This Aberration Called JEW

This scum, unfit to use as natural fertilizer, is going into the sea - or burn in fiery hell.

The following is a terrorist's rational for butchering helpless women and children. I'm posting the commentary of Joshua Hantman, senior adviser to Israel’s ambassador to the United States in it's entirety as spoken on Democracy Now. It is his kind of beliefs that enunciates the thinking that condemns and judges the Jew by Universal Law as unfit and illegitimate to live on this Earth. The barbarity spoken here is gut-wrenching sick. The Bible's Peter says regarding such people: "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:7 NIV) Hantman and his bloody Jews are living epitome of "ungodly men."

The Jews, call them Zionist, Israelis, whatever you want - to me they are all illegitimate humans unfit to populate this Earth. They are a malignant cancer killing all humanity. Their grand scheme as terrorists was to eradicate the land of Palestine of its local population for themselves; setting themselves up with their own sovereign nation called Israel. With the help of another terrorist nation that was successful in doing the same thing, they managed to take some of the land, but could not justify the butchery required to exterminate the Palestinians, so they waged a 66 year war on the Palestinian people to get them to try to defend themselves - commit acts of aggression in self-defence - that the Jews could use as justification for their genocide. The Jews in 66 years never stopped killing Palestinian people. Nor did they ever stop trying to get the Palestinian people to justify their right to kill them - read Joshua Hantman below.

Democracy Now: 

As Palestinian Deaths Top 100, Who’s to Blame for Escalating Violence? What Can Be Done?

JOSHUA HANTMAN: Well, let’s be clear: Israel is currently under attack. I mean, the professor talked about occupation right now. Let me remind you that Israel actually left the Gaza Strip in 2005. We removed all of our settlements. We removed the IDF forces. We took out 10,000 Jews from their houses as a step for peace, because Israel wants peace and it extended its hand for peace. That was in 2005. Since 2005, over 8,000 rockets, missiles and mortars have been indiscriminately fired at our civilians.

Now, the professor also talked about human rights and about international law. Hamas, the internationally recognized terrorist organization, controls the Gaza Strip. They are hiding behind civilians while firing at our civilians. Let me remind you that just yesterday the Hamas interior minister—the Hamas Interior Ministry, they called for their people, for their civilians, to act as human shields. Their spokesperson also came out and said, "Come and act as human shields," because while we mourn every civilian death on both sides, Hamas celebrates civilian deaths.

I blame Hamas for every civilian death, because while we send text messages and phone calls and even put warning shots in the areas where we’re going to try and take out the terrorist infrastructure and the particular terrorists, Hamas fire from mosques, they fire from next to houses, they fire from schools. They keep their missiles and their rockets in the basements of houses. This is a double war crime. They are firing at our civilians indiscriminately. I mean, they fired yesterday towards Jerusalem, OK. They’re firing at Jerusalem indiscriminately. What would happen if one of these rockets landed in an Arab area in Jerusalem? Or if, God forbid, it hit a holy site of the Muslims? It’s indiscriminate fire. It’s a war crime. I actually spoke to a lawyer yesterday who told me there are five or six war crimes that Hamas is guilty of. You cannot blame occupation because Israel left in 2005. And one more point—

JOSHUA HANTMAN: Ma’am, you know, as an international lawyer, that as soon as you put munitions within a house or fire from within a house or fire from within a schoolyard, that becomes a military target. No country in the world would accept a situation whereby over three-quarters of their population are under direct rocket fire. Ma’am, just imagine—just imagine if the United States had over 200 million of its population under rocket fire from an internationally recognized terrorist organization, which, by the way, I’m sure you are not defending here, because Hamas, they wouldn’t allow a young, liberal, secular woman to express her views like you do, ma’am. They would not allow my gay friends to express their sexuality freely. They would not allow Jews to open synagogues or Christians to open churches. This is an Islamist, fundamentalist organization that you’re sitting here defending. And I also assume, ma’am, that you don’t justify their use of human shields, which they openly talk about. They’re proud about it, ma’am. They don’t hide the fact that they use human shields. I take it you would join me in condemning this.

