House a "puppet of the Israel Lobby"; but Chomsky sees only the Empire
Re item 2: Middle-East Oil is important to the Empire, as Chomsky says, but control of that oil is jeopardized by the Zionist push for the Third Temple (which they want to build on the site of the Dome of the Rock) and Greater Israel. These Israeli goals are driving the Arab and Islamic revolt as response. Goldstone undermines Israel's Victimhood ideology by showing it as Perpetrator, its neighbours as Victims. In caving in to Israel over the Goldstone Report, the US is placing Israel's goals ahead of its own Imperial interest. Palestine Chronicle fails to notice Chomsky's can't-see-the-Lobby line.
Urinating on Jesus, and getting away with it (item 4) also attests to Jewish (not Christian) dominance and gives the lie to Chomsky's case.
(1) House a "servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby" - Paul Craig Roberts
(2) But Chomsky sees only the Empire - not the Lobby
(3) Goldstone and Gaza - Jimmy Carter
(4) Urinating on Jesus: In defence of Larry David, by Gilad Atzmon
(1) House a "servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby" - Paul Craig Roberts
From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 10.11.2009 12:02 PM
The Evil Empire
By Paul Craig Roberts, November 06, 2009, Information Clearing House
The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized interest groups that “our” government can no longer respond to the concerns of the American people who elect the president and the members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman emperors in the final days of that empire.
Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He promised change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held hostage by the private insurance companies seeking greater profits. The most likely outcome will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to help fund wars that enrich the military/security complex and the many companies created by privatizing services that the military once provided for itself at far lower costs. It would be interesting to know the percentage of the $700+ billion “defense” spending that goes to private companies. In American “capitalism,” an amazing amount of taxpayers’ earnings go to private firms via the government. Yet, Republicans scream about “socializing” health care.
Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have never made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public trough that drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with debt service obligations.
Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home from the Bush regime’s illegal wars of aggression. In its final days, the Bush regime realized that it could “win” in Iraq by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000 insurgents collecting US military pay, violence, although still high, dropped in half. All Obama had to do was to declare victory and bring our boys home,thanking Bush for winning the war. It would have shut up the Republicans.
But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share prices of those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So instead of doing what Obama said he would do and what the voters elected him to do, Obama restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan. Soon Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney’s threats to attack Iran.
In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for private insurance companies.
In place of peace there will be more war.
Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling away from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his comfortable victory have now swung against him, recently electing Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats. This is a protest vote, not a confidence vote in Republicans.
Obama’s credibility is shot. And so is Congress’s, assuming it ever had any. The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American “superpower” did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report.
In case you don’t know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The “Gaza Conflict” is the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US established in order to execute Nazis.
Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given his life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against humanity, but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him as a “self-hating Jew” because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli propaganda.
US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked man on AIPAC’s political extermination list, asked the House if the members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report.
The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world doesn’t count as it doesn’t give campaign contributions to members of Congress.
This shameful, servile act of “the world’s greatest democracy” occurred the very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA officers for kidnapping a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now considered “fugitives from justice” in Italy, and indeed they are.
The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of Egypt, where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured. The case against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge order his release.
One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and sending him to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture another “terrorist” in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home. Without the terrorist hoax, America’s wars for special interest reasons would become transparent even to Fox “News” junkies.
(2) But Chomsky sees only the Empire ("Oil") - not the Lobby ("Israel")
From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <email@example.com> Date: 10.11.2009 01:17 PM
November 03, 2009
Noam Chomsky: No Change in US 'Mafia Principle'
By Mamoon Alabbasi - London
As people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.
During two lectures organized by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.
"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said Chomsky. "But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.
"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.
Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."
"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.
Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained.
The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.
"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.
However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."
"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.
"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed.
Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.
"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth -- unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.
Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.
"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But ...the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran -- that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.
Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.
"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under George Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky.
This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against Iraqis, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.
"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added.
Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.
Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a "major crime", many critics of the invasion - including Obama - viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".
"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said
"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added.
Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.
The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.
But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.
The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.
Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments.
"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.
"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially started... and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare - (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.
"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added.
"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal with hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon--officially at least--virtually all their war aims," said Chomsky.
"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors--well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said
"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Laos," he added.
Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to.
"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.
The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.
But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.
Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.
But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations--which strongly objected to the Iraq war--and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.
So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.
Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises.
Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".
Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention".
Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using NATO.
NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.
But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.
"From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky. "NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added.
Middle East Oil
Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the world," in Eisenhower's words.
Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with "substantial control of the world."
This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development" in the Middle East.
Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.
"Public opinion is shifting substantially."
And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the 'West'.
"There is a lot to do in Western countries...primarily in the US."
Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western' countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.
In the conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."
- Mamoon Alabbasi contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
(3) Goldstone and Gaza - Jimmy Carter
Goldstone and Gaza
By Jimmy Carter
November 06, 2009 "New York Times" -- Published: November 5, 2009 -- Judge Richard Goldstone and the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict have issued a report about Gaza that is strongly critical of both Israel and Hamas for their violations of human rights. On Wednesday, a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly began a debate on whether to refer the report to the Security Council.
In January 2009 rudimentary rockets had been launched from Gaza toward nearby Jewish communities, and Israel had wreaked havoc with bombs, missiles, and ground invading forces. Judge Goldstone’s claim is that they are both guilty of “crimes against humanity.” Predictably, both the accused parties have denounced the report as biased and inaccurate.
It is good to remember that Judge Goldstone, from South Africa, is one of the world’s most widely respected jurists, with an impeccable record of wisdom, honesty and integrity. He is a devout Jew and has long been known as a fervent defender of Israel’s right to peace and security.
In April 2008 I personally visited Sderot and Ashkelon, Israeli communities near enough to have been hit by rockets fired from within Gaza. While there, I condemned these indiscriminate attacks on civilians as acts of terrorism, and I consider their condemnation by Judge Goldstone to be justified.
A year later, after the Israeli attack on Gaza, I was able to examine the damage done to the small and heavily populated area, surrounded by an impenetrable wall, with its gates tightly controlled. Knowing of the ability of Israeli forces, often using U.S. weapons, to strike targets with pinpoint accuracy, it was difficult to understand or explain the destruction of hospitals, schools, prisons, United Nations facilities, small factories and repair shops, agricultural processing plants and almost 40,000 homes.
The Goldstone committee examined closely the cause of deaths of the 1,387 Palestinians who perished, and the degree of damage to the various areas. The conclusion was that the civilian areas were targeted and the devastation was deliberate. Again, the criticism of Israel in the Goldstone report is justified.
He has called on the United States, Israel and others who dispute the accuracy of the report to conduct an independent investigation of their own. Hamas leaders have announced that their investigation is under way, but Israel has rejected Judge Goldstone’s request.
Putting this dispute aside, it is important to examine present circumstances and the need to prevent further suffering. The rocket fire from Gaza is now being severely restrained, perhaps because of the certainty of Israeli retaliation, but the punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza continues. Now and for the past 10 months, Israel has not permitted cement, lumber, panes of glass, or other building materials to pass their entry points into Gaza. Several hundred thousand homeless people suffered through last winter in a few tents, under plastic sheets, or huddled in caves dug into the debris of their former homes. The weather was warmer when I was there several months later, but the description of suffering through the winter cold was heartbreaking.
Another winter is now approaching, and neither the Israelis nor the international community has taken steps to alleviate the Gazans’ plight. United Nations agencies and leaders in the European community have offered to provide an avenue of channeling funds and building materials directly to the people in need, completely bypassing the Hamas political leaders. These officials, both in Gaza and in Damascus, have assured me that they would accept this arrangement.
There would be no chance for the misuse of such assistance for weapons, military fortifications, or other non-humanitarian purposes.
I was informed recently by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that he has pledged $1 billion, and other Arab leaders have added an additional $300 million for this purpose. There is little doubt that other nations would also be generous.
Without ascribing blame to either of the disputing parties, it is imperative that the United States and the international community take steps to assure that the rebuilding of Gaza be commenced, and without delay. The cries of homeless and freezing people demand relief.
Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and is a member of the Elders.
(4) Urinating on Jesus: In defence of Larry David, by Gilad Atzmon
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 10.11.2009 03:23 PM
In defence of Larry David by Gilad Atzmon
Monday, November 9, 2009 at 05:58AM Gilad Atzmon
Don’t Blame the Messenger
Critics of Larry David say he has gone further than any other Jewish comic or intellectual in insulting Christianity and Christian values.
