Yes, hate sites are like that...like candy to the sugarholic...

‘We must work silently, through education and infection’

An early recruiter explained: “An organization which has the aims we have must be anonymous, must work silently, and through education and infection rather than through force and noise.” He wrote that to work openly would be "suicidal" for their objective.

Grose writes: “The members set about meeting people of influence here and there, casually, on a friendly basis. They planted suggestions for action to further the Zionist cause long before official government planners had come up with anything. For example, as early as November 1915, a leader of the Parushim went around suggesting that the British might gain some benefit from a formal declaration in support of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.”

Brandeis was a close personal friend of President Woodrow Wilson and used this position to advocate for the Zionist cause, at times serving as a conduit between British Zionists and the president.

In 1916 President Wilson named Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Although Brandeis officially resigned from all his private clubs and affiliations, including his leadership of Zionism, behind the scenes he continued this Zionist work, receiving daily reports in his Supreme Court chambers and issuing orders to his loyal lieutenants.

When the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was reorganized in 1918, Brandeis was listed as its “honorary president.” However, he was more than just “honorary.”

As historian Donald Neff writes, “Through his lieutenants, he remained the power behind the throne.” One of these lieutenants was future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, another particularly well-regarded justice, and another whose Zionist activities have largely gone unnoted.

Zionist membership expanded dramatically during World War I, despite the efforts of some Jewish anti-Zionists, who called the movement a “foreign, un-American, racist, and separatist phenomenon.”

didn't know Alison was a Believer in the Protocols!
That Site is getting more and more of a Joke!
David Neff,aka Schnepf.

He works for the pro-Palestine organization If Americans Knew.

some "Historian"!

World War I & the Balfour Declaration

Unlike some wars, most analysts consider WWI a pointless conflict that resulted from diplomatic entanglements rather than some travesty of justice or aggression. Yet, it was catastrophic to a generation of Europeans, killing 14 million people.

The United States joined this unnecessary war a few years into the hostilities, costing many American lives, even though the U.S. was not party to the alliances that had drawn other nations into the fray. This even though Americans had been strongly opposed to entering the war and President Woodrow Wilson had won with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”

Americans today are aware of these facts. What few know is that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

From the very beginning of their movement, Zionists realized that if they were to succeed in their goal of creating a Jewish state on land that was already inhabited by non-Jews, they needed backing from one of the “Great Powers.”They tried the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine at the time, but were turned down (although they were told that Jews could settle throughout other parts of the Ottoman empire and become Turkish citizens).[31]

They then turned to Britain, which was also initially less than enthusiastic. Famous English Arabists such as Gertrude Bell pointed out that Palestine was Arab and that Jerusalem was sacred to all three major monotheistic faiths.

Future British Foreign Minister Lord George Curzon similarly stated that Palestine was already inhabited by half a million Arabs who would “not be content to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter.”

However, once the British were embroiled in World War I, and particularly during 1916, a disastrous year for the Allies,[33] Zionists were able to play a winning card. Zionist leaders promised the British government that Zionists in the U.S. would push America to enter the war on the side of the British, if the British promised to support a Jewish home in Palestine afterward.

Zionists Promised The British Government They Could Get The American Government To Enter The War...That was way back then...Little Wonder The USA is in The Position it is in Today..LOL

As a result, in 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour issued a letter to Zionist leader Lord Rothschild. Known as the Balfour Declaration, this letter promised that Britain would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and to “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”

The letter then qualified this somewhat by stating that it should be “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The “non-Jewish communities” were 90 percent of Palestine’s population at that time, vigorous Zionist immigration efforts having slightly expanded the percentage of Jews living in Palestine by then.

The letter, while officially signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, was actually written by Leopold Amery, a British official who, it came out later, was a secret and fervent Zionist.

While this letter was a less than ringing endorsement of Zionism, Zionists considered it a major breakthrough as it cracked open a door that they would later force wider and wider open.

These Balfour-WWI negotiations are referred to in various documents. For example, Samuel Landman, secretary of the World Zionist Organization, described them in a 1935 article in World Jewry:

“After an understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and [Zionists] Weizmann and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and for support in the USA for the Allied cause, so as to bring about a radical pro-Ally tendency in the United States."

British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish, in a memorandum to the British Cabinet in 1923, reminded his colleagues: “The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world… and it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”

Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George similarly referred to this deal, telling a British commission in 1935: “Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”

American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, writes that the Balfour declaration “…was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers [Britain’s enemies in World War I]”.