JOSHUA HANTMAN: Let me actually correct you, because this escalation was started by Hamas. And if you look, what the professor said is completely incorrect. The truce was not held by Hamas. And every single month for the last decade, rockets have been fired into Israel. Even after November 2012, where we had this Operation Pillar of Defense, and we restored the deterrents, you know how many rockets were fired in 2013, the quietest year in a decade? There were still 76 rockets fired at Israel, 76 indiscriminate rockets fired at our kids, fired at our old people, fired at our women. This—

AMY GOODMAN: But could you respond to this issue of the deaths?

JOSHUA HANTMAN: Yes, ma’am. I’m going to get—I’m going to get to it, ma’am.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve got over a hundred Palestinians who have now been killed.

JOSHUA HANTMAN: I’m going to get—well, first of all, I’ve already said that for Israel, any civilian death is not only a tragedy, but it’s a failure, as well. And we review every single operation and every single strike to see how we can improve. We’ve hit over 800 targets to try and stop these rockets, to try and stop this indiscriminate missile fire against our civilians. Out of those 800 targets, I’ll be honest, the precision—the precision is quite outstanding. And there is no military in the history of the world that has actually used such precision targets. I mean, think about it from a military tactics point of view. We tell our enemies—we tell Hamas where we’re going to hit. We tell them with text messages, with phone calls, with leaflets. We tell them in order to get civilians out of harm’s way. But for them, civilian death is actually—it’s actually a success. This is what they want. And—

JOSHUA HANTMAN: My counterpart—my counterpart would not condemn this use of human shields, which Hamas is proud about. They call it—they call for it on TV. They said it—their spokesperson said it yesterday. Their Interior Ministry put out a press release saying, "Palestinians, come to the roofs. Stay in the homes where we’re firing the rockets from." It’s disgusting. And I would like her to actually condemn it.

NOURA ERAKAT: I absolutely consider it reprehensible. What straight-minded person would actually accept that? That’s not the point. I’ve repeatedly explained that Palestinians are not robots who listen to Hamas. They care about their children and their families. This—

AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, what do you think needs to happen, in this last minute that we have?

NOURA ERAKAT: You know, what really needs to happen is what has needed to happen for over 66 years of the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, over 47 years of military occupation and continuing colonial expansion, which is the lifting of the siege, the end of the occupation, equality for all in Palestine, without distinction—Palestine and Israel, without distinction to religion, as Israel would have us believe. The entirety of the Israeli state is built on the premise of a demographic equation that needs and necessitates a Jewish majority. That should make us all concerned and raise red flags for us and make us stop before we call it the only democracy the Middle East and continue to fund it another year with $3.1 billion without any accountability.

AMY GOODMAN: What would stop the Israeli assault on Gaza, Joshua Hantman?

JOSHUA HANTMAN: Ma’am, what would stop the Israeli assault on Gaza? A commitment for a long-term ceasefire. No more rocket fire. I’m talking about not the trickling in of more rockets and more missiles, but actually Hamas stopping the rocket fire. Let me remind you, ma’am, that the Palestinian Authority, who, by the way, controls Areas A and B in the West Bank and—

JOSHUA HANTMAN: —used to have control also in the Gaza Strip, they’ve just joined a unity government with Hamas—

AMY GOODMAN: We have to end it here.

JOSHUA HANTMAN: —this terrorist organization that’s been firing rockets at Israel. So we call on them to end this unity for terror and make peace.

---

Finally, in the end this terrorist Jew tells the truth - the objective that's motivate their assault on the Palestinians - cause the to sell one another out, betray their unity government. [Source: Pat Bagley]

---

Then there is this from Juan Cole:  Stop Saying ‘If X fired Rockets at U.S.’: It’s Racist, & assumes we’re Colonial

The Untouchable Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, in her sweet deprecating way, sounds just like Golda Mier. Clinton's attitude is revealed to be totally condescending and utterly disparaging to the Palestinian people. It is an insult to any decent, moral person that calls themselves a Christian. This is the kind of thinking that justifies waging war on women and children. The question:

What if Chelsea Clinton were Palestinian?

