Why should Judaism unshackle itself from Zionism?
One part of the short answer is that the credibility of Judaism is being undermined by Zionism’s contempt for its moral values and ethical principles. In that sense there’s a case for saying that Zionism is a threat to the survival of Judaism. (The detailed case was made by Auschwitz survivor Hajo G. Meyer, an anti-Zionist Dutch national of German-Jewish origin, in his 2007 book An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.
Also to be noted in the context of the paragraph above is that Zionism’s founders were secular.
Their only interest in Judaism was using its idea of God as an estate agent.
The other part of the short answer is signalled by the title of my book, Zionism: The Real Enemyof the Jews.
Today the message of that title is being underlined by a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism. Contrary to what Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and those of the neo-fascist tendency to the extreme right of him assert, this rising tide is not, generally speaking, a manifestation of anti-Semitism (meaning prejudice against and a loathing of all Jews everywhere just because they are Jews). It is a manifestation of concern and anger provoked by the Zionist (not Jewish) state’s arrogance of power and insufferable self-righteousness. And it is happening because more and more people of all faiths and none, including a still smallish but growing number of Jews, are beginning to see Israel for what it really is: the oppressor and not the victim.
The danger for the Jews of the world is that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, my shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America. A warning of this danger was issued by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving director of military intelligence, in his 1988 book Israel’s Fateful Hour. He wrote:
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged.
Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it.
Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots.
Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism.
Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.
From the review of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews a journey through the propaganda lies and truth of history.
The key to understanding, the author writes, is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.
"Judaism is the religion of Jews, not 'the' Jews because not all Jews are religious.
Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.
Zionism is Jewish nationalism in the form of a sectarian, colonial enterprise which,
in the process of creating and then expanding in the Arab heartland a state for some Jews,
made a mockery of Judaism's moral values and ethical principles and demonstrated contempt for international law and the human and political rights of the Palestinians.
That's why, for example, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer titled his latest book
An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism."
The author adds:
"Supporters of Israel right or wrong conflate Judaism and Zionism because the assertion that they are one and the same enables them to claim that criticism of the Zionist state of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism.
Often, almost always these days, the accusation that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism is false.
And this false charge is the blackmail card played to silence criticism of, and suppress informed and honest debate about, the Zionist state and its policies.
The reality is that Judaism and political Zionism are total opposites,
and knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding two things.
One is why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist - opposed to Zionism's colonial enterprise - without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic (anti-Jew).
The other is why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hard core Zionist few in Palestine that became Israel.
Ersatz Israel has always been a purely human undertaking, by Marxist Eastern European atheists. Yahweh wrote it off two thousand years ago, just as he considered the antediluvian world a wash, so to speak. Evangelical Christians hang their hopes on the project because they have nothing else in the way of supernatural support to shore up their flagging faith.ReplyDelete
. . . . . . . not only with more primary care doctors but also more nurses, nurse-practitioners and physician assistants. I was then curious to find out more about what the ACA has been doing to upgrade primary care in the U.S. and found that it has already made major improvements.ReplyDelete
To train more primary care physicians and other personnel, the ACA has provided scholarships and loans. For example, in 2011 the White House reported: "The Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund is supporting the training of 600 new nurse practitioners and nurse midwives by 2015" and "the investment in Nurse Managed Clinics is projected to help train more than 900 nurses by 2013 and serve 94,000 patients." The ACA has also enabled community health centers to increase their staffs, with 3,000 nursing positions added since 2009.
To encourage more doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, the law included $3.5 billion for a 10% increase in primary care reimbursement rates for Medicare providers 2011-2016, and $8.3 billion for primary care Medicaid providers for the years 2013-2014. Sarah Kliff, who writes about the ACA for the Washington Post, explained in "Obamacare is about to give Medicaid docs a 73 percent raise" that the increased pay is temporary, but if it brings more doctors to the program, higher Medicaid rates may be maintained in the future.
