Safeguarding Evil: The United States Placating Israeli Nationalism Under God Almighty
“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn’t trust the evidence of one’s eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest mission civilizatrice.” (Edward Said, Orientalism)
The Likud Party, Israel’s ultra-right wing political sect that encompasses Israeli nationalism, had begun to take a turn to become the Israeli Knesset’s majority. But the man to do it had just entered its wing, Benjamin Netanyahu in 1988. Founded in 1973, the Likud Party were a combination of former right wing party's such as the Liberal Party, the Free Centre, the National List, and the Movement for Greater Israel. By 1996, Netanyahu became the Likud’s candidate for prime minister in the 1996 Israeli legislative election. He would rise to power and appointed the Israeli Prime Minister on May 29th 1996.
Almost immediately, he took his influence on over to the one country he could persuade. The United States. Some say that Netanyahu became the Prime Minister thru the unfortunate luck from a barrage of Hamas bombings in 1996, which abridged the Oslo Accords. Oslo supporters had claimed that the multi-stage approach would build goodwill among Palestinians and would propel them to seek reconciliation when these major issues were raised in later stages. Netanyahu said that these concessions only gave encouragement to extremist elements, without receiving any tangible gestures in return.
But nothing can be approved without the say so from the Clinton administration. And this is where the US-Israeli partnership. which began decades ago, took a turn that would have disastrous consequences much later for those living in occupied Gaza. The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had held a major influence thru the auspices of cold hard cash, had entrenched themselves thru many years of being intimately involved in American political discourse and thru its major universities.
This led to the two party system, to become its true self. One singular entity that would become a “second” voice for Israeli sovereignty by any means necessary. With the continued fallout of the PLO, Yasser Arafat the organizations main authority, he too would become a consistent presence before Clinton and White House staff. A race for favor it seems, and Arafat knew Netanyahu would have the upper hand because he also knew America’s largest voting block, the Christian Evangelicals, would unanimously vote in favor of Netanyahu and the Israeli government.
For you see, its quite obvious. Both are directly tied to a nationalist ideology. But the unique irony is that, both the US Evangelicals and the Israeli Zionists are opposed when it comes to their “religious” interpretations. Christian Evangelical usually hold true to the belief that Christ returns during the battle of Armageddon where those who had a second chance to believe he is the son of man, would be raptured and saved. The Israeli Zionists, although not religious, tentatively believe that the rebuilding of the Third Temple would bring about the return of God.
Although this is hotly contested! Orthodox scholars and rabbinic authorities generally believe that rebuilding should occur in the era of the Jewish messiah at the hand of divine providence, although a minority position, following the opinion of Maimonides, holds that Jews should endeavor to rebuild the temple themselves, whenever possible.
So as you can see, the differences are rather noticeable. With Islam’s most holiest site in Israel, The Dome of the Rock, located in the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, right smack in the middle of centuries of inner turmoil, major conflicts and wars that many hundreds of thousands died to protect. This internal struggle to achieve the highest possible spiritual plane is man’s ultimate achievement, and he will do anything, even violate his own religious code to attain it!
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” — Edward Gibbon
Israeli Zionism entrenched itself as an ally to the United States under its founder, Theodore Herzl in the late nineteenth century. Herzl published his famous work in 1896, Der Udenstaat, the following quote:
“The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries — see, for instance, France — so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level.”
Herzl’s influential works were more receptive to the persecuted during the pogroms under the Russian Empire and to the American affluent who saw how Zionism could be useful. Herzl met with the lines of Louis Brandies, from the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, and also the first Jew to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Months later, June 1896, Herzl would meet with the leader of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Abdulhamid II, to present his solution of a Jewish State to the Sultan directly.
After this meeting, Hertzl’s dream would soon become a reality years later. However, Jews living under the ruling Alexander II, suffered greatly. Under hid decree, Alexander banned Jews from owning land. He also restricted Jews from travelling in and out of the country which put them under enormous pressure. Members of the Chabad Lubavitch, were seen as “illiterates” and deemed unworthy of being treated as equals.
Soon the pogroms began. Large scale riots from the mobs that Alexander riled up, began forcibly removing Jews from their homes, and also burning their belongings. To circumvent censorship, these pogroms were referred to in the Jewish press as the “Storms in the South” or “Storms in the Negev”. Those who survived the mass slaughter relocated to cities such as Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Herzl’s ideas about a Jewish only state were influenced by these pogrom's.
