STRANGE SYMBIOSIS – ISRAEL & ANTI-SEMITISM

Antiwar.com ^ | December 28, 2001 | Justin Raimondo

[H.R. Gross]

Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com

December 28, 2001

STRANGE SYMBIOSIS – ISRAEL & ANTI-SEMITISM
That 'sh*tty little country' is dangerous – to its allies, and to Jews everywhere

As Israel prepares to expel its Arab helots from Palestine, its "amen corner" worldwide is also on the march, excoriating anyone who looks cross-eyed at Ariel Sharon as an "anti-Semite." The latest front in this campaign is England, where Barbara Amiel, wife of media magnate Conrad Black, went on a rampage in the Telegraph, claiming that, at a recent dinner party, the French ambassador referred to Israel as "that sh*tty little country," and wondered why the world had to be dragged to the edge of World War III on account of it. On the basis of evidence gleaned at ritzy cocktail parties, says Ms. Amiel, the world is experiencing a revival of anti-Semitism, which is now "respectable" again.

OSAMA ON MTV?

Oh, please! Does she really expect us to believe that Osama's infamous videos denouncing the "Jews and Crusaders" are the "in" thing with the hip cognoscenti? Lay off the crack pipe, lady, and get real: anti-Semitism is less respectable than pedophilia. After all, hordes of people aren't buying The Protocols of the Elder of Zion the way they're snatching up those Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs, now are they? Amiel's essay is just one breathtaking inversion of reality after another. Getta load-a this:

"For the past 25 years, I've watched sad-faced Israeli activists trudge around Western capitals with heavy hearts beating under ill-fitting suits. They carry folders of transcripts and videotapes to document the misrepresentations in the press and the moral hypocrisy of the world towards Israel. They want to win the war of ideas on its merits. Their attention to detail in translating the hate literature of the Middle East and the hate-filled speeches of its leaders is commendable."

FOLLOW THE MONEY

One can only wonder what "Western capitals" she means: surely not Washington, D.C. Everyone acknowledges that the Israel lobby is among the most powerful in the Imperial City. How else have they managed to get their hands on a grand total of $90 billion-plus in American military and economic aid since Israel's inception?

A STRANGE IRONY

Aside from US exporters, Israel is the single largest beneficiary of our "foreign aid" program: US tax dollars paid for a booby-trap bomb planted near an Arab elementary school, which blasted a group of Palestinian children – children! – to bits. American tax dollars also pay for Israeli "settlements" inhabited by violent, fanatical fundamentalists intent on provoking war no matter what. This image of sad bedraggled little underdogs making their rounds, desperately fighting an uphill battle against overwhelming odds, is nothing but a bad joke – either that, or it is meant to be ironic.

I SHOULD BE SO POWERLESS

If the Israeli lobby is so powerless, then why this American largesse? We not only arm Israel, but we also prop up their sh*tty little socialist economy with constant infusions of cash. Whatever those Israeli "activists" are carrying around in their folders, whatever is on those videotapes, it must be some pretty powerful stuff. Given the Fox News revelations about the extent of Israeli spying in the US, I don't even want to hazard a guess as to what's in them.

THE ONEIDA PURGE

They want to "win the war of ideas on its merits"? Tell that to Jean Ryan, former managing editor of the Oneida (NY) Daily Dispatch, and city editor Dale Seth (a 15-year veteran of the paper), who were both fired when a delegation of Israel Firsters approached the editor and then the owner demanding the paper retract an allegedly "anti-Semitic" post-9/11 editorial written by Seth. Seth's crime was to recall the terrorist origins of the Jewish state – as if no one had ever heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, both of which waged war on the Arab civilian population – and without which the state of Israel would never have come into existence. He also made the true but politically incorrect observation that the whole region is rife with religious fanaticism, and Israel is no exception to the rule:

"The United States, through its close association with Israel since its inception, has now been dragged kicking and screaming right into the middle of that centuries-old Middle Eastern conflict. From that position, it would behoove that party in the middle to consider the hearts of the warring parties. Neither can be simply beat into submission."

