I think its about time we make a thread for such related material.
Whatever one's views, I don't think its possible anymore to deny that Israel is clearly a major influence/key player in the Geo-Politics of our times.
Both modern and historical examinations are welcome; Zionism and all that has resulted and fractalled off since and is yet to come.
It is a fascinating story with many deep roots and branches, many angles to examine in a world that people (and especially MSM) has been somehow conditioned to not examine
such as:
-Israeli Lobby/AIPAC in US Politics
-Balfour Declaration/pre-war Zionism
-History of Creation of Israel and resulting wars/history
-Possible involvement of 911?
-Influence of Military/Finance etc
-US NeoCons
-Prophetic endeavors/3rd Temple etc
-Judaism vs Zionism
-ADL
-Ashkenazi
-Khazars
-Bolsheviks
-Recent Embassy switch to Jerusalem
-Netanyahu
-Media influence
-Settlements
-Hamas
-Hezbollah
-Apartheid
-World opinion
-Future timelines
etc
etc
*Thread caveat/request:
This thread is intended to have nothing to do whatsoever with Jewish folks as individuals or as a whole; it is strictly a discussion and critique on the geo-political actions of hardcore Zionism both historically and currently, and the specific acts of such players on the Grand Chessboard
Zionism Thread
Don't even know where to start so here are some light random current headlines that I think are relevant:
U.S. Senate’s First Bill, in Midst of Shutdown, is a Bipartisan Defense of the Israeli Government from Boycotts
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s ... -boycotts/
When each new Congress is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House, and S.1 in the Senate.
In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 – meant to signal the new majority’s priorities – is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” U.S. District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa of Arizona wrote in her decision issuing a preliminary injunction against the law in a case brought last September by the ACLU on behalf of “an attorney who has contracted with the state for the last 12 years to provide legal services on behalf of incarcerated individuals” but who lost his contract to do so after he refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott Israel.
A similar ruling was issued in January of last year by a Kansas federal judge, who ruled that state’s Israel oath law unconstitutional on the ground that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.” In that case, a Mennonite who was a long-time public school teacher lost her independent contract as a school curriculum developer after she followed her church’s decision to boycott goods from Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank and thus refused to sign the oath required by Kansas law.
These are the Israel-defending, free-speech-punishing laws which Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen. Although Rubio is the chief sponsor, his bill attracted broad bipartisan support, as is true of most bills designed to protect Israel and which are supported by AIPAC. Rubio’s bill last Congress was cosponsored by a several Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez, N.J.; Joe Manchin, W.Va.; Ben Cardin, Md.; Ron Wyden, Ore.; Gary Peters, Mich.; and Debbie Stabenow, Mich.
The support among Democrats for bills that would punish supporters of the Boycott Israel movement is now particularly awkward given that two of the most prominent newly elected Democratic members – Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first two Muslim women in Congress – are both supporters of that Israel boycott.
Last year, Sen. Cardin introduced a bill that would have criminalized participation in international boycotts of Israel, and it was on the verge of passing with significant bipartisan support until the ACLU sounded the alarm on how gravely unconstitutional that bill was. Once the Intercept reported on the mechanics of the bill and the covert effort to enact it with little attention, numerous Democratic Senators announced they were reconsidering their support, stalling the bill’s enactment. Though Cardin attempted to pass a watered-down version in the lame-duck session, it is now Rubio’s Israel-defending bill that has taken center stage even as the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown for American citizens.
That the newly elected United States Congress would choose to prioritize protection of this foreign nation — at the expense of the Constitutional rights of American citizens and over countless bills that would help Americans — was only one of the stinging criticisms voiced to the Intercept by ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane:
In the midst of a partial government shutdown, Democratic and Republican senators have decided that one of their first orders of business next week should be to sneak through a bill that would weaken Americans’ First Amendment protections. The bill, Combatting BDS Act, encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds. The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government. We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combatting BDS Act next week.
With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law.
U.S. Senate’s First Bill, in Midst of Shutdown, is a Bipartisan Defense of the Israeli Government from Boycotts
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s ... -boycotts/
When each new Congress is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House, and S.1 in the Senate.
In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 – meant to signal the new majority’s priorities – is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” U.S. District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa of Arizona wrote in her decision issuing a preliminary injunction against the law in a case brought last September by the ACLU on behalf of “an attorney who has contracted with the state for the last 12 years to provide legal services on behalf of incarcerated individuals” but who lost his contract to do so after he refused to sign an oath pledging not to boycott Israel.
A similar ruling was issued in January of last year by a Kansas federal judge, who ruled that state’s Israel oath law unconstitutional on the ground that “the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.” In that case, a Mennonite who was a long-time public school teacher lost her independent contract as a school curriculum developer after she followed her church’s decision to boycott goods from Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank and thus refused to sign the oath required by Kansas law.