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
The letter would have been fitting had it been painted with the blood of the devil himself. For what was about to come, for future generations of Muslims and Israelis, was hell come to life in the mold of a false democracy.
“The real danger to the world’s resistance movements is the attempt to distort reality and to place the blame on the resistance groups’ actions without allowing them to portray their perspective, thus ignoring the reality of the occupation and the siege, like the situation in occupied Palestine.” — Hassan Nasrallah
The counterculture of the 1960’s inside the United States from the political left had been seen disfavorably by those who grew disenchanted by liberal ideals. A new political sect would begin to offshoot these “unamerican presuppositions”. They would later be called, the Neoconservatives. The neoconservative label was adopted by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative’” According to Justin Vaïsse book, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement”
“A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists who were originally associated with the moderate wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor party, the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA). Max Shachtman, a former Trotskyist theorist who developed strong feelings of antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees in the SDUSA with strong links to George Meany’s AFL-CIO. Following Shachtman and Meany.
This faction led the SP to oppose immediate withdrawal from the Vietnam War and oppose George McGovern in the Democratic primary race and, to some extent, the general election. They also chose to cease their own party-building and concentrated on working within the Democratic Party, eventually influencing it through the Democratic Leadership Council/”
American writer and academic, Michael Lind, would later regard the Neocon movement as:
“Neoconservatism … originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War] … many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center … Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.”
But two men whose ideas about the preservation of the American landscape using Christianity and a reformation of American ideals, would be Leo Stauss and Albert James Wohlstetter. Both of these men would later influence the neoconservative movement in the United States and their benefactors such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, would reshape US foreign policy intertwined with the foreign policy of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu.
Born in Tel Aviv, Israel in 1949, Benjamin Netanyahu was raised both in Israel and the United States. A precursor to whom he would later serve in the interests involving national politics. In 1967, he served in the Israel Defense Forces, and served in the Sayeret Matkal special forces as a captain, before being honorably discharged. Five years later he travelled to the United States and enrolled at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He went under a surname, Nitay, while up until he graduated in 1976 with a degree in architecture and management-and a doctorate in political science.
Netanyahu had spent most of his teenage years in the United States. He returned to Israel for army duty, serving five years in an elite commando unit and reached the rank of captain, before coming to MIT. Between the years 1984 and 1988, Netanyahu was Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. He quickly then rose to prominence after election as chair of Likud in 1993, becoming leader of the opposition. Netanyahu’s position toward the Palestinians was consistently changing, until the matter was behind closed doors with the military listening.
“The Israeli government has proved over the past year its commitment to peace, both in words and deeds. By contrast, the Palestinians are posing preconditions for renewing the diplomatic process in a way they have not done.”
For Netanyahu, might makes right.
“The application of military force, or the prospect of such application, inhibits terrorist violence..”
The Israeli right was seen as “moderate” and the new Likud Party wanted to fundamentally change that, but to do so, they needed the approval of the United States government and it’s citizenry.
Pat Robertson: “Why did Yanothon Netanyahu feel the way he did about Israel during the Entebbe Raid?”
Benjamin Netanyahu: “Well he didnt think he was fighting just Israeli’s war, now and present. He viewed himself as a link in the chain in Israel’s historic struggle. He saw it as a struggle to return Israel, and secure it for future generations.”
(The 700 Club Pat Robertson’s interview of Benjamin Netanyahu, 1982)
With a growing establishment of the Zionist ideology under Hertzl in the American culture, slowly i might add, the importance of the Israeli Lobby, also known as the, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would become paramount in it’s government institutions. This had to be expeditated but they had to wean the old WASP generations to do it, and they were very wary of the Israeli’s to begin with. The Saudi Kingdom were also trying to vie for influence Congress with far more money than any American official dared dream. But they had no affiliation, either religion or culture, with the Wahhabi clan.
Thus, the Israeli’s knew this and began to involve themselves with Evangelical churches and large corporations and the universities of influence. However, the Israeli’s had to get an extra advantage just in case the Americans grew wary of them. Espionage! Or from from Proverbs 24:6:
“Be-tahbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milkhamāh”
Which means “By way of deception, you shall engage in war.”
This phrase was the former motto of the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad. It reflects the importance of tactics and deception in warfare, particularly when facing a more powerful enemy. The Israeli Mossad was formed on December 13th 1949. They were once titled, as the Central Institute for Coordination, at the recommendation of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to Reuven Shiloah. By March 1951, it was reorganized and incorporated into the prime minister’s office, reporting directly to the Prime Minister of Israel. Thus would consolidate the power thru not the President but thru the Prime Minister, who hold more power thru its political institute, the Knesset.