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

A local attorney, Randy Schaal, demanded a meeting with Ryan to protest the editorial: Ryan refused to meet with him, pointing out that that if the staff met with everyone who disagreed with an editorial, they would never get a paper out. She told him to write a letter to the editor, which he did. But Schaal also contacted local politicians, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, and it wasn't long before pressure was brought to bear on the paper's management, which then ordered its editors to come up with a "clarification." This was published alongside Schaal's letter, a letter from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and a missive from the mayor of Oneida. Still, Schaal and his fellow Ameners weren't satisfied. They went to the President of the Journal Register Co., and demanded a retraction and an apology: it was unconditional surrender, or nothing.

GROVELING TOWARD BETHLEHEM

After a series of meetings with various self-appointed representatives of the Jewish community, the owners of the Daily Dispatch caved and published a groveling mea culpa: "We understand many felt [the editorial] expressed anti-Semitic sentiments," it said. "We will not further offend our readers by attempting in any way to justify what was written; we can only assure readers that The Dispatch is not anti-Semitic and that we acknowledge the editorial should not have been published."

So much for the Israeli lobby winning the war of ideas on the "merits" of their case. Clearly, another strategy is at work here: not debating their opponents but silencing them.

ODE TO BRUTE FORCE

The rest of Amiel's essay is really a kind of paean to the efficacy of brute force. While those poor bedraggled Israeli "activists" may have been fighting an uphill battle, according to Amiel, in the post-9/11 era the tide seems to be turning, and she can hardly keep herself from gloating that now the Arabs are really going to get it:

"Powerful as the truth may be, it needs a nudge from 16,000lb daisy cutter bombs once in a while. The Arab/Muslim world's intransigence comes into sharper focus when we see the Americans liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban in six weeks and a cornered Arafat unable to go to the bathroom without the risk of being blown into the next world."

PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS

Here is the kind of Zionist who clearly enjoys the brutality and indignity of the Israeli occupation. Such people now feel free to publicly exhibit and even flaunt their perversity, which seems like something straight out of Kraft-Ebbing. What else can one call Amiel's odd interest in controlling Arafat's bowel movements other than a sh*tty little perversion?

THE TERRORISTIC IMPERATIVE

"Nothing succeeds like powerful bombs," exults this war goddess, "as bin Laden explained in his latest video release. 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse,' he said." How natural for her to approvingly cite bin Laden on the terroristic imperative: but then that is what tribal warfare is all about, no matter which side one fights on.

CHOO-CHOO

Yes, it is force, not reason or negotiation, that is decisive, avers Ms. Amiel, who gleefully predicts that "All those people badmouthing the Jews and Israel will quieten down." Or else be quieted down, involuntarily, like Jean Ryan, Dale Seth, and now perhaps Carl Cameron, of Fox News. "You are looking," Amiel continues, "at the tail end of the train but the engine has already turned a corner and is going in the opposite direction" – and anyone who shows up at one of those ritzy parties she's always attending had better get on board, or else.

AMIEL'S JIHAD

No one would think to label denunciations of, say, Robert Mugabe, as the equivalent of anti-black racism: but we are expected to just accept that virtually all criticism of Israel and Ariel Sharon is due to "anti-Semitism." Amiel's blatantly dishonest and self-serving jihad is naturally bound to cause resentment among all thinking people – an emotion that could, easily, turn into genuine anti-Semitism. But that, I believe, is the point: anti-Semitism serves the interests of the most extreme wing of the Zionist movement, and always has.

100 YEARS AFTER DREYFUSS

Founded as it is on the permanence of Jewish victimology, and the idea that anti-Semitism is inevitable, Zionism thrives when Jewish persecution grows. It is a natural tendency of Zionist propaganda to exaggerate hostility to Jews. The founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was confirmed in his opinion that it was "futile" to combat anti-Semitism when the infamous Dreyfuss case was at the center of a storm of controversy. Today, however, with the rapid decline and marginalization of anti-Semitism everywhere but in the Middle East, the pressing need for a Jewish state requires more justification.

WHY A JEWISH STATE?

Anti-Semitism in the West, as "hate crime" statistics and other research has shown in recent years, is practically nonexistent. This good news was hailed by Jewish organizations in the US when it was first announced, but the extreme Zionists were no doubt made uneasy. For if anti-Jewish prejudice is distinctly beyond the pale, at least in the civilized world, i.e., the West, then what do we need a Jewish state for? This is a question many Jews, when faced with an appeal to emigrate to Israel, must ask themselves, and, at least up until Ms. Amiel's outburst, the Zionists have had no good answer. Now they appear to have solved the problem by simply redefining "anti-Semitism" to mean any criticism of Israel's expansionist policies and its current radical right-wing government.

