Israel’s Increased Radicalization

Shas's leader - to the untrained eye, what differences visually does he have to an ayatollah or imam?

Israel is always a tough subject for countless reasons.  As soon as you criticize the country you are assumed by many to criticize all Jews, the existence of the Jewish State and that you are pro-Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah and so on.   Why can one not be worried, critical of and upset with the existing political structure and government of Israel?   There is another side, of course, that being the victim status of Jews stemming from the holocaust and the victim status of a country that has been defending itself from day one against its neighbors.

For my part I will make it clear right here and right now.  I support Israel in its right to exist, to defend itself against assault and even to be a homeland for Jews if that is what they wish.   I also support a two-state solution defined under the borders agreed and negotiated via the United Nations under the Oslo Agreement.  I condemn the collective punishment methods used by Israel and most of all I condemn the radicalization that is within the Knesset and linked to the far-right Likud party. This radicalism has infiltrated the military and the result is ugly.

Israel, the Bomb and the world’s most Religious Radical Country

Everyone knows that Israel has a nuclear arsenal, that they stole it and did not develop it, that they are not a member of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that they are not under any scrutiny, inspection regime, checks and other balances.    Unlike Israel, Iran may or may not be trying to build it but are under sanctions and threats for not supporting scrutiny, inspection regimes, checks and other balances.   The argument is that somehow there is a difference, Iran is a belligerent state, dangerous and unpredictable, these arguments somehow implies that Israel is not.    I disagree.

Israel stole the plans for building “the Bomb”, it has consistently told every and any nation (including the United States of America) that it will do what it wants, its own way.  It has breached UN Resolutions on multiple times, mostly to do with its own treatment of lands and peoples it has occupied via force, and it has shown in the past and even presently that it will cross borders, kidnap, kill and attack those whom it thinks is a threat.   In my own country, they attempted to infiltrate their local Likud Representative in The Netherlands, Gidi Markuszower, into membership of the Dutch Parliament.  The Dutch Security Services forced his being removed from the ballot because he was an existing dangerous risk to Dutch national security.   Recently the assassination of a Hamas figure in Dubai has been all but confirmed as being a Mossad hit and again showing no respect for other nations, friendly or not, they used the names and faked passports from a number of countries.  Australia, having four passports abused, chose to expel a diplomat known as the Mossad representative.   In this last day, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have crossed into international territory and attacked a flotilla of aid ships heading to Gaza, that is currently being blockaded by Israel.   International organisations including the United Nations as well as most countries that include the US have considered the blockade as a human rights violation.  Israel may well have had cause to think that arms or terrorists may have been in board that flotilla, but the attack in international waters, the response as well as the embargo are all “flipping the finger” at the rest of the world – they simply will do what want.

Lieberman's pro-Zionist Yisrael Beitenu party is pro-Settler. He hold the Foreign Minister portfolio

They have done so in the past under the assumption that their powerful lobby group and economic influence in the United States will save them from all their enemies if their own efforts fail.    They have relied on the US’s veto more than once.  The Gaza issue was one of the last vetoes that they have received when they attacked the Gaza Strip and to avoid a protracted battle from house to house, chose to use internationally repugnant and illegal weapons, such as white phosphorus.    The Bush US Administration argued but eventually bowed to pressure and showed that morally it had reached its lowest point, perhaps eclipsing even the Nixon era.

Though that blind support for Israel may have dried up with the fresh global approach to international diplomacy by the Obama Administration, why is it that Israel has not slowed down or joined the international community of nations, but in fact appears to have ratcheted-up its radicalism?

One only has to look at the make-up of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament).   The current right-wing coalition that has joined forces with Likud is a mix of radical, ultra-orthodox and ultra-nationalist parties that can only be put on a par with the most ugliness of what Israel says it is defending itself against – Hamas, Hezbollah and radical Islamism in general – such as Iran.

Likud may be a nationalist far-right party, but it is at least a radical mainstream Israeli political entity. 

The current make-up of the Knesset is as follows:

Kadima	28
Likud	27
Yisrael Beiteinu	15
Labor	13
Shas	11
United Torah Judaism1	5
National Union2	4
Hadash	4
United Arab List-Ta’al	4
The Jewish Home	3
New Movement-Meretz	3
Balad	3
Total	120

The coalition that is the current Government is a combination of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Labour, Shas, the Jewish Home and United Torah Judaism.