Kralev on Diplomacy (View Blog)
POSTED March 04 2009 6:47 PM BY NICHOLAS KRALEV

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked an unusual question during an interview on the popular youth television show "Ali Soutik" during a visit to the West Bank Wednesday.

The interviewer read a query submitted by a young girl from a village near Ramallah: "What would you do if your daughter, Chelsea, were unfortunate enough to be born under occupation and to be born deprived of freedom and liberty?"

Here's Mrs. Clinton's answer:

"I would do what so many parents here in the West Bank and Gaza do. I would love her, I would take care of her, I would get the best education I could get for her. I would never lose hope. I would never give up of the dream of a Palestinian state, no matter what happens, no matter what people try to do to derail my dream. I would tell my daughter, and I would hope my daughter would believe with all of her heart, that she has the same opportunities for the best future that any child living anywhere does. That's what my goal would be."

This is the NEW HOPE for peace between Israel and Palestine. Hope for a two-state solution is worth about as much to the Palestinian people as it is for the American middle-class poor that think they finally got some recognition in this country; a new state of being. Read some reality:

The “S” word by Alastair Macdonald. Reuters Bureau Chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

--Joe

The Jew Agenda Comes Clear

Finally, we begin to see the Zionist Jew's true intentions regarding Israel. They made their move in 1948, but were unable to sustain their intent to completely eradicate the Palestinian people from their lands. As noted in previous posts, the Zionist Jew began to wage war on the civilian people to force the Palestinians to submit to or go along with the Jew's right to take their land by force or without any compensation. The so-called decades old "peace process" was nothing more than a ruse to allow the Jews time to take more Palestinian land by build illegal settlements. The two-state solution merely furthered that ruse for another decade. Neither Israel nor the United States ever intended to recognize Palestinian legitimacy that comes with statehood.

Another Update :: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Israel's targeting of civilian resistance to the separation wall proves the two-state solution is now just a meaningless slogan - The Report has maintained this from the beginning. Nice to have some confirmation.

Update :: Saturday, February 21, 2009

Israeli Zionists have no intention of peace, only expansion of Eretz Yisrael

Addendum :: Monday, February 16, 2009

If the Jews truly wanted peace they would NOT continue to do this:
Israel seizes land for settlement expansion

Jews begin to feel the bite of Gaza assault:
Jews in Muslim lands anxious over Gaza war
By AMY TEIBEL – 6 hours ago

Addendum :: Thursday, February 11, 2009
Fraud in the Holy Land - Independent versus Sovereign State

"Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy says: “Netanyahu’s election is likely to bring the curtain down on the great fraud… the lie of “negotiations” and the injustice of the “peace process.” Israel consistently claimed these acts proved the nation was focused on peace and the end of the occupation. All the while, it did everything it could to further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement.

For 16 years, we have been enamored with the peace process. We talk and talk, babble and prattle, and generally feel great about ourselves; meanwhile the settlements expand endlessly and Israel turns to the use of force at every possible opportunity, aside from a unilateral disengagement which did nothing to advance the cause of peace.”

The truth defines itself - 61 years of undisputed history speaks.

---

It's become quite obvious today that with the election and continued support by a majority of Palestinian people for a Hamas government, or at least a national unity government that includes Hamas, that these people will not totally go along with Israel's right to their 61 years of visceral rape. The only solution for the Jew is to finally cut the Palestinian throat. Right at this moment the knife is already moving with the starvation of 1.5 million Gaza refugees. Fata and Abbas think they've cut a deal with Israel to survive, but all they've done is expose their treason. Israel will deal with them equally, regardless.

In the aftermath of Israeli elections, one way or another, Israel's latest vote count puts the Right Wing, neo-fascist in control. According to Neve Gordon, a professor of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University and the author of Israel’s Occupation, as reported on Democracy Now, this is the trend even with the younger generation.