These are the Israel-defending, free-speech-punishing laws which Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen. Although Rubio is the chief sponsor, his bill attracted broad bipartisan support, as is true of most bills designed to protect Israel and which are supported by AIPAC. Rubio’s bill last Congress was cosponsored by a several Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez, N.J.; Joe Manchin, W.Va.; Ben Cardin, Md.; Ron Wyden, Ore.; Gary Peters, Mich.; and Debbie Stabenow, Mich.
The support among Democrats for bills that would punish supporters of the Boycott Israel movement is now particularly awkward given that two of the most prominent newly elected Democratic members – Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first two Muslim women in Congress – are both supporters of that Israel boycott.
Last year, Sen. Cardin introduced a bill that would have criminalized participation in international boycotts of Israel, and it was on the verge of passing with significant bipartisan support until the ACLU sounded the alarm on how gravely unconstitutional that bill was. Once the Intercept reported on the mechanics of the bill and the covert effort to enact it with little attention, numerous Democratic Senators announced they were reconsidering their support, stalling the bill’s enactment. Though Cardin attempted to pass a watered-down version in the lame-duck session, it is now Rubio’s Israel-defending bill that has taken center stage even as the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown for American citizens.
That the newly elected United States Congress would choose to prioritize protection of this foreign nation — at the expense of the Constitutional rights of American citizens and over countless bills that would help Americans — was only one of the stinging criticisms voiced to the Intercept by ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane:
In the midst of a partial government shutdown, Democratic and Republican senators have decided that one of their first orders of business next week should be to sneak through a bill that would weaken Americans’ First Amendment protections. The bill, Combatting BDS Act, encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds. The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government. We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combatting BDS Act next week.
With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law.
^^ that is on the heels of another story recently where US government employees were recently forced to take some sort of oath vowing they would not support BDS or something to that effect
One woman refused to take the oath and lost her job. Were many articles ranting how unconstitutional it is to force Americans to make oaths to other countries, etc.
I don't have any links now but you can find it, then relate it to the above article ^
One woman refused to take the oath and lost her job. Were many articles ranting how unconstitutional it is to force Americans to make oaths to other countries, etc.
I don't have any links now but you can find it, then relate it to the above article ^
This was bloody fascinating.
I never heard of this guy Gilad Atzmon before but he seems quite the mind
Serious conversation. Big questions. Honest thoughts.
Super insightful, guy on the left has some hardcore real life experience and authority on the issues/history/philosophy galore. Guy on the right picks his brain completely. Great great talk
I never heard of this guy Gilad Atzmon before but he seems quite the mind
Serious conversation. Big questions. Honest thoughts.
Super insightful, guy on the left has some hardcore real life experience and authority on the issues/history/philosophy galore. Guy on the right picks his brain completely. Great great talk
Rabbi Shekels' latest victim:
"Zionist involvement in 9/11."
You're on THIN ICE, Masato.
You're on THIN ICE, Masato.
^^ Thin ice like a hockey rink; only 1 inch thick, but underneath is hard smooth solid concrete
Seriously, I would challenge anyone to make a case for any other group who has anywhere near the same A)motive and B)means to pull off a 9/11. Israel has both in spades, I don't see any other group coming as close.
Here is a list of High Profile Israeli/Zionists who are totally linked to key aspects of the 9/11 events. BOTH means and motive for every one:
I'm not saying it's so, notice I used the word 'possible'. But the plausibility, motivation, means, and key players involved are well enough for me to consider it seriously. Why is this such an impossible or 'thin ice' scenario to consider and examine?
I still honestly don't get why you are so triggered by this, if I found evidence it was done by Japanese mafia or Russians I would call what I see out just the same. I've been studying 9/11 since Day 1, and its simply where the trails have led me. I have no dog in the fight
Seriously, I would challenge anyone to make a case for any other group who has anywhere near the same A)motive and B)means to pull off a 9/11. Israel has both in spades, I don't see any other group coming as close.
Here is a list of High Profile Israeli/Zionists who are totally linked to key aspects of the 9/11 events. BOTH means and motive for every one:
I'm not saying it's so, notice I used the word 'possible'. But the plausibility, motivation, means, and key players involved are well enough for me to consider it seriously. Why is this such an impossible or 'thin ice' scenario to consider and examine?
I still honestly don't get why you are so triggered by this, if I found evidence it was done by Japanese mafia or Russians I would call what I see out just the same. I've been studying 9/11 since Day 1, and its simply where the trails have led me. I have no dog in the fight
Mas if you compiled that yourself I am impressed. You were always a step ahead, a few feet deeper in this murky midst. I find the Zionism stuff kinda like feminism in that its done to death yet it keeps popping up. Starting to taste like brown bread when you want a pop tart. I commend those who can keep digging though.