Yisrael Beitenu is is a nationalist political party in Israel. The party describes itself as “a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky” the founder of Revisionist Zionism.

Shas is primarily representing the Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi Judaism community.

Former deputy Housing Minister Meir Porush's United Torah Judaism party wishes to expand settlements. He does, though want to destroy the nuclear arsenal.

“United Torah Judaism” is an alliance of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel, two Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) political parties.  UTJ is led by Meir Porush who opposes negotiations with the Palestinians and the formation of a Palestinian state.  It wants to maintain a status quo relationship in regard to religion and state issues and supports increasing settlements in disputed territories.

The Jewish Home is right-wing national religious Zionist party formed by a merger of the National Religious Party, Moledet and Tkuma. It is led by Rabbi Professor Daniel Hershkowitz.

The religious Zionist Ahi party, previously part of the National Union alliance, merged into Likud in late December 2008.

If you search the list of non-Coalition parties, you will find all but one are secular based mainstream – that being the opposition party.     The rest are religious based, most pro-Zionism and not very promising towards peace with its neighbors simply because they are pro-settler and expansion of Israel into the Occupied Territories.

Zionism is “political Judaism” and most forms support the God-given Land of Israel that includes what is the West Bank, Hebron, Gaza and all of Jerusalem.   That concept is at conflict with not only the occupants of those lands that were there before the State of Israel but also countless UN Agreements, status of the Palestinian People and the Status of the City of Jerusalem. 

Radical Zionist groups have pushed and increased the number of zealots within the military and as "chaplins". Was this the cause of the brutality condemned in Gaza's recent conflict?

Another effective way of looking at Zionism is that it is the Jewish version of Islamism (political Islam).  In theory the concept may be benign and it works within a totally Jewish environment but is at instant conflict with the non-faithful.  It smacks against Secularism totally and it is the first banner to be taken up by radicals, zealots and terrorists.   If taken-up by the military, which it apparently has in Israel, you have Zionism with a gun, just like Islamism with a gun.  It is ugly.

Extremists in Zionism, such as the settler movement, with complicity from politicians, law enforcement and the military is an unstoppable force – and it has been present in Israel for way too long, much too long.

Remembering this country has also “the Bomb” (100 to 200 according to UN estimates) and people argue to me that Iran should be targeted for sanctions but not Israel – sorry, think again.

Iran is a problem, a danger and yes there should be something done to deal with that country dominated by radical religious philosophies but to do so and not consider and deal with another country that is in fact more susceptible to radical religious ideology and that has an unchecked nuclear arsenal is not only hypocritical but itself massively dangerous.

If the image was of a Muslim, the word terrorst or jihadist would be instantly thrown down, certainly correct in some instances. What is the difference here, religion and conflict is allowed if your not Muslim?

Spencer – Attack is better than logic

Robert Spencer hides "in front of" a US flag

 

Robert Spencer is following the philosophical lines of a radical like a train is forever linked to the track.   The signs are there and I have discussed that before.   Checking-up on how he is going has not changed this at all and we see that he has progressed nicely along that doomed and repugnant track he has chosen. 

Clearly has recently decided that attack is the best method, meaning that the logic of his argument (the classic radical’s “lie”) is under so much threat that contextual abuse, smothering the issue with well-chosen data (with no context linked at all) and further “stories” is not working well and falling flat.  The audience is not as stupid as he first thought, but radicals are obliged to think so. 

In one particular case, he has had a “tiff” with a well credited academic/policy strategist called Suhail A. Khan.   He has in a recent post on his blog “Jihad-Watch” (it is a blog and in the end he is only just another blogger) simply attempted to discredit Khan rather than face the arguments given.  He may claim he has done so but never coughs up the evidence.  In typical Spencer style, he has thrown in some of his half-quotes that have no meaning when out of context and raised the specter of child-abuse claims within the foundations of Islam to grab the audience’s emotions, again showing that he is clutching straws. 

There are other signs coming out more recently from Spencer to point out that he and his self-proclaimed “anti-jihad” campaign has fallen for the final phase of radicalism – the con being recognized for the lie it is.   

The easiest sign is there are no new faces within the inner-circle and increased links with other ugly radical groups that many followers would not support.  Spencer is now firmly linked to the racist British BNP (and their front the EDL), that has been proven through photos and speeches.    Geert Wilders did the same costing him about 8 per cent of his vote and more followers abandoning him.    The small circle of hate is now clearer than ever and shrinking.  

Another clear sign is that the usual triangle of Spencer, FitzGerald and Gellar is no longer active as it was, FitzGerald gets little mention these days and Gellar has tried to distance herself from the term “anti-jihad” and tried re-inventing the same rhetoric under the term “human rights”.   That is a clear sign of radicals becoming more hard-pressed and trying to increase profile but still under the same “lie”.   It is also clear evidence of the radical assumption that the audience is stupid – that they will, like crows, see one colour coming in and another colour coming out and thus assume it is a different animal.   No such luck Pamela, the foul rancid smell is the same.  As an Israeli friend on my street in Rotterdam says, “if it feels like sh*t, smells like sh*t and tastes like sh*t, it is never going to be a rose no matter what paint and perfume you spray it with”. (Thanks Ari). 

S Khan, conservative Muslim and anti-radical ....

 

One other clear sign that things are not going well is when further principles are squashed to follow the radical agenda.   As readers of my blog knows, radicals will give up on their faith, standards and morals to suit that agenda and Spencer has proven that clearly here. 

His attack on Khan shows that all his rhetoric is designed to be seen as far-right and ultra-conservative as possible.  It was just a sham to catch that particular audience.  He knows that xenophobia, bigotry and racism comes more from the far-right and not from the far-left (they have different but equally horrible qualities) and thus he made himself out as the bastion of the ultra-conservative movement.   But as radicals would eventually sell their own mothers for their agenda, he has attacked a leading Conservative think-tank member, endorsed by the previous Bush Administration, someone who does not go out in support for President Obama and linked also to conservative Christian groups.    Spencer, we can assume has not fallen to simple madness and thus has made the decision to start attacking anything “foreign”, to increase his support from the more extreme at the cost of the loss of the strong conservatives whom perhaps he has assumed was catching on to his lack of acceptability. 

Part of Khan’s bio appears as follows, already showing more recognition and respect than Spencer could dream of having: 

He served in the White House Office of Public Liaison assisting in the President’s outreach to various faith communities. Khan also served as Assistant to the Secretary for Policy under U.S. Secretary Mary Peters at the U.S. Department of Transportation. While at the Department of Transportation, Khan was awarded the Secretary’s Team Award in 2005 and the Gold Medal for Outstanding Achievement in 2007.  

Khan serves on the boards of the American Conservative Union, the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Muslim Public Service Network, the Indian American Republican Council, and on the Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He has spoken venues such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Harbour League, and the National Press Club. He has written opinion pieces for various publications including the Washington Post/Newsweek Forum On Faith. 

Radicals pushing to the ugly end.....

 

Since I am Dutch, I can also use again the example of Wilders.   He too is  starting to show his true colours.   He is now being accussed by the main political parties of in fact being economically far-left as it is socially far-right, which says they are confused and have alienated itself from elements of the conservative right.  The right wing parties have already said that they will never play-ball with him by allowing him to join any coalition.  He has nothing to lose since he has lost their votes and thus shows more of the ugliness and real colours – exposing himself further.  I personally believe that he is in fact showing that he has no political understanding at all and that there are no real policies or political manifesto.  That the manifesto that exists is pure “bricolage” and that he is just a wannabe saviour no matter it takes, just like Spencer who wants to be adored and remembered as being some sort of expert.  

The wannabe academic he never was, assuming the failed posture of “making it up is as good as studying it”.

Far-Right Radicals: Northeast Intellegence Network

I have been reading the mind-boggling agenda-driven site Northeast Intelligence Network.  To sum up, and I think quite fairly, they are far-right anti-Islam, anti-Obama (they push/hint Obama is a Muslim and not a legible President conspiracy theories) and pro-far-right Israel and Zionist themes.  