What we see in—before the elections, that in all the high schools in Israel, Lieberman was the leading party in [inaudible] votes. So we see that the younger generation is supporting these neo-fascist tendencies. And we cannot blame the schools from it, but we have to blame the whole atmosphere in Israel, which is indeed a racist atmosphere, an anti-Arab atmosphere, anti-Palestinian Arab atmosphere. And Lieberman, what he has learned to do well is to feed on the hatred and the fear of the Arabs, to use a xenophobic method. And this is extremely dangerous. And to tell you the truth, I fear for Israel. I fear for the citizenry in Israel. And I think we are in a watershed moment in Israeli politics.

Mustafa Barghouti, independent Palestinian lawmaker and democracy activist lays out a far worse situation.

This is a very serious shift, but not only to the right; this is a shift to racism. In my opinion, in these elections, Israel has completed the transformation into an apartheid state with an apartheid racist political system.

And this is the outcome of two processes. One is the implantation of fear and hatred in the Israeli society by the Israeli establishment. The army is a big part of that establishment, and the military-industrial complex is a second big part. And the second factor has been the complicity of the international community. The United States administration, previous administration, the European governments, the whole official international community has been complicit with Israeli crimes, war crimes in Gaza and in other places, and silent about forty-one years of occupation. So, basically, people in Israel think they can do what they want. If they violate human rights in such a terrible manner and nobody is objecting, I think they think they can move forward towards racism and an apartheid system, and that is unfortunately the case today.

In addition to what was said about practically the Likud racist approach dominating the whole scene, with Livni and Netanyahu—and here I would agree that there aren’t much differences between the two. Maybe you can say that both of them are racist. Only, Netanyahu is a blunt racist, and Livni is a racist with some makeup. But they both represent the same. [ ... ]

In my opinion, we have reached a very critical moment, and that’s why these elections are of great importance, because the bringing in of racist tendency in Israel and this whole extreme coalition into the Israeli government, which would be the case, is happening exactly at a moment when we are about to lose the last opportunity of two-state solution, because of the growth of settlements, because of the fragmentation of the West Bank, because of the consolidation of a situation where Palestinians practically live now in bantustans and ghettos. And they’re in a situation where, after fifteen years of the creation of the Palestinian Authority, the only road open for it by Israel is to become only a security sub-agent for occupation and something like Vichy government in a bantustan entity. That is the risk. And that’s why this is dangerous, not only because it is against peace, but also it is like the last hit in the direction of killing the final or the last opportunity of two-day solution. [ ... ]

I would like to emphasize here that I believe that the last war on Gaza, plus other things that the Israeli government did jointly with the Bush administration, was nothing but an effort to create a preemptive strike against the Barack Obama administration. That was clear in the Resolution 1850, which tried to restrict the peace process only to the failing Annapolis process. And that was clear in the war and intensification of tension in the region, to prevent, in my opinion, peaceful dialogue with Syria and Iran that Barack Obama wants to have and to obstruct a fast and quick withdrawal from Iraq. But finally, that agreement that was concluded between Livni and Rice, in the very last hours before Rice left her position, was also a preemptive strike against this administration. [ ... ]

That agreement was that the United States and NATO will be providing guarantees to Israel and provide protection to the occupying force, being Israel, and to prevent the resistance of the Palestinian people who are under occupation. So this is the first time in human history where, from one side, the people under occupation in West Bank are supposed, through this huge security apparatus, which is consuming 34 percent of our budget, depriving us from healthcare and education—the Palestinian Authority is supposed to provide protection to its occupiers, and the world community has to provide protection to the occupying force of Gaza, in this case the Israeli occupying force. [ ... ]

And maybe these results of elections in Israel will show everybody the time has come for a real change in the American policy. Every value that President Obama spoke about—values of respect of human rights, of democracy, of respect for Geneva Convention, avoiding torture, justice, equality, equal opportunity—every value of those are violated by Israel.

So, there you have it. The picture, the truth about Zionist Israel's legitimate right to exist, is getting clearer and clearer. President Barack Obama will not do what is necessary to preserve the Jewish state or try to protect his or America's integrity, what little bit that's left. Certainly, now when he's bombing innocent civilian people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Zionist Israel is revealing itself to be exactly what it is. No civilized people wages war on defenseless and innocent women and children, for any reason. The Universe has wiped out whole civilizations for such crimes. Perhaps they should have seriously tried to make peace with the Palestinian people, recognize their legitimate right to exist along with everyone else, when they had the chance.