To further strengthen primary care, the ACA has allocated $1.5 billion over five years to the National Health Service Corps, founded in 1972. In 2011, up to $28 million was available for scholarships for physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. Graduates agree to work for several years in areas where there is a shortage of health care professionals. The ACA also provides $11 billion for Federally Qualified Health Centers, 2011-2015, serving 15-20 million more patients by 2015.
The primary care physician shortage could be reduced by 50% or more by 2025, according to a Forbes article: "Doctor Shortage Could Ease As Obamacare Boosts Nurses, Physician Assistants." The article cautions, however, that. . . .
but, .. . but, . . . but, there aren't enough Doooctors, he wailed
Import 'em, from India.Delete
Free and Fair Trade, in products and LABOR.
End the AMA labor guild's monopoly in the trade of medicine.
End the immigration restrictions, then let those Foreign Doctors go through a PA period, at licensed and approved medical facilities, to prove their worthiness.
The Doctor Shortage is caused by the Doctor Guild, which controls licensing the medical schools.
Supply & Demand - where the supply is artificially controlled by those that profit from it..
Speaking of Mexico...oh, last thread...anyway, this was in my local rag yesterday and I thought it pretty good - ex pres of mehico:ReplyDelete
For Mexico, legalization is freedom Add to ...
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Feb. 17 2014, 6:00 AM EST
I recently had the opportunity to meet with Jim Pattison, one of Canada’s most powerful and influential business people. While sitting in his office overlooking Burrard Inlet and the mountains of Vancouver, Mr. Pattison asked me a most timely and intriguing question. “President Fox, I have read recently that you are in favour of the legalization of marijuana. Is that true?”
With Justin Bieber making headlines worldwide, I believe it’s a timely issue. The question essentially revolves around the issue of freedom of choice versus prohibition. How much money will be needlessly spent prosecuting and defending a young pop star when that same amount could be used in much more productive ways for the betterment of our societies if regulated consumption of drugs was legalized?
Legalization of not just marijuana, but all drugs, is the right thing to do.
Each person should be free to decide what’s best for himself or herself. We are all created equal and free. If we are created in such freedom, then we must be given the very freedom to decide our own behaviour and to act responsibly, as long as we do not detrimentally affect the rights of others.
Prohibition does not work, and this was proven even at the most sacrosanct moment: in the Garden of Eden. God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating the apple, and yet they ate the apple and created sin. How would history have changed if in this narrative, Adam and Eve were given the freedom of choice based upon the foundation of education – this apple is poisonous, this apple has worms in it, this apple is not good for your health? I believe they would not have eaten the apple.
The dramatic war on drugs in Mexico, in which tens of thousands of young Mexicans have been killed, is proof of prohibition’s failure. These people were not born criminals; they did not possess criminality in their genes. And yet because of a flawed public policy, because of lack of education and disinformation, because of lack of better economic incentives and opportunities, they became victims of an insane war against an enemy we can never defeat with the current prohibitions in place.
Mexico is not a significant producer or consumer of drugs. However, because of its unique geography – between drug-producing countries to the south and a giant drug-consuming country to the north – we are caught in this permanent war. We must extricate ourselves from it.
The United States has demonstrated a total incapacity to enforce its own laws and prevent the importation and distribution of drugs within its own territory. One is only left to wonder how this has occurred – loads of drugs easily cross the border from Mexico into the United States before being trafficked and sold in every corner of the country. I simply ask, who launders the money and buys the weapons and ammunition in the United States? And who brings the proceeds back to Mexico to bribe police, public officials, even members of the army?
If we were to adopt a policy of sound regulation in conjunction with the decriminalization of drugs, then we would have the money (through fees and taxes) to operate education and regulatory initiatives – as opposed to all of the money from the drug trade being controlled by the drug cartels and the criminals who run them. And we wouldn’t have to carry the immense burden of the cost of the war on drugs itself.