Full of patriotic paraphernalia to look good and staff biographies that make them look even more patriotic and apparently experts it does not take a fool to work out their agenda.  In fact going back to my theme of what makes a radical, they push many lies, to promote them they are full of blatant contextual abuse and they assume we are all stupid enough to fall for the bright lies and sentimental “Americana” that they push.   

If we look at their staff list – and just with a cursory look on the internet of those that make the blog  quickly shows the agenda immediately and it is  most certainly radical.

 

Hagmann appears to be a private detective and a patriot with experience in ..... proving the exstance of UFOs and Bigfoot

Douglas J. Hagmann

calls himself a private investigator of over 20 years, serving Fortune 500 companies and since September 11 has dedicated himself to searching for terrorists.   So that sound fine and I would even say commendable.  

Things for Hagmann falls down from an unexpected source – the equally anti-Islam, far-right and pro-Zionist Debbie Schlussel.  Apparently Hagmann plagerized Schlussel and as revenge she did all the leg-work in checking out the self-styled American patriot.   She makes no hidden loathing of the self-proclaimed expert investigator who included looking for Bigfoot and UFOs.

Personally, I get some form of satisfaction of two radicals abusing each other and using context-abuse as an accusation when they both are masters of the art.   Rather like mafioso fighting over their prey.   Interestingly, Schlussel also accuses WorldNet Daily (WND) for also doing the same, which is fine by me – they are basically in the same boat of hate-agenda magazines that have joined in the ugly and perverse marriage of American far-right politics and expansionary radical Zionism (the extremist Judaic equivalent of Islamism) that seeks to enforce a pro-Israel-no-matter-what government in the US that is obviously far-right.  It could easily follow that some of the disfigured abominations birthed from of such a marriage are the Schlussels, Cheslers and Daniel Greenbergs of the internet.

Osborne may have a military background, but honor never was part of his training......

Sean Osborne

is their Military expert and pushes two paragraphs of Osborne’s apparent military past.   It may or may not be exactly correct but for someone who supposedly spent 25 years in the military and then 22 further years as a contractor, I find his cv slightly questionable, why?  Well being someone with 32 years within the western defence sector (22 years with the Dutch defence department including with NATO) and now hitting over 10 years working within defence industry, I have never seen defence personal not mention their rank, cryptically give all this data and actually not confirm anything.   Simply put the description is from his own words and usually those that do enjoy the rights to spell out their history openly do so directly from and with the approval of the services they worked for.

I would not have mentioned Mr Osborne at all and any experience which I assume he did not fabricate is certainly worth being proud off, but because he is a) a part of a far-right radical website and also b) he was accused as being questionable – by, and yet gain from another person linked with some questionable agendas against Muslims, Walid Shoebat.   Shoebat accusses Osborne of being riddled with evangelical and pro-Zionist agendas.   In a scathing letter, Shoebat called Osborne a pin-head because as a so-called expert he got so many facts wrong, such as the Arabian Peninsula being under Roman control, which it never did.     The tit-for-tat battle between the two is rather low, abusive in language style and very unprofessional from both sides, could it be that both are right about each other and wrong because they both are part of a radical lie themselves?  I think so.

Radical Zionist Lee Kaplan, who goes under the guise of being a journalist

Lee Kaplan

 is called their Communications Director, but I think perhaps Ideology Source, or Resident Agent may be more appropriate.   I was already aware of Lee Kaplan as he is a contributor to the other ugly radical pro-Zionist rag called FrontPage Magazine.  So there are no surprises when I noticed his name was linked to Northeast Intelligence Network.    Kaplan is an ugly person with a dedication to expansionary Zionism which seeks that all of the West Bank, Gaza, Hebron and all of Jerusalem be a part of a greater Israel and though he cleverly avoids saying it directly, the non-Jewish residents (ie the Arabs) can simply disappear.

Kaplan writes for the Israeli News Network (INN), which is a Likud mouthpiece, and uses the same sliding and misdirection techniques as well as the best far-right Government Spokesperson of the Likud and ultra-religious Coalition.

What I would not call Kaplan is a journalist but rather a public affairs officer.  A journalist requires an open mind and report items  dispassionately and he is unable to do so, he has well proclaimed his agenda and activism  and is even proud of it.   His links to the far-right, FrontPage Magazine and this Northeast Intelligence Network farce takes away any credibility he may even think he has.