--Joe

When Self-Defense is No Defense

What is so difficult to understand about self-defense? America's legitimate right to exist was formulated and argued to the world in the original document, The Declaration of Independence. None of those arguments apply to the Zionist Jew. After 61 years the whole world sees Israel exactly for what it is. There is always hope for a just and sane world when a few are able to see what is and have the courage to speak up. Here's an example.

Israeli-Palestinian problem can destroy the world peace
Letter to the editor
Posted: 02/03/2009 01:16:28 AM PST

J. Porsley's “My Word” and Donald Edwards' letter bring out the dilemma Americans are facing. Like Mr. Edward, I am neither a Jew nor an Arab; but a Muslim of a type whose community feels much safer and freer in Israel than in many Muslim countries.

However, as an American, there is a reason for me, and for all of us, to analyze this conflict dispassionately. It has potential of starting an Armageddon the pain from which will be felt by everyone. A just solution is needed.

Hamas has no right to fire rockets and Israel has no right to continue to occupy the Palestinian lands. The assumption that Israel left Gaza is not genuine. Gaza is a high security prison with its borders, land, air and sea controlled by Israel. It is a human cage.

Israel has the right to defend itself and so have the Palestinians. If one can import planes, tanks, phosphorous bombs, and even possess nuclear weapons it is unjust to deny the same to the other party.

When Israel blocks the free inflow of food and medicines and the world stands by in awe of Israeli might, then the Palestinians have no alternative to digging tunnels to reach those necessities of life.

It is time to bring peace to both the sides and help the weak obtain justice. History shows that irrespective of religion unjust people and the connivers thereof are sooner or later seized by a terrible divine punishment.

Abdul Aziz

Self-Defense is No Defense when you're accused being either evil, a criminal, or a terrorist. That would be when you are an enemy of the state. Enemy's of the state are anyone that doesn't go along with or objects to the states' right to enforce their will upon you in any way they see fit.

A good example of this are Zionist Jews deciding that they wanted legitimate recognition as a people to slow down their extermination, so they (a considerable number of them) all moved to Palestine to get the land they needed to become a nation and by force of arms imposed their will upon the Palestinian people. When the Palestinian people refused to submit or surrender their land they were accused of being a form of life that wasn't fit to occupy that sacred land anyway. We have 61 years of history to prove who is and is not fit to own or occupy that land.

An ancient Jew spoke about his people today, a people that wanted the same thing then as the Zionist Jews want today, when he said:

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

--Joe

Eat This Eric Kirk - SoHum Parlance

Latest Addendum :: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Joe Blow Calls Eric Kirk Names BAD! BAD!

Click the link and it will take you to his blog thread. Then you tell me who was doing the name-calling. Everything he said in response to my posts were derogatory, excoriating, insulting and abusive. Here you will find the classic example of what Jesus Christ was talking about when he said to NOT cast pearls before pigs or holy to dogs. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.”

I call his blog a WHOREHOUSE because that's just what it is. (Of course, you know what that makes him.) He invites you in to share in his communion and the next thing you know you've been communing with a sick whore. In other words they've enticed you into making an agreement with them that they have the right to say anything they want about you, to denigrate, abuse, and tell you what kind of a human being they think you are and expect you to go along with their judgments. Then, if you should try to defend yourself from these kinds of people, people Jesus Christ calls "pigs" and "dogs" you're accused of calling them "names." "Hypocrites" and "liars" is something Jesus Christ called the same kind of whoremongers. If it was good enough for Jesus Christ is certainly is good enough for me.

You know why Jesus called these kinds of people "pigs" and "dogs" don't you? Because pigs wallow in their own crappy sewer and dogs return to eat their own vomit. Jesus identified these kinds of people as carnal, non-humans because that is their manifest personality; they think and act like rabid, vicious animal. The Dictionary defines vicious as:

1. addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral.
2. given or readily disposed to evil.
3. reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong.
4. spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack.
5. unpleasantly severe.
6. characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning.
7. savage; ferocious.
8. (of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition.