In this new paradigm, taking responsibility for one’s own health would mean consuming drugs responsibly, the same way society establishes an expectation for responsible eating, smoking and drinking.
Public opinion in favour of legalization considerably outweighs approval of government prohibitionist policies. The trend is well established, and like many other prohibitions, this one must eventually give way to freedom of choice exercised in an educated, responsible manner.Delete
Mexico will have to resolve the great policy trap it has been put in by the United States. But first, the United States must repeal its prohibitionist policies against drug consumption and adopt an educated, regulated marketplace.
A solid majority of people in the United States and Canada, partners with Mexico in a massive free-trade market, are in favour of legalizing marijuana not only for medical purposes, but also for responsible use. The time has come for the governments of our countries, and for governments worldwide, to act and to govern as was envisioned by the great president Abraham Lincoln: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”
When this monumental change takes place, it will provide for a better world, including our three countries.
Vicente Fox is former president of Mexico and founder of Centro Fox."
Money Laundering and The Drug Trade: The Role of the BanksDelete
Mexico is in the grip of a murderous drug war that has killed over 150,000 people since 2006. It is one of the most violent countries on earth. This drug war is a product of the transnational drug trade which is worth up to $400 billion a year and accounts for about 8% of all international trade.
The American government maintains that there is no alternative but to vigorously prosecute their zero tolerance policy of arresting drug users and their dealers. This has led to the incarceration of over 500,000 Americans. Meanwhile the flood of illegal drugs into America continues unabated.
One thing the American government has not done is to prosecute the largest banks in the world for supporting the drug cartels by washing billions of dollars of their blood stained money. As Narco sphere journalist Bill Conroy has observed banks are ”where the money is” in the global drug war.
HSBC, Western Union, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase&Co, Citigroup, Wachovia amongst many others have allegedly failed to comply with American anti-money laundering (AML) laws.
The Mexican drug cartels have caught the headlines again and again due to their murderous activities. The war between the different drug cartels and the war between the cartels and government security forces has spilled the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. The drug cartels would find it much harder to profit from their murderous activity if they didn’t have too big to fail banks willing to wash their dirty money.
In March 2010 Wachovia cut a deal with the US government which involved the bank being given fines of $160 million under a ”deferred prosecution” agreement. This was due to Wachovia’s heavy involvement in money laundering moving up to $378.4 billion over several years. Not one banker was prosecuted for illegal involvement in the drugs trade. Meanwhile small time drug dealers and users go to prison.
If any member of the public is caught in possession of a few grammes of coke or heroin you can bet your bottom dollar they will be going down to serve some hard time. However, if you are a bankster caught laundering billions of dollars for some of the most murderous people on the planet you get off with a slap on the wrist in the form of some puny fine and a deferred prosecution deal.
Charles A. Intriago, president of the Miami-based Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists has observed, “… If you’re an individual, and get caught, you get hammered.
“But if you’re a big bank, and you’re caught moving money for a terrorist or drug dealer, you don’t have to worry. You just fork over a monetary penalty, and then raise your fees to make up for it.
“Until we see bankers walking off in handcuffs to face charges in these cases, nothing is going to change,” Intriago adds. “These monetary penalties are just a cost of doing business to them, like paying for a new corporate jet.”
This failure on the behalf of the US government to really crack down on the finances of the drug cartels extends to British banks as well. In July 2012 the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a 339 page report detailing an amazing catalogue of ”criminal ” behaviour by London based HSBC.
This includes washing over $881 million for the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel and for the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia.
Besides this, HSBC affiliated banks such as HBUS repeatedly broke American AML laws by their long standing and severe AML deficiencies which allowed Saudi banks such as Al Rajhi to finance terrorist groups that included Al-Qaeda. HBUS the American affiliate of HSBC supplied Al Rajhi bank with nearly $1 billion in US dollars.
Jack Blum an attorney and former Senate investigator has commented,
“They violated every goddamn law in the book. They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business.”
