The west’s Comforting Illusions Of Democracy — But Without Any Significant Political Representation
February 27, 2017
More than 200 European legal scholars have signed a statement affirming that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality represents “a lawful exercise of freedom of expression.” Despite legal recognition of that fact, however, the BDS movement as it gathers momentum and becomes more effective, is having its activities criminalised while being increasingly attacked — in order to discredit its lawful and peaceful support for the legal and human rights of the Palestinian people — for allegedly promoting discrimination and/or anti-Semitism.
A recently released Ekos poll has, however, discovered that 46 percent of Canadians, including a majority of those supporting every party except the Conservatives, had a negative view of Israel. The Canadian government was regarded as having a pro-Israel bias by 61 per cent of respondents, while 91 percent did not think criticism of Israeli government policies was necessarily anti-semitic. The results suggest that Canada’s major political parties are out of step with the Canadian people on those issues. Furthermore, during almost 18 months in office, the Trudeau government had voted against no less than sixteen UN resolutions critical of Israel.
The apparent discrepancy between how people view Israel’s Apartheid policies and the unconditional support provided for such policies by their elected representatives is not a conundrum requiring exceptional powers of deduction: the answer is simply “blackmail, bribery, and bullying.”
In his insightful book, They Dare to Speak Out, Paul Findley stated that during J.F. Kennedy’s campaign for president in 1960, he had a meeting with some prominent Jews. Kennedy was very insulted when one of the Jews said they knew Kennedy’s campaign was in financial difficulty and that he and his Jewish friends would “help and help significantly” John Kennedy’s campaign if, as president, Kennedy “would allow them to set the course of Middle East policy over the next four years.”
That meeting convinced JFK that he should seek a law that would have the U.S. Treasury pay a set and equal amount for all politicians running for president who secured a to be determined percentage of signatures of the people supporting their campaign. In his 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Seymour Hersh stated that Kennedy “saw this as the only way to prevent the nightmare of today, which has not only the President, but the overwhelming majority of people in Congress bought and paid for by the very powerful Israeli lobby.”
Such brazen subversion of American democracy by the Jewish lobby had already been ongoing long before the 1960s because shortly after his inauguration in March 1913 as the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson was visited in the White House by Ashkenazi Jew, Samuel Untermyer, of law firm, Guggenheim, Untermyer, and Marshall. Untermyer tried to blackmail Wilson for $40,000 with regards to an affair Wilson had with a fellow professor’s wife at Princeton University. As Wilson did not have the money, Untermyer offered to pay the $40,000 himself to the woman in question on condition that Wilson promised to appoint a nominee recommended by Untermyer to the first available vacancy on the United States Supreme Court which subsequently occurred when Louis Brandeis became the first Jewish Justice on the highest U.S. federal court.
Brandeis then became active in the Federation of American Zionists thereby providing the nascent American Zionist movement with a most distinguished man in American life and a friend of the next president; devoted a great deal of his time, energy, and money to championing the Zionist cause; and was elected president of the Provisional Executive Committee for Zionist Affairs which was established after the outbreak of World War One in Europe when the divided allegiance of the World Zionist Organisation’s membership had made it impotent. As the leader and spokesperson of American Zionism from 1914 to 1918, Brandeis embarked on a speaking tour in the fall and winter of 1914–1915 to trump up support for the Zionist cause by emphasising the goal of self-determination and freedom for Jews through the development of a Jewish homeland. Similar self determination and freedom, however, are concepts forbidden to the American people with the ghost of Brandeis — in the form of the Louis D. Brandeis Centre — actively supporting Apartheid Israel while working tirelessly to oppose the effectiveness of BDS.
Unlike most American Jews at the time, Brandies felt that while the re-creation of a Jewish national homeland was one of the key solutions to antisemitism and the “Jewish problem” in Europe and Russia, it would also be a way to “revive the Jewish spirit.” He explained the importance of Zionism in a famous speech to a conference of Reform Rabbis in April 1915 in which he also felt obliged to mention that Zionism and patriotism were compatible concepts and should not lead to charges of “dual loyalty.” Nonetheless — it was felt by many Americans — that his first allegiance was not to “we the people” of American democracy.