All in all, Joe figures he keeps good company. Jesus Christ wasn't popular with these same kinds of people either. He certainly wasn't averse to telling people or calling them for what they were when they were arrogant, self-righteous hypocrites, vipers, blind guides, liars, or whitewashed graves .

That's what you'll find on Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II. Do beware!

--Joe

---

“When leaders of competing Palestinian factions make maximalist claims to appeal to hardline constituencies, it’s extremism. But when Israeli leaders do it, it’s politics. If the goal of the U.S. and Israel is to strengthen Palestinian moderates like Abu Mazen against Hamas — and people keep telling me that’s the goal — it’s hard to see how this helps.”
Livni Promises To ‘Maintain Maximum Settlers’»

---

Israeli Foreign Minister Backtracks On Commitment To Force Jewish Settlers Out Of The West Bank»

President Obama has said that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is going to be a top priority for his administration. During an interview with Al-Arabiya last week, Obama said the Israel-Palestine issue is “interrelated” with “what’s happening” throughout the region. He also offered support for the so-called two-state solution. “I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state,” Obama said, adding, “But it is not going to be easy.”

No it will not be easy. As CBS reporter Bob Simon noted on 60 Minutes last week, “hundreds of thousands” of Jewish settlers would have to withdraw from the West Bank for it, along with the Gaza Strip, to be part of a Palestinian state. But also during Simon’s report, this two-state

solution may have received a small boost. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in the running to become the country’s next prime minister, told Simon — bluntly — that in order to achieve peace and advance a Palestinian state, the Israeli government would force the settlers to leave the West Bank:

SIMON: Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?

LIVNI: It’s not going to be easy, but this is the only solution.

SIMON: But you know that there are settlers who say, “We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight.”

LIVNI: So this is the responsibility of the government, of the police to stop them, as simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order.

This is the end . . .

Addendum to the peace viper :: Monday, February 2, 2009

Israel rules out Hamas contacts, threatens force

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer

If you want to know why there is no prospect for peace, just read what this guy has to say. The root cause of the problem is right there for anyone to see that cares to look. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with a difference of opinions. It has everything to do with that woman and this guy, Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu and all their kind.

ADDENDUM :: Thursday, February 5, 2009

The corrupt continue to pervert as the noose tightens around the collaborators.

Olmert approves transfer of NIS 170 million to Gaza Strip

Just hours after a top Hamas official was caught by Egyptian authorities trying to smuggle millions of dollars and euros into the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave permission for the Palestinian Authority to transfer NIS 170 million from the West Bank to Gaza to pay government officials there.

The Prime Minister's Office said it agreed to transfer the funds in accordance with a request by PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.

The officials to be paid are mostly Fatah members.

Israel agrees to let $43 mln into Gaza for Abbas

---

Israel seizes Gaza freighter

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora condemned the action.

"Those who commit massacres against innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza will not stop themselves from assaulting, in front of the world, a ship carrying humanitarian supplies," he said. "I express my utmost condemnation for this blatant attack."

--Joe

Time for More Gems

Any of these little GEMS work for you?

1. A man can't be judge of his neighbor's intelligence. His own vital experience is never his neighbor's.
2. Have the wisdom to abandon the values of a time that has passed and seek out the constituents of the future.
3. Social good is what brings peace to family and society.
4. The body is the shrine of divinity.
5. We mustn't confuse mastery with mimicry, knowledge with superstitious ignorance.
6. Always watch and follow nature.
7. People bring about their own undoing through their tongues.
8. To know means to record in one's memory, but to understand means to make part of oneself.
9. All thought comes from within, but the master gives the keys.
10. Everyone finds himself in the world where he belongs.
11. A man's heart holds his own truth.
12. Organization is impossible unless those who know the laws of harmony lay the foundation. [*]
13. Sound skepticism is necessary condition for the discovery of truth.
14. If you are searching for beauty, observe nature.
15. The first step to knowing wisdom is knowing your ignorance.
16. It is the passive resistance from the helm that steers the boat.
17. Have the wisdom to abandon the values of a time that has passed and pick out the constituents of the future.
18. If you search for the laws of harmony, you will find knowledge.