THE OLD ANTI-SEMITISM

Anti-Semitism used to mean legal and cultural proscriptions directed against Jews. In medieval Europe, Jews were forced into ghettos, in Nazi Germany they were branded with the yellow star and exterminated, and, in America and Europe, it used to be that some establishments, both high and low, would not do business with Jews. Certain hotels and men's clubs would not admit them, and anti-Semitism was especially rife in the universities where an unofficial Jewish quota kept their numbers and influence limited. This is real anti-Semitism, and, today, it is not only illegal but socially and politically unacceptable: anyone deemed an anti-Semite in this, the original sense, is in effect a pariah, and rightly so.

Read the rest of the article

[CommiesOut]

Members of the Knesset in the Polish Sejm?
I read in the US press they were nothing but prosecuted out there.
Are you sure you're not a... revisionist?

[NewAmsterdam]

Sure, a Jew never set foot in the Sejm. In fact, the Poles had their blueprints for Oswiecim all ready to go, but those spoil-sport Nazis beat them to it. (I know you can standa little black, sarcastic, EurOOOOOOOOOOOOOpean, humour. God, is it good to live in Europe.

[CommiesOut]

Now you talking.
You earned my personal permission to be on this thread :)

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

To: Audie Murphy

S'matter, duchess? Can't smell one of your own?

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

So I gather you aren't able to produce evidence, that we could use to continue discussion on the factual basis?

Why, my goodness. I'm sitting here looking at the *silenced* Carl cameron LIVE on FOX. Another erroneous piece of crap put to a merciful death.
But that isn't why I am replying to you, madrussian. Of course I can produce as many numbers as your screen can hold as to how much ACTUAL aid goes to Russia and/or any other country for that matter. Even you have to know that any set figure that comes out of the Senate is on the spin end of the cycle. No one is that dumb. So that can't really be why you replied to me, now can it?
So what's the deal? Do you really have something you want to discuss, or are the endless insults going to keep on running, because if that is all you desire, I'm afraid I'm not your daisy.
So here is a point, and I am serious. You call yourself an America Firster, and you feign righteous anger over your tax dollars being used for aid to Israel, which Israel more than repays, yet I see you excusing our tax dollars going to Russia, much of which has gone for purposes other than which it was intended, or disappeared completely. We also distribute aid in many various ways, all which cost us money, to countries who tolerate slavery, forced abortions, murder their own people, Zimbabwe being one of the most atrocious places our money goes while they murder white farmers who built their economy from the git go. Where is the outrage about all those places?
You know as well as I do that the IMF is set up as a control mechanism, both to blackmail poor countries into accepting rules that are abomination, or to destroy an entire country's economy if they fall out of favor with the powers that be. We have watched this happen on many more than one occasion.
Which brings me back to why you flagged me. I told you I have helped you out several times, and before this thread, out of sheer humanity, I gave you an url because I knew it was of particular interest to you. And yet, you repay and reply with meaningless insults and expect me to respond in kind. Why? Why do you want me to insult you when that was never my intention? And why do you support flagrant untruths as proffered here when you know better?

[Carry_Okie]

Forgive my tardiness in a response. We had guests last night. These are but musings. I hope you treat them more kindly.

I am not a Calvinist, pagan or heretic and do not categorize "evil", evil men, or evil intent as "God's Will".

Neither am I.

That said, I think it's entirely possible our creator has a fairly good idea how things will turn out, what choices we will make ... even if this clarity on his part is due solely to his knowing "in advance" our potential for choosing His or our own will and what acts we shall commit as a consequence of that choice.

Forgive my ill-considered use of the word "plan," however, if God created both free will and natural law (including both physical and social mechanics producing immediate and cascaded consequences of individual choices), and humans behave according to those laws, then when they make their choices as they do the results are predictable and obvious. Any nonlinear temporal experience (such as prophesy) would only confirm those mechanics while leaving the actors free to make their choices. One need not know who or why a person will make such choices, only that given the temptations some idiot will do it and the consequences are inevitable.

We were created and play according to our choices. It is to me a great and loving gift to allow such possibility as our own tragic failings no matter how predictable or foreseen. They are our choices in our lives. That is the gift.