In 1917 President Wilson, who had been voted into office by Americans who believed his promises that he would keep them out of the war, changed course and plunged the U.S. into a tragic and pointless European conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed and injured. [bOver 1,200 American citizens who opposed the war were rounded up and imprisoned, some for years.

The influence of Brandeis and other Zionists in the U.S. had enabled Zionists to form an alliance with Britain, one of the world’s great powers, a remarkable achievement for a non-state group and a measure of Zionists’ immense power. As historian Kolsky states, the Zionist movement was now “an important force in international politics.”

First the obvious terrorism of Iran is denied on the other thread
and when this is lampooned, new threads pop up about the horrible
terrorism of free and democratic full rights egalitarian countries
who never start offensive conflicts like Israel and the USA!

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/333485



Economic and military aid is consistently exaggerated by ideological
haters of Israel. The aid Israel receives is only a tiny part of the
US budget and almost every penny of it is earmarked to be spent on
US goods and services so it all comes right back to the good old USA.

Israel is not at all unique in that the US spends lavishly on many
other countries and many of those are not nearly as strong long term
allies and many others such as Afghanistan. N Korea and Pakistan
have tremendous waste fraud and abuse and terrible human rights
records.

Israel does not commit terrorism and has laws that it enforces
strictly to guard against any terrorist attacks and prosecute any
individual vigilantes.

All of the supposed attacks which Israel-haters bandy about are
military actions taken by Israel to defend themselves usually
against real terrorist attacks (attacks intently focused on killing
innocent men women and children as a political and military tactic)
by real terrorists like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al=Aqsa, Islamic Jihad...
etc...etc...

This is why the record is "too substantial". It is too substantially
obvious that Israel is the victim of terrorism and never institutes
offensive actions and always demonstrates incredible restraint in
trying not to harm innocent civilians and treats injured civilians
on either side in their hospitals and with the greatest compassion.

OK - here is the bottom line. When the Israeli's lay down their
arms they are brutally attacked with terrorist techniques aimed at
killing Israeli civilians. When Palestinians lay down their arms
on the other hand there are prolonged periods of peace and Israel
never attacks. There you have it.

I have now attracted The Full Compliment

If Americans Knew published a study critical of The New York Times coverage of Israeli and Palestinian deaths, and met with then New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent to discuss their study.[2][18] In subsequent column Okrent mentioned the meeting and If Americans Knew's assertion that "The Times conscientiously reports on the deaths of Israeli children but ignores the deaths of Palestinian children", but dismissed If Americans Knew's conclusions, writing "The representatives of If Americans Knew earnestly believe that the information they presented to me about the killing of Palestinian children to be 'simple objective criteria.' But I don't think any of us can be objective about our own claimed objectivity." He also stated that "representatives of If Americans Knew expressed the belief that unless the paper assigned equal numbers of Muslim and Jewish reporters to cover the conflict, Jewish reporters should be kept off the beat" and said he found that "profoundly offensive."[19] Weir denied this, indicating that If Americans Knew had suggested that The New York Times team of reporters and editors covering Israel-Palestine be as diverse as possible.[18] If Americans Knew's study of The New York Times has also been criticized by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), for "selective and biased use and interpretation of information" and "flawed methodology".[20]
The Anti-Defamation League has called If Americans Knew one of several "anti-Israel organization[s]",[21] and further asserts that "Weir's criticism of Israel has, at times, crossed the line into anti-Semitism." They cited Weir's use of a quotation by Israel Shahak that characterized beliefs of certain Israelis as “such a ruthless and supremacist faith.”[22] Weir herself stated that she considered this quoted characterization as not pertaining to the mainstream of Judaism,[23] and has demanded that the ADL correct what she termed "defamatory and inaccurate statements."[24] The ADL voiced concern about an article written by board member Paul Findley in which he blamed America's relationship with Israel for the September 11 Attacks.[25]
Andy Newman, in a Op-ed in The Guardian, stated that "an article by Alison Weir... defends the unsubstantiated and implausible claims made by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet about Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinians in Gaza to harvest their organs. Weir implied, with no evidence, that Israel is at the centre of international organ smuggling. She then explicitly argued that the medieval "blood libel" – that Jews kill Christian children – has a basis in fact."[26] The 'Aftonbladet claims' refer to Donald Boström's accusations of Israeli organ harvesting. Weir responded in a letter to the editor, stating: "My article contains considerable additional information on Israeli organ trafficking and its subsidy by the Israeli government, many of its 37 citations from Israeli media. Perhaps for Mr Newman this constitutes "no evidence".[27] She added that, at the end of one[28] of her two articles on Israeli organ trafficking[28] she had included a short section in which she quoted Israeli media reports that a prominent Israeli professor of medieval Jewish history had published a book on the subject, referring to Ariel Toaff's book, which had argued that the medieval blood libel may have had a basis in purported medieval Jewish ritual murders.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Americans_Knew

I can see myself posting from this site until The New POTUS enters the whitehouse ,by then I shall be ready for retirement. There is only so many laughing heads one can look at without becoming totally bored." Sad Very Sad" as an OLD ADVERSARY of mine used to say.