In December 2012 the Department of Justice cut a deal with HSBC which imposed a record $1.9 billion dollar fine. It may sound a lot to ordinary folks but it is a tiny fraction of its annual profits which in 2011 totalled $22 billion. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Bauer announced the settlement at a press conference on 11 December 2012. His comments reveal why the US government decided to go soft on such criminal behaviour and show quite clearly how there is one law for the richest 1% and one law for the rest of us. Lenny Bauer said:
”Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”
Think about that statement for a moment.
A bank that has quite clearly been caught out helping murderous drug criminals, terrorist groups, third world dictatorships and all sorts of criminal characters is to be let off with a slap on the wrist.
No criminal prosecutions or even a mention of criminal behaviour due to the fears that to do so would put the world economy in jeopardy. So there you have it.
Banksters who engage in such behaviour that is regarded as criminal by the vast majority of people on the planet are not only too big to fail they are also too big to jail.
After the Department of Justice announcement of the deferred prosecution HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver said,
“We accept responsibility for our past mistakes. We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again.”
Such statements will provide little solace to the families of the 150,000 people estimated by US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta to have been killed in Mexico’s drug war. Nor will it help the hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens who have been forced to flee their homes and escape the violence by going to the United Sates or moving to other parts of Mexico.
Red Flag Software, makers of China's Red Hat derivative Red Flag Linux, has halted operations.ReplyDelete
"Once the world's second-largest Linux distributor, Red Flag Software has shuttered reportedly due to mismanagement and after owing employees months in unpaid wages. China's state-funded answer to global software giants like Microsoft ... filed for liquidation over the weekend and terminated all employee contracts.
China wanted Microsoft to extend the drop dead date for XP past this coming April 8, because half their PCs use it, Microsoft probably said they wanted to do it but that red flag thing bugged them...Delete
The XP that runs on the 'Tower of Power' is far superior to Window 8 on the lap top.Delete
Windows 8 is a piece of shit, XP has performed as needed, for years now.
Little wonder that the Microsoft wants it to go away. It's all a fella needs.
I dunno 'bout that. I've still got a computer running Win2000, a couple running XP, a couple running Win7, and a nice shiny new one running Win8. I just dumped a phone running win7 and have a new one running Win8. So far Win8 is performing great!. XP was good but they have made it better!!Delete
Maybe it is the Toshiba platform, but if I had wanted an XBox, I'd have bought an XBox.Delete
You can run a classic windows interface if you prefer. You should find the load times of the OS and programs to be significantly faster than older Win OS's.Delete
If I wanted to 'modify' the product after purchasing it, I wouldn't have bought it.Delete
Out of the box, it was and remains a piece of crap.
If I had known how shitty it was, or that I needed to 'tweak' it, for it to run right, I would not have bought it.
Doubt if I ever buy another machine with a microsoft program, again.
I have no need for the program to continue to as me to 'sign-up' for microsoft products, like it's e-mail service.
It is distracting to say the least, it is a poor product, from a poor company.
A copany that does not service its existing product line, but wanting to sell 'new' programs.
After the experience with their Windows 8, I would never buy another microsoft loaded machine, and NEVER get an XBox.
Looks like apple is the company for you.Delete
Or Sony on the gaming dude. A world if duopoly!Delete
Ugggg "side". . . "of"Delete
With Colorado legalizing marijuana, drug cartels could end up losing $1.425 billion annuallyReplyDelete
As expected, the legal pot business has proven to be an economic flourish in just under two weeks, including $5 million in its first five days. Marijuana may be legal to sell and legal to use recreationally in Colorado, but it’s not legal to place whatever money is made from it into standard financial institutions.
This is being done out of protection, supposedly, due to some experts believing that sanctioned marijuana retailers could become targets of Mexican drug cartels. Denver DEA office spokesman Albert Villasuso told reporters, "What is quite possible is that cartels will hire straw owners who have clean records who can apply for a license, then sell large quantities both legally and on the black market."
