Adonis Diaries

Archive for March 9th, 2018

The dark roots of AIPAC, ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’

The group was formed to spin positive PR after Israeli atrocities.

AIPAC, the swaggering and influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brands itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” is holding its annual policy conference.

Top politicians from both parties vie for speaking slots at the group’s glitzy gala. Everyone pays AIPAC attention. And for good reason.

Since the late 1970s, it has informally directed substantial campaign contributions toward chosen candidates for Congress. Its messaging on the Middle East is essential in Washington’s foreign-policy conversation. (Actually, the funding is Not even from Israel but the Evangelical Zionists controlling politicians and many institutions)

Some love AIPAC, some hate it, some fear it — but it is a huge factor in U.S. policy, in American politics and in American Jewish life. (A horrible myth in order Not to blame he USA policies and decisions)

AIPAC’s beginnings in the 1950s reveal the long journey the group has traveled as it has grown in size and stature.

(Actually, the influence of Evangelical Zionist started before 1915 and influenced the decision of England to pronounce the Balfour Declaration, through the US supreme chief judge))

It once operated in obscurity; now its influence lies partly in its genius for publicity. But some things have remained consistent: It has always responded to Israeli actions, working to mitigate their impact on the American scene. At the same time, it has welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.

Even before advocates for Israel had AIPAC, they had the tireless I.L. “Si” Kenen. He led AIPAC — in a real sense, he was AIPAC — from its inception until 1974. A journalist and lawyer, Kenen had switched back and forth during the 1940s and early 1950s between working for American Zionist organizations and for the state of Israel.

During Harry Truman’s presidency, Kenen started helping to win U.S. aid for the new state, cultivating ties with members of Congress and their staffers and supplying talking points for those willing to advocate for Israel.

A political progressive, Kenen found his strongest support on Capitol Hill among liberal Democrats, and his toughest opponents were conservative Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. In contrast to his brash successors at AIPAC, Kenen’s methods were low-key and discreet.

But despite their early successes, Kenen and other American champions of Israel faced challenges after Dwight Eisenhower entered the White House in 1953. Ike’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, said he wanted to pursue a balanced, neutral policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict — not what Israel’s supporters wished to hear.

In the fall of 1953, Eisenhower briefly suspended the delivery of U.S. aid to Israel after it violated the terms of a U.N.-brokered armistice agreement with Syria by venturing into a demilitarized zone to try to divert the waters of the Jordan River.

Eisenhower and Dulles resolved to use their leverage to get Israel to back off. However, Israel and the United States apparently agreed to keep Eisenhower’s action quiet in hopes of a quick resolution.

But on Oct. 15, 1953, all hell broke loose.

News spread that a special Israeli army unit had struck into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel on the night of Oct. 12.

The strike reflected Israeli policy. Ever since the end of the 1948 war, Palestinians had frequently crossed the so-called “Green Line” into Israel. Most had been driven or had fled from their homes in what was now Israel and simply wished to return.

But some committed violence against Israelis. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had fixed on a policy of reprisals — military assaults, intentionally disproportionate, on local Arab populations — as a response to any such attacks. After the Oct. 12 killings, Ben-Gurion and top colleagues chose nearby Qibya to suffer retribution.

The outcry was sharp and wide.

Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.

Israel’s most active U.S. supporters realized how severe the danger of damage to Israel was. Kenen wrote of the ill effect of Qibya on what he called “our propaganda.”

After Qibya, Dulles confirmed for the first time that Washington was holding up aid to Israel. The United States supported a censure of Israel in the U.N. Security Council. U.S. aid soon resumed, after Israel pledged it would stop its work at the controversial water-diversion site.

Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. Kenen managed this ad hoc effort, involving many parties in Washington and around the country. But it was clear that a firmer, more nimble, ongoing structure of advocacy for Israel was necessary to better meet such challenges.

In March 1954, Kenen and his associates announced the formation of the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) — which would be renamed AIPAC in 1959 — and thus launched the modern Israel lobby.

AZCPA was quickly joined by the new Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. That group of top Jewish leaders promoted Israel’s interests with high U.S. government officials, including presidents and secretaries of state. Si Kenen regularly attended meetings of the Conference of Presidents and coordinated the work of the two new groups.

Kenen had additional reason for forming a new advocacy group in early 1954.

