Jan 022015
 

peace keyhole

by Jerome Grapel

President Obama’s bold initiative with regard to the Cuban situation could be seen as a way to attack an even more problematic global problem, that referred to in the title of this essay. In other words, just as he did with Cuba, it’s time to cut the crap.

For more than a half century, one of the bones most stuck in the craw of peace and harmony in the world has been the seemingly untenable situation caused by the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. One might even argue it has been the #1 cause of geo-political unrest on this planet. This writer would award that dishonor to the energy needs of the developed world’s consumer society, but it would be difficult to argue that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not go a long way in easing tensions around the globe. Unfortunately, after more than a half century of trying to do just that, we seem to have hardly gotten out of the starting gate.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to achieving peace in this conflict is the political playing field in the United States, where Jewish electoral and financial clout has a tendency to emasculate a president’s ability to reign in Israeli imperial excess. The focus of this essay will be how this obstacle can be circumvented with a minimum of political fallout, but before getting into that let’s explain exactly what the goal is:

I’ve often expressed my skepticism as to whether the creation of Israel was a good idea. The course of post WWII history tends to fortify such skepticism, but it is now a moot point. Israel is a reality that is here to stay and I would not advocate for anything else. The most logical path to take has already been mapped out and agreed upon with the so called Two State Solution, that is, an Israeli state who’s right to exist is recognized by everyone, and a freshly minted Palestinian homeland occupying what has come to be known as the West Bank. Being that the Jewish State was carved out of what had been the Palestinian homeland for centuries, there are elements of the Arab-Moslem world that will never accept this (can you blame them?), but there is no choice but to play the game with the players on the field. The Two State Solution is not only the most practical way forward, but one that receives overwhelming support in the world, including the “official” support of both the United States and Israel.

The problem is that Israel does not seem to take this commitment seriously. Its actions, most embodied in their stubborn insistence on building Jewish settlements on the West Bank, seem to be laughing in the face of such commitment. The preposterous nature of both building these settlements and officially accepting a two state solution could be likened to shooting the bird at the international community. Everyone knows you cannot walk in 2 directions at the same time. The United States, as Israel’s principle sponsor in the world, holds the key to turning this around.

Although an American president finds it almost impossible to criticize an exaggerated Israeli military response to Arab provocation (this is no problem for the rest of the world), Barak Obama is not the first president to show displeasure for the continued expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Anyone with the I.Q. of a domestic cat can see the incompatibility of such actions with a two state solution. How can an American president make Israel live up to its two state obligation without suffering serious political damage domestically?
There are 2 words that become most relevant in dealing with this problem: “coalition” and “diplomacy”.

Let’s start with the former. For a generation or more now, the word “coalition”, used in reference to American foreign policy, has always been coupled to some form of war making. “Coalition”, in this context, has been used as a public relations stunt meant to deodorize the stench of what is really a unilateral act of military aggression by the United States. The “coalition” partners are primarily symbolic participants in actions that were instigated and carried out almost exclusively by Americans (what the quid pro quo is for this “participation” is anyone’s guess).

In trying to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the idea of a coalition would be anything but symbolic. All members of the coalition would perform on an equal footing, advocating with an equal amount of vigor in the singular task of resolving the conflict in Palestine. Nobody would be leading the coalition, nobody would be in charge of the coalition, nobody would, theoretically, have more or less influence in the coalition. This would be a seamless, joint endeavor. Most importantly, unlike the previous “coalitions” created by the United States, it would be a coalition to make peace not war.

This leads us to the word “diplomacy”. Diplomacy is an act that is always carried out far from the eyes and ears of public attention. It operates in the anonymity where the sun don’t shine. What usually becomes the visual results of such actions are the outcomes of long, drawn out, tedious machinations that generally leave aside the public forms of propaganda with which opposing parties confront each other. Diplomacy is pragmatism in its most distilled form.