Thanks Luigi
Brown Bread is better for you than pop tarts
To be honest, the subject it relatively new for me. I'd been studying 911, geo-politics, War on Terror, and all conspiracies under the sun since day 1 of 911, but never really looked at Israel as any significant piece of the puzzle. Didn't really know anything about it to be perfectly honest. No one ever talked about it, it was absent from almost all conspiracy discussions no matter how extreme. And of course whenever someone did, it had that fearful taste that maybe I shouldn't be listening to this etc.
Then all of a sudden a couple years ago I started seeing how big of a role it actually plays in things. From the WW's to the War on Terror, Israel and Zionists I see now are a totally a crucial and central piece of the puzzle. Its just that so few dare to look into it, even fewer dare to discuss it. Guys like Alex Jones for example NEVER goes there, ever. Yet he covers any other 'conspiracy' he can wrangle together.
Its just become so obvious imo, the relationship between Israel and US, the power of AIPAC and Israeli lobby groups, the amount of Zionist influence on the Neo-Con groups, the motivation to re-structure and control the Middle East (their neighbors), etc. Israel is clearly at the center of the whole Middle East mess, yet we are to believe they are not a player in the game? Just innocently and unfortunately sitting in the center of it all, but not involved? The way the MSM avoids any utterance of the subject like a plague, the clear and absurd over-representation of Israeli's/Zionists in the MSM... etc etc etc. It's starting to look like the 'Elephant in the Room'/'Emperor wears no clothes' type of situation.
I heard it explained once that 'Jewish Power is the extent to which people are censored from talking about Jewish Power'.
Its really unbelievable to me how such a key element in trying to understand our world is completely off-limits to most people. You can talk about anything you want, slander Russia and Iran and Trump all day, but don't you dare criticize Israel. Even though there is a total apartheid racially-based religious extremist system going on with nukes and getting unquestioned trillions from the US every year, presidency to presidency without fail. Nothing to see here? Really?
I think the silence needs to be broken. Israel is at the crux of so many world issues/problems right now, how insane is it that everyone is somehow scared to even discuss it?
Brown Bread is better for you than pop tarts
To be honest, the subject it relatively new for me. I'd been studying 911, geo-politics, War on Terror, and all conspiracies under the sun since day 1 of 911, but never really looked at Israel as any significant piece of the puzzle. Didn't really know anything about it to be perfectly honest. No one ever talked about it, it was absent from almost all conspiracy discussions no matter how extreme. And of course whenever someone did, it had that fearful taste that maybe I shouldn't be listening to this etc.
Then all of a sudden a couple years ago I started seeing how big of a role it actually plays in things. From the WW's to the War on Terror, Israel and Zionists I see now are a totally a crucial and central piece of the puzzle. Its just that so few dare to look into it, even fewer dare to discuss it. Guys like Alex Jones for example NEVER goes there, ever. Yet he covers any other 'conspiracy' he can wrangle together.
Its just become so obvious imo, the relationship between Israel and US, the power of AIPAC and Israeli lobby groups, the amount of Zionist influence on the Neo-Con groups, the motivation to re-structure and control the Middle East (their neighbors), etc. Israel is clearly at the center of the whole Middle East mess, yet we are to believe they are not a player in the game? Just innocently and unfortunately sitting in the center of it all, but not involved? The way the MSM avoids any utterance of the subject like a plague, the clear and absurd over-representation of Israeli's/Zionists in the MSM... etc etc etc. It's starting to look like the 'Elephant in the Room'/'Emperor wears no clothes' type of situation.
I heard it explained once that 'Jewish Power is the extent to which people are censored from talking about Jewish Power'.
Its really unbelievable to me how such a key element in trying to understand our world is completely off-limits to most people. You can talk about anything you want, slander Russia and Iran and Trump all day, but don't you dare criticize Israel. Even though there is a total apartheid racially-based religious extremist system going on with nukes and getting unquestioned trillions from the US every year, presidency to presidency without fail. Nothing to see here? Really?
I think the silence needs to be broken. Israel is at the crux of so many world issues/problems right now, how insane is it that everyone is somehow scared to even discuss it?
BANKS - MAINSTREAM WESTERN MEDIA - HOLLYWOOD
- All 3 are demonstrably over-represented by Israeli influence. Can this even be debated? Its very clear for anyone to see imo. I could post evidence here all day but find it redundant as its so obvious and easy to find for one's self
What are the ramifications of that? That amount of power really is almost unimaginable
Something is very wrong here, yet no one dares speak of what's right in front of their eyes.
- All 3 are demonstrably over-represented by Israeli influence. Can this even be debated? Its very clear for anyone to see imo. I could post evidence here all day but find it redundant as its so obvious and easy to find for one's self
What are the ramifications of that? That amount of power really is almost unimaginable
Something is very wrong here, yet no one dares speak of what's right in front of their eyes.
Return to “The Grand Chessboard”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests