully and ask yourself the right questions, you might trust a bit less quickly and learn to read what is behind it all, what are the true motivations of everyone else around you. And then you will be a little bit less taken advantage of without being aware of it. And then perhaps you can start taking advantage of the people who take advantage of you and who are trying to deceive you on a daily basis.

You will then never read a newspaper or watch the news the same way again. You will learn how to read the truth, you will learn to read between the lines. Just research a bit further, search engines are but one click away.

It may seem like a pessimistic view of the world, nevertheless I believe it is a true account of what this world has become. Too many people are being controlled by others in this world, too many people give much more than they receive in return, too many people are too easily manipulated into believing and doing anything others want them to believe and do. Don't be a victim, start second-guessing everything, and in the process make it harder for anyone to gain your trust.

No one is even aware the propaganda machine is on, we have to turn it off.

***

“Without irony, this life would hardly be worth living.”

Roland Michel Tremblay

Source: What Really Happened.Com