The Israeli political party that gained more favorable support during the mid 1980’s would be the Likud Party. The Likud founded, a decade prior to its rise, in 1973 by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon in an alliance with several right-wing parties. Liberal establishments in the Middle East saw far too much internal strife, not just within each other, but with the people as well. The rise of Islamic fundamentalist groups definitely helped transition the Israeli conservative movement, into a nationalist ideology. This would help with the default position of “Israeli has the right to defend itself” while in conflict with domestic ultra-orthodox jihadist groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and later, Hamas.
The Israeli public grew weary of these groups guerilla tactics which involved self martyrdom bombings and the occasional machine gun attacks at public spots in places like Jaffa and Tel Aviv. The Likud Party, newly formed, played directly into the people’s fears and saw offense as the new “defense”. Over the Atlantic however, the rise of the Evangelical Christians would begin, thru the south’s mega church programs and it’s leading pastors. John Hagee, a former Regan foreign policy adviser, thru his ministry at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas and is also, the founder and chairman of the Christian Zionist organization Christians United for Israel, the largest Zionist organization in America.
The Christian zeitgeist wasn’t the word of the risen Christ who travelled to Galilee and the Temple Mount during the period of grace, but the latest self admittance from the Puritans of the message of a Jewish restoration.
“ In their thought physical Israel continued to have a place in God’s plan of salvation, due to His covenantal faithfulness. Consequently, probably beginning with Thomas Brightman, many Puritans expected that the Jews would return to their old geographical habitat in the Middle East. Later Puritans, like Samuel Rutherford, Joseph Mede, and Robert Maton, expected reconciliation of Israel with Christ and the flourishing of the Church after Christ’s return.” (Steven Paas, Christian Zionism Examined, Second Edition: A Review of Ideas on Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom)
But Christ didn’t return, and it was the belief from this consciousness that to bring about the return of the messiah, there will need to be a sign. That sign would be a human perversion. The threat of human existence would bring about the return of the king. The Jewish messianic however were unlike their Zionist brethren, they believed in something.
It wasn’t enough that Louis Brandies, Oral Roberts or Billy Graham brought about the popular narratives of Israel being a sovereign state. It needed the most important backer of its survival. The United States Congress, who during the various administration of the infancy period of the Jewish nation, were still indecisive about the continued support. However, Informal Christian support for Israel includes a broad range varieties support for Israel ranging from the programming and news coverage on the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Television Network to the more informal support of the annual Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem.
Isahiah Kenen, a Canadian lawyer and journalist for the Toronto Star, would go on to achieve the single most important institute for the Israeli Zionist mission, in 1954, Kenen founded the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It was truly unremarkable at first. At the time this was sufficient, as Israel was approached as a humanitarian cause in Washington at the time, not yet the high-stakes game they would later become during the Cold War. Kenen would pen a letter to a colleague stating:
“The lobby for Israel, known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 1959, came into existence in 1951. It was established at that time because Israel needed American economic assistance to enable her to absorb the huge influx of refugees who poured into the country soon after statehood.”
By the 1970’s other Jewish public groups like the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Zionist Organization for American, would become more prominent in the sensitive areas of government, most notably the Executive and Legislative Branches. With many tens of thousands of dollars being handed to promising governors and city councilmen, the Jewish influence along with a natural tie to the evangelical community of the South, Israel would soon become more recognized and supportive of American law makers decisions to simply hasten legislation to acquiesce the Israeli military and their absolution of the Arabs.
“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.” — (Benjamin Netanyahu, June 2001)
By the 1990’s, AIPAC solidified its position as a powerful force in shaping US-Israel relations and influencing political discourse. The Democrats wanted to persuade the Bush Sr. administration to place conditions on loan guarantees to Israel in response to settlement activity in the occupied West Bank. Leading the charge was a senator from Delaware, Joe Biden. But Biden is known to have a “checkered” history regarding his stance on Israel. Most know him from an infamous quote he made during the White House Hanukkiah party last year, “I learned a long time ago, you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. I am a Zionist.”