The operation of prophecy has its place, then, despite the absolute truth that is our being possessed of free will.

Actually, on that I think we agree. I have experienced precognition with foreknowledge; i.e., that it was a precognitive experience at the time I "saw" it.

I believe it's a mistake to believe that it is for men to bring about -- by whatever means necessary -- certain prophecies. It seems altogether possible that this is precisely the abuse of free will that, while appearing to conform to what they assume is "God's Will" for its having been prophesied by holy men, actually is a failure of obedience to God's will.

See above. I think there is concurrence here too.

I do not believe it can possibly be true that terrorists and globalists should establish the true Zion.

Good thought. A "Zion in one’s own image," as it were. Pretty horrible thought, isn’t it? Particularly from a gang infused with Theosophists, animists, and the Baha’i ersatz pantheists.

Rather, in all my arguments, I trust it's clear that I believe all men -- regardless the avenue by which they approach God, his truth and his justice (as long as they are obedient and faithful to what they know to be true) have a certain obligation to abide by God's law as written in the heart of every man.

Seems to me that in some respects this could represent a tricky way out of the Catholic's remand to evangelism. I attended Catholic school as a non-Catholic and was thus acutely aware of those presuppositions. It would seem this a rationalization of the of that remand and its conflict with the ecumenism inherent to American citizenship and the conduct of political discourse in a public forum.

Clearly, the sentiments, actions, rationalization, intent and hate exhibited in such abundance on this thread and others suggests that some -- Jew, Christian, "atheist", what have you -- are not following their consciences.

About this I am not so certain you are on solid ground. Consider the later post by CommiesOUT (#886, I believe). Notice the public standard of ad hominem common among Jews, or for that matter the use of the word "nigger" among American blacks. There is a propensity to discount such habitual speech within one’s own social group, while maintaining the public double-standard of vicious, paranoid accusations of anti-Semitism or racism respectively. Such would allow in one's mind the latitude to fling the epithet while hiding behind the wall of public reproach for "hate speech."

The fact the forked tongue our own nation speaks of "faith-based partnerships" and "Holy War" ... not to mention washes down with a spoonful of Scripture federal funding for research on "Excess" human lives ... ought to be a wake-up call that things aren't what they seem.

Indeed.

(The United States is just slow -- about a century or so -- to the game of concertedly manipulating the faithful on religious terms.)

Are you referring here to globalist "secular humanism," Earth worship, Theosophy... what? All of the above?

I see no reason why we should recognize as just the establishment and sustaining of a nation confected primarily by militant atheists and globalists who capitalized -- and still capitalize -- on a Divine Promise to the Jews. I think the Jews -- particularly the memory of those who suffered and died under National Socialist and Communist atrocities -- are being used to great effect by the pragmatists who seem to have won us over to their particular bit of alchemy where "God's Will" is concerned.

There is an inference here I do not understand, unless it is to that "license by prophesy" mechanic to which you referred above. The conflict with your concept of Zion to which I can refer you is in Deuteronomy (to which I referred elsewhere in this misbegotten thread). God made it VERY clear that there was "a place I shall appoint," that was to be forever central to His Promise to the children of Israel. Having set that up, He had to know that if they blew it and the Temple was destroyed, that upon penitence there would be a fight to restore it. He had to know that this "stiff-necked people" would inevitably do so. He had to know that the temptation to desecrate it by the claim of supercedure would be great, and perhaps by incorporation by inheritance to the claim of Isaac by the children of Ishmael. Thus the Dome of the Rock. He had to understand that the adherents of that future race would cling to that claim to inheritance with their lives, as do the children of Esau. He had to love us to put the whole picture in front of our noses in neon lights so that there would be no excuses, knowing how stiff-necked we are and loving us anyway.

Isn't it fascinating?

He picks a place and watches the play in which we all make our moral choices among seemingly insoluble and imiscible claims and loyalties to that one God and His Law by however we make it in our image. Future conflicts are obvious and now enmesh the world, as predicted in prophesy (one of those natural law mechanics I talked about).