Officials believe that operating a legal business synonymous with illegal drug cartels might make pot retailers an objective for extortion. With marijuana legally being distributed in Colorado, there is virtually no need for black-market competition or backdoor deals to be made. Obviously, this wouldn’t sit well with those involved in the illegal industry.
How much are cartels losing? In September 2013, it was believed that the federal government was working on a solution that would allow marijuana businesses in Colorado to legally use the banking system. The Mexican Institute of Competitiveness said in 2012 that if Colorado were to legalize marijuana, drug cartels could end up losing $1.425 billion annually, which would put a dent in drug trafficking revenues 20-30%. The Sinaloa cartel, who does a lot of business in Colorado, could lose up to 50%.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
The Sinaloa Cartel is the one tht the DEA gave immunity to, as it dealt drugs in the Chicago area.Delete
The government is trying to suppress evidence of the arrangement in a Federal prosecution, on 'National Security' grounds.
heh, heh, heh.
It was a GW Bush era 'deal', with the Sinaola Cartel. They supply information on their competitors, the US government gives El Chapo and his people a 'pass'.
Gotta keep Law and Order!!ReplyDelete
"Woman jailed after failing to return video for nine years
A 27-year-old South Carolina woman, Kayla Finley, spent a night in custody last week after she was arrested for failing to return a movie she rented nine years ago. The missing video that got her in trouble: Monster-In-Law, a 2005 romantic comedy film with Jennifer Lopez and Jane Fonda.
Here is the Pickens County Court docket for the case of South Carolina v. Kayla Finley.
The charge against Ms. Finley, a mother of two: larceny, failure to return video or cassette tape, value $1,000 or less.
The court records say the movie was rented from a now-defunct store, Dalton's Video.
After spending a night in custody, Ms. Finley was released on a $2,000 bond.
Carlos Slim, world's richest man, partner in the NY Times ...ReplyDelete
Stratfor also functioned as an on-demand consultant for the multinational Emerson Electric Company and the multinational computer corporation Dell, which required them to stay up-to-date on Mexico security matters, ready to answer questions at a moment’s notice. According to a signed contract, Stratfor, for quarterly payments of $40,000, agreed to provide Emerson Electric, among other services, email and phone access to a briefer who would answer strategic questions about Mexico and other countries within 24 hours. [Email-ID 1419388, September 14, 2010]
One consultation in particular provides a window into the world of private intelligence, where information about powerful people and even criminal activity is relayed behind closed doors by for-profit companies—information that should be part of the public discourse:
Stratfor’s Anya Alfano, tasked with answering Dell’s concerns about Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim, asks, “Do we have any information about where Carlos Slim fits into the cartel dynamics that we’ve seen in Mexico? … Should clients have any concerns about dealing with him professionally?” [Email-ID 411681, April 19 2011]
Fred Burton relays Alfano’s question to a DEA Special Agent in Charge: “Billy, is the MX billionaire Carlos Slim linked to the narcos?” [Email-ID 863970 and Email-ID 1208803, April 19 and 20, 2011]
“Billy”—William F. Dionne—gives Stratfor the answer: “Regarding your question, the MX telecommunication billionaire is.” [Email-ID 1208803, April 20, 2011]
Tracfone, belongs in 'great part' to Mr Slim, Tracfone is often known for its participation in the Obamaphone program.
It's just common sense; those guys are way too big to be fighting the government, out in the open. They have to Be the "government."Delete
Evangelical Christians hang their hopes on the project because they have nothing else in the way of supernatural support to shore up their flagging faith.ReplyDelete
I hang my hope on keeping my faith in the truth.
As well as having an honest relationship with it.
There is no religion on the planet that will 'save' me if I fail in this first test, imo.
As to the article, Let the Dark Lord come forth for the Elders.ReplyDelete
Or forever hold their P's