If pragmatism is the word of the moment, then we must also realize the United States will have to play the major role in resolving this quagmire. It will have to be the Alpha Dog himself who becomes the catalyst for the peace coalition, a coalition who’s role will be to put pressure on Israel to comply with its demands (to be enunciated later in this essay). But the important part is this: although the United States will be the driving force behind the coalition and its demands, it will only be so in the shrouded back alleys of diplomacy. Once the coalition is formed and its policy can be formally declared, the United States becomes no more than another screw in the machinery of the apparatus. It becomes another voice amongst many voices. The whole idea is to provide cover for the United States, to take some pressure off the Alpha Dog so that its leaders can do the right thing in a domestic political climate that has always stymied this.

So here I am, it is 2016 and I’ve just been elected President of the United States. Without having changed the usual narrative that has revolved around the Palestinian question for so many years, one of my first priorities is to get to work building this coalition for peace. I do it behind the back of public knowledge. The logical place to start would be with our allies in Western Europe — England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. Once an understanding with these bigger players can be achieved, we try to put it all under the umbrella of the European Union. We then look to invite more people to the party. Such formidable players as China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, Canada, etc., can be brought into the process as members of the G-20 economic group. What we are seeking is a broad cross section of the world’s population and some form of African representation should be sought as well.

The American diplomatic effort must be clear in explaining its purpose to those it is trying to enlist, that being a broad enough global inclusion so that the United States can participate in the process. Although the Americans must be the primary instigators of this coalition and its policies, it only wants to do so in the diplomatic shadows. Once this all begins to come out of the closet, its role becomes no more than that of another member and the public relations efforts of the coalition must try to propagate this feeling. There are, supposedly, no dominant players. This is the only way the political class in the United States can find enough cover to buck the Jewish lobby in its midst.

If we accept the idea the Two State Solution is the goal of this coalition, how does it go about accomplishing this?

As the newly elected President of the United States, what I envision is this: once the coalition is formed, it begins to work secretly on formalizing its policy. It will make demands primarily on Israel, but on the Palestinians as well. As the process moves along, the coalition begins to slowly make itself known to the world. Although the United States is playing a primary role, the coalition presents itself as an entity whose impetus came from outside the United States. Sooner or later, as the coalition’s existence becomes more public, the United States will send “observers” and, as a late arrival, begin to have input. The end game is this — when the final product is ready, the United States will have no choice but to sign on to the reasonable ideas created by such a widespread global voice.

Once the coalition is ready to present its policies, the fanfare begins. A date is announced, an important national capitol is chosen, and all the leaders of the coalition will be there to sanctify the agreement, including the President of the United States. My choice for the site would be Paris, not only for the “cache” this city has in history, but because France has one of the largest Moslem populations in the western world. This would make the French head of state the host of the gathering, which is in harmony with relieving the Americans of an excessive amount of protagonism. The document meant to convey the coalition’s declaration could be called the “Parisian Protocol” and would be the following:

Being that Israel is the target of most of the “Protocol’s” discipline, we begin by throwing the Israelis a bone. “All the signatories to the Parisian Protocol agree that Israel has the right to exist as a sovereign nation eternally, with the borders set forth by the United Nations agreement in 1949. Any external aggression challenging this fact will be met with the stern opposition of this coalition and whatever response deemed appropriate.” And now, without getting into some thorny details in this essay, the Protocol begins to enunciate the focus of its demands. “Likewise, all the signatories of the Parisian Protocol earnestly support the creation of the sovereign nation of Palestine on what is known as the West Bank. Any attempts to undermine this result will be met with the stern opposition of this coalition and whatever response deemed necessary, including diplomatic isolation, economic boycotts, and other appropriate dispositions. Being that the construction and occupation of Jewish settlements on the West Bank is just such an undermining factor, we demand these settlements be either destroyed or abandoned as soon as possible.” And now for the grand finale. “The Two State Solution implies a complete normalization of relations between Israel and Palestine, with the exchange of ambassadors and the goodwill and harmony that define the peaceful coexistence of sovereign nations. This includes the vigilance and prosecution by the Palestinian government against any acts of violence planned and carried out from Palestinian territory against Israel. Any willful neglect of this obligation will make it difficult for the coalition to oppose an Israeli response”.