In an episode of the highly popular HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which caricatures David’s true personal life, David accidentally splashes a drop of urine on a framed picture of Jesus that is hanging in his devout secretary’s bathroom.
Having been prescribed a drug that makes him urinate like an Israeli police anti-riot water-jet cannon, a drop of urine splashed right under the eye of Christ. In the scene David seems to be aware that some of his water has ended up on the face of Jesus. Before leaving the bathroom he stares at the drop closely, he is just about to clear it but guess what, he doesn’t. The man wouldn’t touch his own urine. He prefers to leave the mess behind. He doesn’t take responsibility. In the following scene, David’s secretary springs into his office overwhelmed with divine excitement, announcing that she and her mother have witnessed a miracle in their bathroom just after David left. They saw Jesus crying with a fresh tear running down his cheek.
People in America and around the world are outraged. ‘A Jewish comedian urinated on Jesus Christ they say.
Henry Makow was very eloquent in describing what is so wrong in David’s comedy. In his ‘toilet accident’ David managed to express contempt for “Jesus, Christianity and millions of Christians. First, No Christian would keep a portrait of Jesus in the bathroom. Only an arrogant, disrespectful, ignorant person like Larry David could imagine that. Second, no writer with respect for human dignity and decorum talks about toilet accidents. What is this childish fetish comedy-writers have with bodily and sexual functions? Is this the last taboo? Third, this scene would be classified as a hate crime if it were aimed at anyone but Christians. Imagine the reaction if he peed on a Menorah, an Israeli flag or a Koran? I don't believe this scene is an accident. It's a deliberate attack on the Christian majority, designed to humiliate, shame and disinherit.”
I obviously agree with the thrust of Makow’s argument, yet I would suggest to him to leave out the Jewish Menorah, for not many Jews know what the Menorah stands for. Let’s try instead, to imagine what would have happen if a Gentile would urinate by mistake on a Holocaust symbol. What would have happen if, for instance, a French Muslim comedian splashed a drop of urine on a portrait of Elie Wiesel? Let me tell you, hell would break loose.
I Spit Therefore I am
One must bear in mind that contempt towards others beliefs and spiritual symbols, is well imbued in the Jewish value system. This applies to the religious secular, left, right and centre. It is an established fact that Orthodox Jews are taught to spit whenever they come across a Crucifix or pass by a Church. Not many Gentiles are aware also of the devastating fact that Yeshu, the Hebrew name for Jesus, corresponds to the abbreviation for the Hebrew expression ‘yimmach shemo vezikhro’, meaning "May his name and memory be blotted out", an expression saved for the most hated enemies of the Jewish people such as Hitler and Amalek.
I learned recently from an American Jewish professor who teaches in Prague, that convoys of young American Jewish students make their way to the beautiful Czech capitol every summer. They apparently use the opportunity to spit on the many Churches and golden crucifixes around. I also learned from the professor that the Crucifixes on Prague’s famous Charles Bridge were initially decorated with the Hebrew words Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts” back in the 17th century just to stop Jews spiting on Christian symbols and the Crucifix in particular. *
But it isn’t just the orthodox Jews who spit on others precious symbols. In fact Jewish secular ideology is just as spiteful towards other ideologies. The so called Jewish Humanists, Liberals, progressives and atheists happen to spit on every form of spirituality and divinity. Jewish emancipation has led Jews towards a new form of Atheist zeal that has matured into zero tolerance towards religion. The emancipated believes in ‘reason’ and the ‘spirit of enlightenment’. But it goes further; the Zionists spit on human rights and universal values in the name of Jewish national revival. The Israelis spit white phosphorous on civilians in the name of the war against terror. The Marxist mocks God and religion in the name of ‘working class politics’. In fact to be a Jew is to spit on something. Even the so-called ‘self hating Jews’ spend much of their intellectual effort spitting on themselves.
Here Comes the Twist.