Going to spend sometime talking to My Favourite American now.

I will be back To-Morrow.

I Promise

We can hardly wait.

You should have finished reading the article. One is better informed when they hear both sides of an issue.

f Americans Knew has been lauded by the liberal[29] media monitoring organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).[30]

Weir was given honorary membership in the Phi Alpha Literary Society at Illinois College in 2004, the award citing her as "Courageous journalist-lecturer on behalf of human rights. The first woman to receive an honorary membership in Phi Alpha history."[31]

The New York Times reported about a speech given by Weir in Greenwich, Connecticut: "When the speech ended, Ms. Weir was met with thunderous applause, and across the room there was a widespread sense of satisfaction that someone was saying what needed to be said."[32]
Board members

Alison Weir
Paul Findley, former United States Representative from Illinois.
Andrew Killgore, former United States Ambassador to Qatar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Americans_Knew

Its really getting boring though that when the message cant be discredited people try to attack the source it's so predictable.

Does one not feel foolish doing this? I know I would.

I wouldn't bother responding at all if that's the only response I could give.

It beats me why they bother.

See above response. No ad hominem there.


It does not matter who spews the nonsense I agree and attempts to
describe defensive Israeli military actions as terrorism are just
as inane in any language from any person.


If Israelis laid down their arms there would be a massacre.
If Palestinians laid down their arms there would be peace.

That is about as simple as it gets.

The first lesson in textual criticism is to assess the source. Obviously, not every source is truthful or accurate. In response, one could ask you, 'do you believe everything you read?' or 'do you read what you want to believe?'.

The rules of textual criticism.

1. Who wrote it?

2. When did they write it?

3. For whom was it written (determining the audience)

4. Why was it written?




It's simply a part of having an enquiring mind. So, if you feel foolish assessing a source, well....



I'd best not respond to this.

to them it is attacking the messenger!


As if People didn't know who Alison Weir,Findley et al are!
They are using the timehonored principle of joining different pieces of History together,and,voila,get a totally different revised History!Drop a few names of Revisionist "Historians" and you have an explosive Narrative that has little to do with "History"!
The Fellow who came to my Door the other day had his Bible done in a similar manner!
Highlighted all sorts of different Stuff!
Made an interesting Story when he read it all at once,and omitted everything in between!

what message?
Weir's Slander?

Israel, The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in The Middle East

allow me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You read the News with your Eyes closed?

PRESS RELEASE
August 6, 2012

Jewish Activists to Deliver Over 17,000 Signatures of Protest at Romney's Campaign Headquarters[/size

(Aug 6, 2012) - Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) will deliver over 17,000 signatures to Governor Mitt Romney's Boston, Massachusetts, office this afternoon calling on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to apologize for the ignorant and offensive remarks he made last week while in Jerusalem, where he claimed that differences between the Israeli and Palestinian economies were due to cultural factors, or even to divine providence. In a subsequent op-ed, Governor Romney again repeated his assertion that culture is a key reason why Israel's economy is much stronger than that of the Palestinian territories.

"Governor Romney is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is Israel's 45-year-old military occupation of Palestinian lands,” said Rabbi Joseph Berman of JVP. "Palestinians do not have freedom of movement for people or goods. They are not free to go and study or work as they please. They are not free to import or export raw materials or completed products without restrictions imposed by discriminatory Israeli policies and controls."

In addition to facing severe impediments to economic growth due to Israel's occupation regime, including theft of land and natural resources and restrictions on movement, Palestinians in the West Bank are a captive market for Israeli consumer products and a cheap labor force for Israeli industry, without any of the labor protections that Israeli workers enjoy under Israeli law.

"Governor Romney says that he believes in the importance of a 'culture of freedom' for economic development, yet he seems oblivious to the fact that millions of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation are not free, and that their lack of freedom is the first and most important obstacle to their economic progress," said JVP’s Pam Rogers. "Governor Romney should do the right thing and apologize to the Palestinian people for his uninformed and derogatory comments."

yep,The Jewish Voice For Peace!
What a sad Joke they are!
Poor Guys lost their way!
Sad,actually!