He is also the founder of a rather horrible group called DAFKA (Defending America for Knowledge and Action) which is a San Francisco anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and of course pro-Israel site.  Wikipedia quoted media sources that call it “a pro-American, pro-Israel activist group on US campuses” devoted to counter-protesting against Palestinian demonstrations. DAFKA was formed because, in its view, mainstream Jewish organizations were insufficiently dedicated to “going after the enemy.” DAFKA is active primarily on campuses in the San Francisco Bay Area, although the mainstream Jewish organizations there tend to distance themselves from its work.

We can add that amongst their principles are:

“the Arabs are simply too primitive to make any viable lasting peace and until they adopt democratic principles and adhere to laws against violence as in any civilized society there can be no secure peace with them.”

The word “Palestinian” should not be used, since it confers legitimacy on Arab claims to nationhood, when their movement is in fact “Arab fascism” seeking to murder Jews

Yes still Kaplan calls himself an independant free-lance “journalist”.  His agenda is not only clear but he is proud of it.   The agend is political, pro-Zionist to a level that we equate with supporters of militant Islamism and has nothing to do with America.   His blog and his work often touches he accussation about Palestinians, the generic Arab and Muslims being influenced from outside sources …… yet his main platform has nothing to do with the United States at all but the bloody expansion of a religous based Israel.

Though he claims benign methods, the media tells us otherwise.  A good example, of many, is from the Portland Media Centere which put an item about DAFKA and Kaplan himself:

Santa Cruz Community Television is offering up more than the usual community dish. Recently, Club Cruz, a locally produced television show, has been used as a platform for virtual infomercials for an extremist group with a record of harassing peace advocates.Becky Johnson, has featured on several occasions a man named Lee Kaplan, self-proclaimed founder and director of the extreme Zionist group, Dafka. During the episodes, Kaplan dominated the half-hour shows with inaccuracies about the Palestinian peace movement, negative stereotypes about Arabs and Islam, and potentially slanderous statements about widely respected groups such as Santa Cruz’s Resource Center for Nonviolence and Berkely’s MidEast Children’s Alliance and individuals involved with them. Intermittently throughout the show, addresses of Kaplan’s websites appeared across the screen and Kaplan invited viewers to visit the websites; he also promoted a book that was for sale on one of the websites. Each episode also featured a disgruntled Arab guest who shared negative opinions about Palestinians and Arabs from a presumed “insider’s” perspective. (One questions the authenticity of such guests, however, since Kaplan brags on his website about disguising himself and passing himself off as an Arab at various peaceful gatherings.)rules which set up the community stations as resource centers for the public as opposed to a television network model. Holman noted that an individual’s speech could be limited if he was inciting violence.
Self explanitory I think.

The show, produced by Santa Cruz resident

Ron Holman, Programming Director at Community Television, said that even though some people may disagree with statements Kaplan makes, he is able to appear on their channels via their

Though Kaplan didn’t directly call for violence in the episodes, a little fact checking showed that groups he is associated with have been busy hijacking and illegally intruding on peaceful meetings, harassing peace activists and making at least one death threat.

“Archangel”

Oh, there is also this claim, along with a nice American flag for effect, which considering the above is now questionable:

Most visitors to this web site are familiar with “Archangel,” which is the Internet persona of one of the nation’s leading deep undercover researchers and analysts of Arabic language web sites and other intelligence sources. “Archangel” is active in undercover research and investigation of various sources and individuals that offer substantive information from bona-fide terrorists, their accomplices and supporters.

This web site does not permit the use of Internet aliases except to protect the identity of those in law enforcement or a related field for personal and operational safety.

I personally wonder why they would add that last sentence, does it make it more real?

My own view about this “group” is that they are there to serve a political agenda, fleece the community of money – ie make money from the agenda, and to make themselves look important.  All of them are self-sustaining except that they are radical and thus eventually they will be caught out and exposed.

I will post to them the link to this item and seek a reply, defence or rebuttal, I doubt I will get it.  What I am certain, if they do, is that they will talk about terrorism and its danger and yes terrorism is dangerous and must be battled, but not by those whom have been accused of vigilantism and whom have an equally morally repugnant agenda.