But according to an article by, The Nation in 2024, his previous thoughts on Israel wasn’t always convincing:
“Biden’s bedrock support for the Jewish state has coexisted with an occasional willingness to criticize its leadership that comes and goes according to shifting circumstances — a pattern that has been evident with Biden’s belated, halting attempts to limit military aid even as Netanyahu invades Rafah, and with his recent efforts to promote a supposedly Israeli-backed cease-fire deal that Israel itself continues to undermine.
The problem with Biden on Israel, in short, isn’t just that he’s been too supportive — it’s that he’s been incoherent. That incoherence, as much as the underlying immorality of his policy, is why the war in Gaza threatens to usher Trump back into the White House.”
Incoherent has always been a constant theme for the United States government regarding Israel’s foreign policy. However, when it comes to lobby financing, hardly any outward criticisms from even the more freshman official, would be noticed.
Murtaza Hussain, would later state in an article posted by The Intercept back in 2021, that Biden changed his tune once again regarding Israel this time in regards to the illegal West Bank settlements,
“Biden opposed moves by the George H.W. Bush administration to place conditions on loan guarantees to Israel in response to settlement activity in the occupied West Bank. He c0-sponsoreda bill aimed at forcing Bush to make the guarantees unconditional. During a 1992 speech at AIPAC’s annual policy conference, Biden expressed opposition to U.S. moves to put pressure on Israel to seek an agreement with its neighbors.
“Ladies and gentlemen, we are now at the ‘peace table,’ quote, unquote, with unclean hands, because there is a feeling abroad in this administration among some in Congress that somehow we owe an obligation to our Arab brethren to have Israel, quote, ‘be reasonable,’” Biden said, dismissing the “absurd notion that publicly vilifying Israel will somehow change its policy.”
The Bush dynasty were no friend to the Israeli Lobby but didn’t refuse its financing. It did however put Saudi Arabia back into the fold, and the Bush Sr. presidency strictly dealt with King Fahd and the Kingdom’s military committee and their Ministry of Defense, spending well over 4 billion in weapons armaments including the AWACS system which would be used to prepare for an Iraqi invasion. This led to tensions between the Reagan localists and Bush Sr officials. Israeli officials didn't very much like the idea of an armed to the teeth Saud army but their stance would later change.
The influence of the AIPAC lobby was felt even before Bush Sr. became president. The Wall Street Journal reported that in 1987 at least 51 of 80 pro-Israel PACs were operated by AIPAC officials. And not only that, their contacts even were felt within the more unsubstantial districts across America. For example, AIPSAC CEO, Thomas Dine, had created “caucuses” in every congressional district, with AIPAC staffers organizing every district’s Jewish community, regardless of size.
Campaign contributions were bundled and distributed to candidates in congressional districts and where they would do some good. According to journalist Connie Bruck, by the end of the 1980s, there were “dozens” of political action committees with no formal relation to AIPAC, but whose leader was often an AIPAC member!
Their board of directors, who were behind the steamroll campaign of getting to most every senator, were Mayer (Bubba) Mitchell, Edward Levy, Robert Asher, and Larry Weinberg. With Asher being the president of the AIPAC lobby at the time. Asher’s vision for the lobby was completely changed by the time Howard Kohr became its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in 1996, and lasted till his retirement in 2024.Kohr was far more deeply involved in the Israeli body as compared to Asher’s involvement in saving Israel’s soul. This would rapidly change from being a committee to a full on invasion of American politics, that still is within the body of Congress currently.
Ehud Barak was the leader of the Labor Party from the years 1997 to 2001. It was considered the left of Zionism and wanted to reform its position from the nationalist view to centrist of Israeli sovereignty. Neither position truly benefitted the Palestinians however, but Barak wanted to work with the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat. US President, Bill Clinton, invited both Barak and Arafat to Camp David which is a 125-acre country retreat for the president of the United States nestled in the wooded hills of Catoctin Mountain Park, in Frederick County, Maryland.
The meeting lasted 5 days, between July 5th to the afternoon hours of July 11th 2000. The Palestinians considered the summit premature but the meeting provided some but of a relief, however shortchanged the Arabs were overall. The talks ultimately failed to reach agreement on the final status issues: Territory Territorial contiguity Jerusalem and the Temple Mount Refugees and Palestinian right of return Security arrangements Settlements.
“In this week’s Nation, political scientist Richard Falk contests the standard view that Israel’s offer at Camp David was eminently fair. But Falk’s argument, embedded in a larger critique of American foreign policy, doesn’t get deeply into the nuts and bolts of the issue. If you want to see Camp David from Arafat’s point of view, a better place to look is a New York Review of Books piece that appeared back in August and was co-authored by Robert Malley, special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs in the Clinton administration.