You see no "plan" there? What if I had defined such a "plan" as a set of immutable physical, social, and spiritual laws? Remember now, this is just little ol' me being a-musing. :-)

[NewAmsterdam]

I am afraid that the historical revisionists can be found on this site by the truckloads. I mean those Americans who think that the US went to war in 41 to 'save the Jews' which is the most ridiculous piece of nonsense ever produced. Of course, to make them feel even better about themselves, they maintain that Jews were (and are) ALWAYS persecuted in ALL European countries. Especially Switserland is guilty, for some reason. (Huh? Never heard of concentration camps in Switserland, have you?). The fact that only one or two of all mayors of Amsterdam of the last century were non-Jews does not seem to matter (not that they would know such a fact, of course). Neither do they want to have a look at American anti-Semitism of the last Century, which was a common phenomenon. The truth is simply that anti-Semitism as a sentiment has existed all over the place. Without the Nazis, however, no nation would have dreamt of acting on those sentiments. But since the Nazis did there is no shortage of people taking on the holier-than-thou attitude. Even worse, since they are now so self-deluded in thinking that they entered WWII to save the Jews when everyone else stood by doing nothing, they conclude that they can be the moral arbiters of the present-day world and everyone in it. These people are dangerous.

[Justin Raimondo]

Okay, Saber, you've raised a lot of different points in your post, but I'll try to answer some of them:

On the question of haven't I and my "alies" done just the same thing as the Amen Corner -- after all, even the term "Amen Corner" is itself provocative? To begin with, I don't have any "allies" in the sense you mean. I can't be held personally responsible for the views expressed by another who claims to agree with my views. Secondly, you are right that the term "Amen Corner" is provocative, but that is true for political-ideological reasons. It is not purely personal invective. I use it because it was coined by Pat Buchanan, a man whom I believe is the archetypal case of a man unfairly attacked and smeared as an alleged "anti-Semite." So I am making a political point here, not calling my opponents sexual perverts or making a racially tinged crack.

I don't agree with your formulation of "on the borderline of anti-Semitism." There is no "borderline": a statement is either anti-Semitic or it is not. Period.

As for the Palestinian question and the US stance: if we withdrew all the "aid" money given, directly and indirectly, to the Israeli settler colony, totally and immediately, Tel Aviv would be in no condition to be "unleashed." It would then have to face the economic contradictions of maintaining a militarized Sparta-like society in a hostile sea of Arabs. Diplomatically, I think the US has to condemn any inherently unjust situation, such as the Israeli occupation, and it ought to link the withdrawal of all aid to this ongoing crime against an entire people. If Sharon wants to be "unleashed," then he must do it on his own dime -- and without the moral sanction of the US.

My view, expressed on several occasions, is that Jews (and all oppressed minorities) have a homeland in the United States of America, and that the religious obscurantism that dictated Palestine rather than, say, Uganda or Madagascar as the Jewish homeland was a big mistake. Be that as it may, I recognize the right of the Jews living in Palestine to national self-determination, but, if I lived there, I would fight for the creation of a secular bi-national state.

[Justin Raimondo]

I would amend that last formulation to: a radically decentralized secular bi-national state. That is, one in which politically authority is devolved back to local communities.

[Askel5]

Even worse, since they are now so self-deluded in thinking that they entered WWII to save the Jews when everyone else stood by doing nothing,

Not so fast! Not everyone stood around "doing nothing."

Let's remember that -- according to many around here -- Hitler and the Nazis were in league with the Catholic Church where slaughter of the Jews (if not the handicapped, the mentally ill, Catholics, homosexuals and any and all who protested) were concerned.

(No lie is too egregious, no enmity too ugly when it comes to bashing the Church. And there's nothing like a Catholic-bashing thread in which to witness the Amen Corner and the Israel-firsters hunker down together for a change. The Church ... with regard to Nazis and WWII-era Totalitarianism)

The idea the United States could POSSIBLY be interested in the fate of Jews, Catholics or other undesirably swarthy or dark-skinned sorts is laughable.

Sorta flies in the face of our Scientific Racism and the sentiments of folks like our Commander in Chief ROOSEVELT:

---

President Roosevelt made his contribution to the on-going dialogue concerning Puerto Rico's "population problem" by jokingly telling Charles Taussig, his advisor on Caribbean affairs, "I guess the only solution is to use the methods which Hitler used effectively." It is all very simple and painless Roosevelt said--"you have people pass through a narrow passage and then there is the brrrr of an electrical apparatus. They stay there for twenty seconds and from then on they are sterile." (14)

---

Population Control: The Final Solution (Part I of III)

[Askel5]

Lots (as usual) for me to consider in your last.