The plan is to accomplish a two state solution by camouflaging the American role in the folds of a comprehensive international effort. But the question still remains: is the Two State Solution a solution? Resistance to a Jewish State will always exist. But if you give the Palestinians something that is theirs; something to hold onto; something to lose, their cooperation might be procured.

Unfortunately, the most recent history of this region has thrown yet another bone into the craw of peace and harmony. The sectarian battles exemplified by the civil war in Syria, the flimsy nature of the Iraqi state, and the extra official army we’ve come to call ISIS, is putting in doubt all the borders created by the colonial powers between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea. The idea of a Palestinian state could be becoming irrelevant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jerome GrapelI began writing essays in the early 90’s, the collection “Because You Never Asked” being a fractional but representative cross section of an output that is still in progress today. I restrict their content to anything that may be relevant since the dawn of time to the end of eternity. They’ve given me a kind of therapeutical way to voice my objections to the paradigm of our culture and the negativity it is leading us into. All cultures attempt to inculcate their constituents into someone’s narrow minded, self serving version of reality and this book is an attempt to translate these subterfuges into the truth. Although a number of my earliest essays are included in this collection, the vast majority of them are more contemporary. Regardless of their chronology, they should all still be pertinent to whatever is happening at this moment.

To order you copy of “Because You Never Asked” by Jerome Grapel click here.

Because You Never Asked

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Jerome Grapel

Jerome Grapel was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1945 and raised in the New York City area in what could be called a vintage middle class upbringing. He attended Temple University in Philadelphia where he played baseball and graduated with a B.A. in history in 1967. With a “noticeable lack of vocation for anything, and not knowing what else to do,” he continued at Temple Law School, graduating in 1970.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-


More articles by Post Consumer Man prior to November, 2014.


 January 2, 2015  Posted by at 12:30 am Essays from Post Consumer Man, Issue #95  Add comments

  24 Responses to “Israelis & Palestinians: A Solution?”

  1. oh jerome….

    once again the genesis of your viewpoint is a myopic reliance on state sponsored propaganda.

    now, my IQ may not exceed that of a house cat, but the absurdity of this “conflict” and the maladroit manner over it’s handling by governments with seemingly no resolution in sight, is farcical on it face.

    the residents of Palestine, Jews and Arabs alike, lived side by side for generations without conflict, without turmoil. now, they do not.

    Israel possess a first generation military (courtesy of the United States), and the Palestinians posses rocks,(and a few “rockets” not much better than firecrackers). yet this “war” persists, year after year.

    the plain fact is, this “geo-political” event was/is planned. it was created, and persists, to meet the global agenda of those who benefit by it. it has not garnered a resolution because it is not meant to.

    now, as to your assertion that it is Jewish influence and power that is behind the seeming obsequiousness of the United States government to all things Israel, that is nonsense. “Jewishness” (is that a word) has nothing to do with it. Zionism however does. and no, Zionism and Jews do not necessarily equate. Zionism is a creation of the Rothschild’s. it has nothing to do with Jews or their “homeland” except to use them as cover. as is always the case, the goal is the consolidation of wealth and power. yes, the Rothschild’s are Jewish, but that’s it. remember, these are the same folks who funded the Nazi’s.

    so jerome, once again, and not to make you feel uncomfortable, the world is not as it seems. a cursory look at world events such as these, should at least arouse a curiosity in you. now this is a woefully simplistic response to your article, but my goal is to at least suggest to you that opening up a book reveals a lot more than merely looking at its cover.

    and what does PCM mean?

    • Keysbum, Once again, you show you are more interested in provoking anger than in discussing an issue rationally. I can agree with much of what you say, and I don’t see why you won’t say that. Now, Jews, Zionists, they are the same thing in American politics, they support the same thing. As for Jews and Palestinians living side by side in harmony, yes, agreed, but the Jewish presence was very minority and native to the region. What happened with the creation of Israel is a far different thing. Now, regardless of why Israel was created and by whom, as the situation has played out now, almost all sides, including the Americans, would want to resolve this. It is in everyone’s interest. I appreciate your attention, PCM (Post Consumer Man)

      • what did I possibly say that was anger provoking? you must have gossamer skin Jerome. despite your protestations to the contrary, exposer to some realities really does make you uncomfortable.

        as an aside, doesn’t it strike you and Shaquille Boettger the least bit odd at the sudden emergence of ISIS out of no where?? and they are more formidable than the Iraqi army?? and they have better audio/visual skills than CNN?? and now the war drums are beating again?

        really? you guys see NOTHING the least bit peculiar?

        do yourself a favor and research the history of Zionism. and please, do not look to “official” sources; the narratives you will find there are what put you in your present state of misinformation in the first place.

      • Keysbum, Why I believe your conspiracy theories are wrong here is this: money, just like everything else in this world, money. The maintenace of the current situation has turned out to be too costly, not just in Palestine, but in a global sense as well; the wars, etc. Not cost effective. A stabler situation would be more cost effective. Now, if you are suggesting that all these wars and turmoil are profitable … yes, I’ve considered that, and have come to another conclussion. As for this dichotomy you set forth between Zionists and Jews, I’ve read my fair share on Zionism, and find this division you are making not relevant when it comes to domestic American politics. Thanks for the comment, PCM

        • I do not delve in conspiracy theories; I deal in conspiracy fact. what I do not give you is opinion.
          lets take your quaint notion about money and the cost/benefit analysis which is the genesis of your opinion. when you are discussing governments, retail and central banks, you are necessarily delineating their interconnection and the very construct of the financial system of the world. for you see Jerome, money, or more specifically debt, is created out of thin air. it is no more than an entry into a computer. therefore to these players, it is an infinite “resource” to be created and destroyed however capriciously they deem appropriate to their needs. now, if you had the ability to print money to your hearts content, what would you do? do you think you would buy up everything in sight including the means of production and governments, and basically control the global economy? do you think that after acquiring all this wealth and control you would let the peons who work the machines, till the spoil, and do the paperwork have any meaningful voice in how YOU operate YOUR possessions? of course you wouldn’t. and neither have the Rothschild’s who own and control all the worlds central banks, governments, and media.
          you don’t think Zionism plays a role in American politics? Obama’s lackeys are a who’s who of Zionist. but they are Zionist in name only. as I said, Zionism does not mean Jewish, and Jewish does not mean Zionist. there are many non Jew Zionists; there are many Jews who are not Zionists. Zionism is a front, and since there are non-Jews included, it has to be termed a political organization. and this organization is controlled by the Rothschild family. it is a front that they use to place their minions in governments, central banks, the world bank, media outlets, etc., to do their bidding. they use it as a front to deflect investigation and criticism under the fear of the attacker being labeled an anti-Semite. now there are many rank and file believers in Zionism, but their leaders? nope. they have an agenda that is global in scope, serves the interests of a single family, and doesn’t give a whip about Jews.

          • Keysbum, This is how I see it: there is not one thing either you or Sister say that I do not think is possible, not one! I think that many of the things you say are possible like it could be possible that Napoleon never existed. It’s possible. Now, just the same as you and all the fine people who contribute to this publication on a regular basis, we all stand upon the summit of our whole life experience and try to sift thru the data and information we’ve been privy to and try to come up with a world view that makes sense to ourselves and others. It may convince others, turn off others, etc. I’ve been sincerely listening to you for awhile now and find it stimulating, intelligent, but not that convincing for me. Not yet. Keep trying, if you’d like, I’ll listen, just as I hope you’d listen to me. ciao, PCM

          • You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb.

          • Keysbum, Oye, tal vez yo deba escribir en Espanol, because you are not understanding my English. When did I say that Zionism plays no role in our politics? What I am saying is that making this division between American Zionists and American Jewry is irrelevant. Regardless of where the Jews in America are getting their message, they all believe in Israel in a way that makes a solution difficult.. Ergo, if there is a solution, we have to get passed that somehow. Now, if you believe that those in charge don’t really want a solution, cool. If you interpret the “facts” you’ve enunciated here in the way you have (and it is an interpretation of the world, no more than that, contrary to what you say, based on whatever it is that convinces you) cool. Carry on.

  2. Your proposal is certainly worth a try, Jerome. Both sides would have to reverse past actions: Israel would have to stop building new settlements, and the Palestinians would have to stop killing Jews.

    The Palestinians were given Gaza. Are they considering it something to fear losing?

    And I am in troubled agreement with the implications of a burgeoning ISIS.

    • Tell me Rick, if I broke into your home and stole every morsal of food from your cupboards and fridge aside from one egg, would you be thankful?

      And how does one ever trust a thief?

  3. Rick, In truth, Isis does not trouble me. I’m all for the Arabs dealing with their own socio-political problems, without our interference and I’m sure ISIS is not the only faction involved here. . And Rick, I don’t think Gaza is a great gift for anyone. It is not a viable nation state and means very little. Until the Palestinians actually have a recognized nation-state to protect, why should they care about terrorists doing what they do? Thanks for the comment, always welcomed and appreciated.

    • Isn’t it curious that ISIS isn’t at least attempting to attack Israel in some way? I mean, aren’t the Mooslems always stating how they want to push Israel into the sea? Isn’t that why we Americans work so hard so that we can send military aid to poor widdle Israel? Why is ISIS only beheading Mooslems and Christians? What a conundrum.

  4. I have a solution to the Conflict…why don’t all the Zionists across the globe pack their bags and move to Israel and sign their property here in the States or wherever over to a Palestinian family. Sounds fair to me. Problem solved.

  5. Sorry sister, I don’t find ISIS not attacking Israel curious, and for reasons obvious enough not to be mentioned here.Thanks for the attention, PCM

    • Please enlighten me Jerome…I do think the reason is obvious but probably for a different reason than you surmise. Please spell it out for my simple mind, if you don’t mind.

  6. Jerome,
    Interesting article on using diplomacy to solve the dilemma thrust upon us by none other than our favorite local Mason “Give’em Hell Harry Truman.” Moving from religious Zionism’s “Protocols” (from the elders, or whoever) to the Paris Protocols sounds like a positive way to shift the fear based narrative. How about one based on love and cooperation? These Dispensationalist’s, however, have been at it for a long time. I have to agree with “keysbum” that “this ‘geo-political’ event [creation of the Jewish state in 1948] was/is planned. It was created, and persists, to meet the global agenda of those who benefit by it [like the war profiteers and their neo-conservative allies]. It has not garnered a resolution because it is not meant to.”
    Lets get real here. Even my house cat knows that religious Zionists (Christian & Jewish) have perpetrated crimes against humanity in the name of Dispensationalism. Creating the “good book” and a victim mentality to help maintain the societal control mechanism was a real coup. We need an exodus from this story.
    The “blowback” from the 9-11 WTC & Pentagon “attacks” will level the political playing field well before the 2016 Presidential election. Exposure of the absurdities our political class and their attorneys have used to profit by and perpetuate the psychopath’s agendas (there appear to be several) is well underway. I suspect that after President Obama takes a hit for the Sandy Hook “false flag” the sh– will really hit the fan. Even Edward Bernays and George Orwell would be astonished at how effective the propaganda machine has become.
    Counter the lies and deception by positive participation in the Thrive Movement. Take a drive down “J” Street.
    Lets have fun blowing the cover. Truth and reconciliation is just around the corner. Long live the Conch Republic!
    Captain ron

  7. Capt. Ron, Nowhere in my essay do I ever state that the creation of Israel was not a political power game benefiting whoever it was who thought this served their purposes. I agree, with both you and Keysbum in this sense. What I am saying is that the situation has not worked out well, it is now more detrimental to the interests of whoever these power brokers were-are. It makes no sense anymore, even for them. Thanks Capt., your comments are appreciated, ciao, PCM

    • you are making my point sir; what I am discussing with you are facts, not opinion. money creation for instance, is not a “world view,” that is how it is done. it’s a fact. that’s like telling me 2+2=4 is only so depending on your outlook. no, it’s a fact. if you think it’s not 4, or is open to interpretation, than your statement about life experience and informational exposure may hold some salience to arriving at that conclusion. but it does not alter the fact that 4 is the correct answer. what it does mean is that the information you ingested, is incorrect, purposely or not, and any formulations you engineered are necessarily flawed. and that Jerome is precisely what I have been trying to convey to you: if you believe the state sponsored propaganda inflicted on all of us through school and the mass corporate media, you have no hope at arriving at the truth. you were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America, was a great explorer, etc.,right? as I’m sure you know, that man never laid eyes on America, and had no clue where he was. but what he did do is enslave, torture, murder, and rape thousands upon thousands of Islanders. yet you were never taught that right? think prohibition was enacted to curb the consumption of booze and promote temperance? that’s what you were taught, right? well in reality it was a guise undertaken by Henry Ford and Rockefeller to outlaw alcohol production (powered cars, and was widely available at any farm) so gasoline would be the one and only power source for cars and of course a steady stream of revenue for Standard Oil. they didn’t teach you that, did they? or how about this: in 2000, prior to 9/11, there were only 7 nations left in the world that did not have a Rothschild controlled central bank. those countries were: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. see any connections between these countries and U.S. foreign policy?
      these are facts Jerome. my world view, your world view, our experiences, our informational input, do not alter the reality that those things I mentioned are facts. the Rothschild family owns/controls the worlds central and retail banks. they thus control the global financial system, and thus the global economy. that is a fact. now, whether you think that’s a good thing, or a bad thing, that’s opinion. but facts are facts Jerome. they are not entitled to be manipulated, they are not entitled to be denied. and they are certainly not at the mercy of someone’s world view.

  8. Is post consumer man a cave man after thermonuclear WW III?
    I dunno, whatever ISIS is, or ain’t, I kinda don’t think anyone who has not lived for a while in Israel or Palestine could possibly know enough to propose solutions to that region’s problems. Based on the admittedly little I know about the region, mostly from watching TV news, and reading newspapers and online reports, and spy and foreign intrigue novels, absent a giant meteor or a monster earthquake sinking the entire region below sea level and it becoming part of the Mediterranean Sea, I don’t see a ghost of a chance of a solution in anyone involved in this discussion’s lifetime.
    Right after 9/11 the angels who boss me around told me America should get out of the Middle East altogether, in every way, and end all aid to Israel, and let Israel and Islam work it out, or fight it out. America being involved in that region has caused plenty of animosity in Islam.

  9. Keysbum, I have a question to ask, and I ask it without the least bit of sarcasm or wise ass attitude. Did the Rothschilds plan the Holocaust and the loss of 6 million Jews?