Malley was at Camp David and found Arafat’s behavior there intensely frustrating, but he doesn’t buy the interpretation that is favored on the right — that Arafat’s rejection of the deal amounts to rejection of a two-state solution.” (Robert Wright, The Slate, 4–18–2002)
Israel would retain around 9% in the West Bank in exchange for 1% of land within the Green Line. The land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified. A win for Israel, not so much for Arafat, who would later viewed negatively over the years by Hamas. The Christian Evangelical community denounced Arafat as a terrorist and neglector of the overall Palestinian two state solution. But this wasn’t Arafat’s fault. That lies directly with Clinton and of course, the Labor Party and Likud, under direct command to secretly placate any forward advancements made by the PLO or the Palestinian Authority.
Even if they had to fund the opposition headed under the religious scion, Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, whom would become the emir of the Palestinian islamist group, Hamas.
“The more the world tries to understand the situation in the Middle East,the more the Zionist organizations in the United States, acting in concert with Israel, try to fog it up. lsrael’s wars against the Arabs in 1967 and 1982 obliterated its David image and confirmed it as the Goliath of the Middle East. No longer was it possible for the Israeli government to escape public scrutiny, despite all the immunity which it enjoys in the American public arena, as its forces, in the name of “security” for Israeli civilians, carried out the most ruthless aerial bombardment since Vietnam.
The U.S. ambassador in Lebanon, whose government used its Security Council veto to protest lsrael’s war gains in 1982, described their saturation bombing: “There is no pinpoint accuracy against targets in open spaces.” The Canadian ambassador said lsrael’s bombing “would make Berlin of 1944 look like a tea party. . it is truly a scene from Dante’s Inferno.” NBC’s John Chancellor said: “I kept thinking of the bombing of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War. ..we are now dealing with an imperial Israel.” Indeed, in their pure murderousness, given the frequent use of phosphorus and cluster bombs, the Israeli bombings of Beirut, an advanced form of state terrorism, far outstripped the attacks on Guernica, Coventry and Dresden.”
(Israeli’s Sacred Terrorism by Livia Rokach)
What was the most troubling issue during the initial growth of the Israeli Lobby inside the United States was that the West would have stronger relations with Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser. David Ben Gurion’s policy was directed at preventing guarantees from being imposed on the Zionist state by the United States. Thus, if Israel could contain Egypt, they could impose their will on the American political spectrum without Arab influence. Such guarantees would necessarily imply the achievement of a minimum agreement between Israel and the Arab world (definition of the borders, a “face-saving” solution for the Palestinian refugees).
Palestinian orthodox groups under the banner of Yassin and Fathi Shaqaqi thru their organizations Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, served a dual purpose. To end the subjugating of the Islamic peoples in Gaza and become the adversary of Mahmoud Abbas and PLO under Arafat, The Israeli government decided to take advantage of what could become a promising future. To subdue the area of Gaza with its military and police while covertly funding Yassin to instigate war against Arafat, who was gaining influence to the cause in Europe and Russia.
“According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.” — Times Of Israel dated 10–8–2023
But as Jonathan Schanzer noted in his 2008 book, Hamas vs. Fatah, “By the late 1970s, the Israelis believed that they had found Fatah’s Achilles’ heel… Fatah had become anxious over the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza,” and arguments between the two movements “sometimes turned violent, spilling into the streets.”
This would in turn give the Israeli’s exactly what they wanted. To dispel the global attention of a two state solution while having Islamic sectarian violence to facilitate the need for Israeli military presence inside Gaza at all times to repel the threat to its existence.
As of today, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the The Zionist Organization of America, Israeli American Council, Hadassah and many dozens of other Jewish Zionist groups operate in the private and public sectors of the United States. With impunity. They operate in a way that solidifies their own political existence while disavowing any responsibility from the international criminal courts when conducting war crimes against their own citizens in Gaza, West Bank and Haifa. Continued military and police assaults on the Arab populace while being shielded from any criticisms from their American counterparts while aggressively denouncing those who do subject the Israelis committing these assaults by labeling them “antisemitic”.
The stigma however is losing it’s essence, for much like the boy who cried wolf, the barn door is open…and the wolves are now in full view of the pale moon and the people have had enough. The time for justice against those who engage in extramusical violence against their neighbor is now being recognized.