“The Zionists seek to establish this home in Palestine because they are convinced that the undying longing of Jews for Palestine is a fact of deepest significance; that it is a manifestation in the struggle for existence by an ancient people which has established its right to live, a people whose three thousand years of civilisation has produced a faith, culture and individuality which enable it to contribute largely in the future, as it has in the past, to the advance of civilisation; and that it is not a right merely but a duty of the Jewish nationality to survive and develop. They believe that only in Palestine can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of disintegration; that there alone can the Jewish spirit reach its full and natural development; and that by securing for those Jews who wish to settle there the opportunity to do so, not only those Jews, but all other Jews will be benefited, and that the long perplexing Jewish Problem will, at last, find solution.”
Finding the solution to that “long perplexing Jewish problem,” has unfortunately come at a colossal cost not only to U.S. taxpayers with hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars in aid to Israel, but also to the Palestinian people whose almost seven decades of ethnic cleansing has included the barbaric obliteration of their heritage, history, and human rights by a mighty military machine subsidised by the U.S. government on behalf of the American people despite the fact that 46 percent of them support imposing sanctions on Israel because its defiant settlement policies.
It would appear America’s subjugation by the Jewish lobby was also a source of amazement to the Jewish lobbyists themselves who could not believe the ease with which the goyim were hoodwinked and manipulated. In a 1976 confidential and controversial interview, Harold Wallace Rosenthal — a Jewish administrative assistant to one of America’s ranking senators, Jacob Javits R-NY — after admitting Jewish dominance in all significant national programs, said “it is a marvel that the American people do not rise up and drive every Jew out of this country.” Rosenthal added that “we Jews continue to be amazed with the ease by which Christian Americans have fallen into our hands. While the naive Americans wait for Khrushchev to bury them, we have taught them to submit to our every demand.”
When asked how a nation could be taken over without their knowing it, Rosenthal attributed success to the absolute control of the media. He boasted of Jewish control of all news with any newspaper refusing to submit to Jewish control of news being brought to its knees by withdrawal of advertising. Failing in that, “It’s a very simple matter,” the Jews would stop the supply of news print and ink. As to the question of men in high political office, Rosenthal replied that no one since 1976 had achieved any political power without Jewish approval. “Americans have not had a presidential choice since 1932. Roosevelt was our man; every president since Roosevelt has been our man.”
Whether or not the current occupant of the White House is “Israel’s man” is of no real consequence because Donald Trump’s innate racism, deranged tendencies, and undisguised promotion of Islamophobia are in any case compatible with Israel’s arrogant and arbitrary policies of barbaric discrimination, displacement, and destruction. The one potentially positive aspect of Trump’s presidency, however, is that his self obsessed insanity might hopefully wake up the otherwise somnambulant American people; alert them to the dangers threatening their fundamental rights as prescribed in the U.S. Bill of Rights; and prompt them to rise up with a righteous indignation that forcefully demands Congressional removal of a dangerous and deluded demagogue.
In the meantime European nationals must shed their fear of being stigmatised as anti-Semites and finally take responsibility for ensuring that their political leaders — who as “Friends of Israel” are invariably susceptible to pro-Israel lobby blackmail, bribery, and bullying — refrain from their usual mealy mouthed hypocrisy regarding the “only democracy in the Middle East” and its right to “defend itself” with the “most moral army in the world,” and instead start representing both the interests of their own countries and the sovereignty of the people who elected them.
Sovereignty exists within and flows from the people of a country. Their collective right to choose their governmental, political and electoral systems is a vital aspect of their self-determination. The authority of government also derives from the will of the people who having chosen those systems have a right to participate in their government through genuine elections that determine who will legitimately occupy governmental offices.
Such precepts are incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in modern constitutions the world over where they formed the basis for the well known formulation that democratic government is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” In essence, that means that governments, governmental processes, and elections, all belong to the people. There can be no democracy without citizen participation which is consequently both a right and a responsibility of the citizens in establishing and developing a sustainable democracy wherein a free press must go hand in hand with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
“Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all of the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretence — the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammelled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen.”
William E. Borah (1865 - 1940), prominent Republican attorney and longtime U.S. Senator known as “The Lion of Idaho.”
Israel’s Incremental Inhumanity Precludes the Right to Demand for Israelis That Which It so Violently Denies the Palestinian People
September 4, 2014
Anti-Semitism: The Ultimate Zionist Weapon
August 1, 2014
Tony Blair: The War Criminal Middle East “Peace” Envoy