Larry David is a TV genius. I came across him for the first time a year or so ago. In the band wagon I was touring with at the time, the English Jewish manager played ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ all day long. My first reaction was total resentment towards the self-centric skinny sociopath. But soon he grew on me. In fact I fell in love, I became addicted and so were all the other band members who rushed to buy the entire DVD box. Interestingly enough, many of my Arab Friends happen to love David as well. I have recently learned from my friend Mamoon Alabbasi, an Iraqi born writer and editor, that he is a devoted Larry David fan. He insists that David could easily be an Arab character. Seemingly the Jewish protagonist has managed to bring to light some tribal tendencies that may as well cross the divide. David, the protagonist of Jewish autism, greed and selfishness somehow touches the universal.
In ‘Curb your Enthusiasm,’ David manages to blur the distinction between Larry David the protagonist and David the person. He invites the camera to his home, to his kitchen, to his bed, into his wife’s knickers. He is far more than just a glimpse into a Jewish, modern, Godless life. He is a dark satirical portrayal of everything that could ever go wrong with Jewish secular identity.
David spits on everything: you name it, he spits on it. It was David who exposes the Jewish fetish with body organs long before we all started to discuss Israeli organ harvesting. David ridicules the Shoa obsession, the Jewish and anti Wagner fetish. David spits on every possible American value one can think of. He mocks the celebrity culture, materialism and greed. He exposes Jewish supremacy, ignorance and arrogance. Yet, he is doing it all by putting himself in the line of fire. He doesn’t just bring to light to Jewish ugliness, he often embodies this ugliness himself.
David is probably the most courageous Jewish comedian of all time. He is there to provide us with the ultimate possible devastating portrait of Jewish emancipation. He is the self centric, egotistic, sickening character and yet, he is totally beloved and adorable.
In fact, it is not Larry David we should ‘pick on’, it is not David who is caught in a ‘toilet incident’. It is the disastrous identity he exposes and portrays on the little screen, which was once again caught spitting. Rather than David, it is those who are indoctrinated to hate whom we should criticize. Those who spit on Crosses, Churches, Koran, Islam, God, the prophets, spirituality, divinity and so on.
The above should lead us into a different interpretation of David’s latest incident.
The complexity that is exposed by David’s scene has very little to do with his accidental urine spray. It is not even David’s conscious decision not to clean the mess he left behind. Far more crucial and deep is David’s role in ridiculing and dismissing of divinity. By presenting the secretary as a fool who sees God in a ‘drop of urine’, David actually shows contempt to billions of believers. The sad truth is that constant rage against spirituality and divinity is the real message of the emancipated Jew to the Western World. The modern Jew regards him or herself as the embodiment of rationality, they dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces, they are logical, rational and positivist. They believe in empiricism, science and technology.
But in David’s ‘toilet scene’ it is not just Christ and the Christians who are being insulted, it is an insult to anyone who believes that life is more than just physical matter. And yet, David should be thanked for providing us once again with a glimpse into the emancipated Jewish mind.
Far more concerning is the fact that even the Catholic leaders who were outraged by David's toilet scene failed to grasp or articulate where the problem was. Even they lost the capacity to think in spiritual terms. They themselves fell into the Judeo centric material symbolic trap thinking about ‘a urine drop’ and a ‘portrait of Christ’.
David’s Catholic critics failed to grasp it all because they are already spiritually suppressed, silenced, robbed and indoctrinated by different enlightened rational ‘Davids’. They are pushed into the corner by an extremely intolerant institutionalised liberal discourse that is there to serve one emancipated tribe in particular.
David, bless him, took upon himself the courageous responsibility to portray the ugly face of Jewish atheism and Jewish liberal identity. He took it upon himself to embody the dismissal of divinity and spirituality. Rather than blaming the messenger we better be brave enough to read the message.
* “On Charles Bridge, the visitor will observe a great crucifix surrounded by huge gilded Hebrew letters that spell the traditional Hebrew sanctification Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts.” According to various commentators, this piece, degrading to Jews, came about because in 1609 a Jew was accused of desecrating the crucifix. The Jewish community was forced to pay for putting up the Hebrew words in Gold letters. Another explanation is that a Jew spit at the cross and for this he was to be put to death as punishment. When this man begged for his life, the king, seeking to have good relations with the Jews, said the Jewish community had to rectify the offence….” (To read more: Travel Guide for Jewish Europe, pg 497)