Joe says, "Watch out for the 'Dominator Hierarchy'." They think they are unique, exceptional people God gave the right to lord it over everyone else.

These are the people that moralize the right to butcher innocent women and children because they say "terrorists" hide among them. They justify their obscene existence by saying the deaths were caused by a bomb or two that landed in the "wrong place".

--Joe

The Roots of War

Mr. Bronner lays out a very revealing commentary about the disparaging ways of thinking that justifies Zionist Israel's right to exist and defend that existence in any way they so choose. Mr. Bronner and The Joe Blow Report share a common reality; life's experiences speak to the truth. Judgmental, worthless opinions expounded as false, lying accusations used to establish one's illegitimate right to exist by controlling, compromising and occupying their neighbor's space, can only produce war. Mr. Bronner defines these "roots" this way: "...because their belief in their own view is so overpowering that anything that contradicts it becomes a minor detail."

---

Gaza Notebook - Bullets in my In-Box
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: January 24, 2009 by the New York Times

GAZA — Faisal Husseini, a Palestinian leader who died at the start of this decade, used to tell a story about his first visit to Israel. The 1967 war had just ended, borders were suddenly opened and he took a drive to Tel Aviv, where at some point he found himself detained by an Israeli policeman. Questions and answers ensued. At one point the policeman said to him, “As a proud Zionist, I must tell you ....” At which Mr. Husseini burst out laughing.

What’s so funny? the policeman asked. “I have never in my life,” Mr. Husseini replied, “heard anyone refer to Zionism with anything but contempt. I had no idea you could be a proud Zionist.”

I have written about the Arab-Israeli conflict on and off for more than a quarter-century and have spent the past four weeks covering Israel’s war in Gaza. For me, Mr. Husseini’s story sums up how the two sides speak in two distinct tongues, how the very words they use mean opposite things to each other, and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair.

Among Israel’s Jews, there is almost no higher value than Zionism. The word is bathed in a celestial glow, suggesting selflessness and nobility. But go anywhere else in the Middle East and Zionism stands for theft, oppression, racist exclusionism.

No place, date or event in this conflicted land is spoken of in a common language. The barrier snaking across and inside the West Bank is a wall to Palestinians, a fence to Israelis. The holiest site in Jerusalem is the Temple Mount to Jews, the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims. The 1948 conflict that created Israel is one side’s War of Independence, the Catastrophe for the other.

After Israel’s three-week air, sea and land assault in Gaza, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire, it is worth pausing to note how difficult it has been to narrate this war in a fashion others view as neutral, and to contemplate what that means for any attempt by the new Obama administration to try to end it.

It turns out that both narration and mediation require common ground. But trying to tell the story so that both sides can hear it in the same way feels more and more to me like a Greek tragedy in which I play the despised chorus. It feels like I am only fanning the flames, adding to the misunderstandings and mutual antagonism with every word I write because the fervent inner voice of each side is so loud that it drowns everything else out.

George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader who is Mr. Obama’s new special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, could find something similar when he arrives here.

Even though an understanding crystallized a decade ago over the outline of an eventual solution here — Israel returning essentially to its 1967 borders and a Palestinian state forming in the West Bank and Gaza — the two sides’ narratives have actually hardened since attempts to reach a peace foundered.

So Mr. Mitchell, who once led a commission tasked with finding a solution to the conflict, will begin this latest effort grappling with two separate wars fought here, based on two very different sets of assumptions.

Opponents of Israel feel the Gaza fighting has demonstrated (again) everything they have always believed — that Israel is a kind of Sparta that dehumanizes the Palestinians and will do anything to prevent their dignified self-determination. The ways in which Israel attacked — the overwhelming force, the racist graffiti left on walls — are what one has come to expect of that state, they say; those Hamas rockets were no challenge to the Israeli military behemoth, and, after all, who could blame the resistance fighters for launching them to protest the blockade and everything else about Israel’s longstanding occupation?