Do remember that I'm NEVER making some personal attack unless, of course, I'm flaming the likes of Sinkspur (who doesn't believe flames exist, so it's okay) or making reference to the "shortpants" someone is wearing ... =)

I'll be back once I've read more closely.

[Askel5]

And then came Raimondo and ruined everything. He says Veronica is much better then us :(

Lol! ... oh dear.

[NewAmsterdam]

Even on this conservative site they repeat this slur about 'Hitler's Pope' and such??? Do they relaise they are repeating communist propaganda which was pumped out of Moscow during the Cold War? Do they realise the Vatican saved, in fact, many Jews?

[NewAmsterdam]

Even on this conservative site they repeat this slur about 'Hitler's Pope' and such??? Do they realise they are repeating communist propaganda which was pumped out of Moscow during the Cold War? Do they realise the Vatican saved, in fact, many Jews?

[NewAmsterdam]

Even on this conservative site they repeat this slur about 'Hitler's Pope' and such??? Do they realise they are repeating communist propaganda which was pumped out of Moscow during the Cold War? Do they realise the Vatican saved, in fact, many Jews?

[NewAmsterdam]

Even on this conservative site they repeat this slur about 'Hitler's Pope' and such??? Do they realise they are repeating communist propaganda which was pumped out of Moscow during the Cold War? Do they realise the Vatican saved, in fact, many Jews?

[Carry_Okie]

I can't resist...

Do they realise the Vatican saved, in fact, many Jews?

Some do, but use it anyway. All's fair in war.

Some don't, but use it anyway. All's fair in love and hate.

Some just, repeat themselves.

Some jest, repeat themselves.

:-)

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

I am afraid that the historical revisionists can be found on this site by the truckloads. I mean those Americans who think that the US went to war in 41 to 'save the Jews' which is the most ridiculous piece of nonsense ever produced.

Talk about revision! This isn't revision, it's delusion. You will not find many Americans who believe that America went to war in 1941 to *save the Jews*. Factually, America could have cared less about the Jews at the time. Hitler was invading COUNTRIES and WINNING. They were well on their way to defeating England. THAT is why America went to War.
So if you have ever seen such a statement as you so erroneously began with ANYWHERE, it had to be from some nut lefty historian whose head is proverbially lacking sunshine..

Of course, to make them feel even better about themselves, they maintain that Jews were (and are) ALWAYS persecuted in ALL European countries.

They were, but it was the church which caused that particular discomfort.

Especially Switserland is guilty, for some reason. (Huh? Never heard of concentration camps in Switserland, have you?).

Uh, no. Have you ever heard of *Z*? However they had some mighty fine banks the Nazis used to hide the money they stole from the millions of people they killed and robbed, and countries they looted. You are really nuts if you don't realize that the Swiss stayed safe because they were the Nazi Bank. And the tremendous amount of money and other bootie was in large majority NOT Jewish money. The vast amounts were from every country and people the Nazis attacked and beat, except France, of course, who just laid down and rolled over. It didn't stop the Nazis from looting them though.

The fact that only one or two of all mayors of Amsterdam of the last century were non-Jews does not seem to matter (not that they would know such a fact, of course).

That doesn't bother us. Why? Does it bother you?

Neither do they want to have a look at American anti-Semitism of the last Century, which was a common phenomenon. The truth is simply that anti-Semitism as a sentiment has existed all over the place. Without the Nazis, however, no nation would have dreamt of acting on those sentiments. But since the Nazis did there is no shortage of people taking on the holier-than-thou attitude.

DUDE!!! If not for America, you would be pedaling roller skates and heiling your butt all over the place. America didn't just save Jews, America saved the WORLD. Not once, mind you, but three times.

Even worse, since they are now so self-deluded in thinking that they entered WWII to save the Jews when everyone else stood by doing nothing, they conclude that they can be the moral arbiters of the present-day world and everyone in it. These people are dangerous.

And you should thank G-d for them. For Real!

NIX

[Don Joe]

"Mr. Raimondo presented facts."

You know, if you'd have gone to the absurdly minimal effort required to affix a smiley, or a /sarcasm tag, you wouldn't owe me a new keyboard now.