  10. Gilad Atzmon on ‘Jew, Judaism, Jewishness’ – an interview with Bill Alford
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ8lIsAjAvk

  11. first to your comment above, and thanks for letting me practice my very limited Spanish skills…

    if you listen to the official media. you would be forgiven for making the statement you did that all Jews support Zionism and Israel. they do not, either here in the united states or in Israel. there is a very strong anti-Zionist moment in Israel as there is here at home. I invite you to research Neturei Karta, an ultra-orthodox jewfish group based here in the states, but global in scope, that opposes Zionism.

    as for the Rothschild’s, no, they did not plan the holocaust. like the rest of the world, the plight of the Jews was of little concern to them (remember, even the united states refused boat loads of German Jewish refugees). anti-Semitism was not unique to Germany. what was unique to Germany was the german economic miracle. Hitler, psycho that he was, recognized that succumbing to the private banking interests funding was suicide (as we have found out), eschewed their financing and instead Germany created their own money. within a few years, Germany was prospering despite the world wide depression brought on by the money contraction policies of the international Rothschild owned banking system( see anything familiar with that?). contrary to the history books that you read, Hitler was not interested in a world war, and especially so with great britian and the west. he had his sights on the soviet union. he made numerous peace offerings to the west, and even when war was on, still tried by allowing the british to rescue their doomed army at Dunkirk, which he could have easily captured or butchered. the war was started by britian because the Rothschild’s could not let a nation succeed outside its monetary control. it had to be destroyed, and though their agent Churchill, the german peace offerings were denounced, and the war was on. this by the way, also explains the American revolution, where Britain outlawed the colonies, who were enjoying great prosperity, from printing their own money (colonial script), and putting them under the Bank of England (Rothschild owned), who soon put them into a depression. and it also explains the recent destruction of Libya where Gadhafi had a state owned central bank, printed their own money, had the highest standard of living in Africa, and benefits to all its citizens that put us to shame. can’t have that. so in went the u.s. military, and before the shooting even stopped, a new, Rothschild central bank was installed.

    as I am sure you will agree, human life to the people in charge means little. as Kissinger once said, “military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” I think you could substitute people for military and it would be more apt.

  12. Keysbum, Sorry, but you continue to make statements with regard to Zionists and Jews that are not my position. Sure, not all Jews are Ziomists in the formal sense, but, especially in America, you’d be hard pressed to find a Jew who does not support the Jewish state in Palestine. I’m Jewish, I have family, I know this. As for the rest, you are stating history that I basically agree with and am familiar with, but some of the interpretations are still beyond the scope of my beliefs. Ergo, although I have never said I am optimistic with regard to what I set forth in my essay, I still find it possible, for reasons more believable than what you set forth in your denials. One other question: you seem to suggest that you get your info from sources way beyong the places us”others” look. If what you say is so “iluminati-like”, and only the hippest of the hip are privy to it, and are in on it, how do you know that these same extra-omnipotent sources only the few are privy to, are not f-ing with you as well? I mean, you’re not one of “them”, right?

  13. in all our dialogue, I cannot find a single instance where you have challenged a fact that I have put forth. and that is the point: I am just stating facts, all verifiable, and to my knowledge have not specifically expressed a single opinion. now if you want to challenge any of the facts I have put forth, I will gladly engage you. but when I state these facts, your retorts are based on opinion and personal experience. I appreciate the influence your heritage has on your thinking, but again, it cannot trump facts, yet you seem to blithely ignore that and dismiss what is presented to you out of hand. when I list a renowned Jewish organization that is anti-Zionist, you simply ignore it, and tell me it is not true because it’s contrary to your position, your personal experience, and beyond your beliefs. the clinical term for that is cognitive dissonance.
    the info I get is not “hip” and beyond the reach of the average plebe; it is readily available, always has been, it’s just not main stream, as in you wont find it in state sponsored text books or tv shows, even purported “serious” documentaries. but you will find it in a myriad of books, essays, films, and the like from serious scholars whose purpose is research, and not placating their sponsors and prosecuting an agenda. the internet has made this information more accessible and easier to locate, but the scholarship has always existed. just look at how the two papers in Key West have covered the Eimers case; one has provided superficial coverage at best, with verbiage clearly diminishing the tragedy and culpability of the cops, and the other has been an expose’ of their corruption and brutality. Guess which one is corporate owned, and which one is independent? the same applies to scholarship.