Those for whom Israel is the victim and never the aggressor likewise saw in this war a reaffirmation of their beliefs — that Hamas, an Islamist terror group, hides its fighters behind women and children; that Israel’s army was an exemplar of restraint and respect, holding its fire when civilians were in sight, allowing tons of humanitarian aid in even while at war (what other army would be so decent?).

Abroad, people care deeply about this conflict. That should make it easier for a reporter to cover, because the actors and place names and history are familiar. But it turns out that like the actors themselves, the audiences have utterly distinct and contrasting sets of assumptions. Every time I fail to tell the story each side tells itself, I have failed in its eyes to do my job. That adds up to a lot of failure.

What’s more, the competing war narratives are part of a larger narrative disconnect.

One side says that after thousands of years of oppression, the Jewish nation has returned to its rightful home. It came in peace and offered its hand to its neighbors numerous times only to be met with a sword. Opposition to Israel, this side argues, stems from Muslim intolerance, nationalist fervor and rank anti-Semitism, all fed by envy at the young state’s success. Every time I write an article about the conflict that does not mirror this story line — if, for example, I focus on Palestinian suffering or alleged Israeli misdeeds or quote a human rights group like Amnesty International — I have proven myself to be a secret sharer with the views of the enemy.

As one recent complainer wrote, “To read your paper, all the questions and criticism are directed at Israel, and it is all based on a collection of anti-Semitic organizations masquerading as humanitarians.”

The other side tells a different story: There is no Jewish nation, only followers of a religion. A group of European colonialists came here, stole and pillaged, throwing hundreds of thousands off their land and destroying their villages and homes. A country born in sin, Israel has built up an aggressive military with help from Washington in the grips of a powerful Jewish lobby.

Every time I fail to allude to that story — when, for example, I examine Israel’s goals in its Gaza war without implicitly condemning it as a massacre, or write about Israel in ways that do not call into question its legitimacy — I have revealed my affiliation and can no longer be trusted as a reporter.

Since the war started on Dec. 27, I have received hundreds of messages about my coverage. They are generally not offering congratulations on a job well done.

“Thanks to you and other scum like yourself,” said one, “Israel can now kill hundreds and you can report the whole thing like it was some random train wreck.”

“Bronner ,” said another, “you’re back to your usual drivel about only the poor filthy Arabs — who voted for the Hamas people who got them into this predicament — with incessant indiscriminate rocket fire on innocent Israelis.”

There are also blogs and chat sites on both sides that spend time accusing all the journalists here of having agendas because our articles mention facts or trends that they consider a diversion from the real story.

Because Israel barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza until the war ended, The New York Times relied on my Palestinian colleague here, Taghreed el-Khodary, for on-the-ground coverage of the fighting.

We would speak several times a day as she cautiously went out. Her first stop was usually Shifa Hospital to get a sense of civilian casualties. Early in the war, at the hospital, she witnessed the murder of an alleged Israeli collaborator by Hamas gunmen. They shot him in the skull more or less in front of her. One of the gunmen told Taghreed that she should never mention what she saw to anyone. She told him there was not a chance she would stay silent, then made some calls to find out about other such events and sent me the information, which we published the next day.

A couple of Arab bloggers went after Taghreed with the worst insult they could come up with — Zionist. She was a Palestinian Uncle Tom doing the bidding of her white-man bosses at a newspaper that, as one reader said in an e-mail message, “is fully complicit in the atrocities that Israel commits against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. You make it sound guiltless and reasonable. That’s your assignment.”

At the same time, Israeli officials and their backers declared that keeping reporters out of Gaza was the right move because no independent journalism could possibly occur in an area run by Hamas, which controls every utterance here. Have any of these people ever read Taghreed’s work? Or any of our work out of here?

Many have but it doesn’t matter because their belief in their own view is so overpowering that anything that contradicts it becomes a minor detail. As another reader put it, “Basically, you are aiding terrorists and causing the increase in bloodshed while telling one-sided stories, totally ignoring the whole picture.”

He did say one thing I agree with: “You should not be a reporter if you are not telling the whole story, not just the parts that sell.”

I would offer a mediator the same advice.