U.S. officials had been inquiring into whether his (then) employer, the American Zionist Council, ought to register as the agent of a foreign power, which might limit its activities and complicate its funding. It made sense for the council to consider spinning off a new lobbying group with a “cleaner” financial basis.

However, that motivation for forming AZCPA, while significant, did not dominate the thinking of American Zionists in these crucial months as much as the need to manage the political fallout over Qibya, and to prepare for any future shocks coming out of Israel.

Even before AZCPA appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. This was revealing and foretold the future.

It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support.

Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy. So began a three-decade cycle, one that did not end until Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which American Jews closed ranks to support Israel regardless of circumstances.

Jews harboring reservations about Israeli actions found it extremely hard to gain a foothold in Jewish communal life — something that is less true today, but still a central reality in Jewish America.

The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line.

“America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans (the hasbara or Zionist propaganda machine.)

Doug Rossinow teaches history at the University of Oslo, and is currently writing a history of American Zionism from 1948 to 1995.

Advertisements

Process of language acquisition? Influenced more by Emotions than brain cortex?

Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells told La Vanguardia: The findings call into question whether language is solely product of the evolution of the brain cortex, and could even suggest that emotions may influence the process of language acquisition

Shamash and Aya’s marriage was called ‘HASADU‘, which in only Armenian we can define it as HASTATUM (հաստատում) as in AFFIRMATION and CONFIRMATION, attesting to the affirmation and confirmation of marriage and bond between two people.- Vahan Setyan. Book2

When Semitic Akkadians arrived near Sumer, they incorporated all Sumerian aspects, language and mythology into their own. One example was converting Sumerian UTU into Shamash, but Goddess Aya remained the same.

Thus, Aya was originally a non-Semitic goddess, contrary to declarations to be otherwise. Aya is a reflection of originally Armenian pantheon member, as later replicated in Sumerian mythology, and the original meaning behind Gaya in Greek thousands of years later.

Same with UTU, which UT – EIGHT – 8, is Armenian word for number 8 (ութ). This shaped the term for EIGHT in many languages throughout the world:

Brazilian Portuguese-Oito
Dutch-Acht/Achttal
Danish-Otte
Spanish-Ocho
French-Huit
German-Acht
Greek-οκτώ
Icelandic-átta
Italian-Otto
Norwegian-åtte
Portuguese-Oito
Romanian-Opt
Swedish-åtta

In Armenian Language ”Mat” means ”Finger ” .

The earliest evidence of written mathematics dates back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the earliest civilization in Mesopotamia. They developed a complex system of metrology from 3000 BC.

From around 2500 BC onward, the Sumerians wrote multiplication tables on clay tablets and dealt with geometrical exercises and division problems. The earliest traces of the Babylonian numerals also date back to this period.

In Armenian Language ”Mat” means ”Finger ”. The term – Mathematics – is normally linked to Greek for its definition
”Aristotle defined mathematics as “the science of quantity”

The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means “that which is learnt”
The word máthēma is derived from μανθάνω (manthano), while the modern Greek equivalent is μαθαίνω (mathaino), both of which mean “to learn”.

The assumption is a bit premature on the etymology part. In Greek it means various things such as learning and knowledge as an umbrella term, but lacks etymology.

It is within the Armenian Mat(մատ)- e- Mat, or Mat-e-mat-ik, do we find the explanation that it is the art and science of counting from ‘finger to finger.’ And of course, humanity started counting with fingers. Thus the term literally means from finger to finger and it is not the art of learning but the art of counting first.
By Dr Setyan Vahan

Image may contain: text

Armenian name Tolma is associated with Toli (in Armenian a grape leave). Toli – as a grape leave was recorded in the inscriptions of Van Kingdom (Urartian).

Initially , in Grabar , before the Seljuk Turks ever tasted Tolma the dish was called Tolimis – “meat in grape leaf”. Over time , as often it happens with the Indo – European (IE) endings , and in particular in Armenian language , which saves on vowel sounds , Tolimis turned into Tolim , followed by Tolima , and finally Tolma .

Image may contain: food
Hovig Vartabedian shared a memory. December 13 at 4:21pm · 

The Mithraic Mysteries

Mihir (Ancient Armenian Deity) / Mithra ( Roman Deity )
Characteristics of Mithraic celebrations
The ceremonies were practiced in mithraeum, many of them in caves near rivers or waterways. However most of those that have survived were buildings annexed to houses or military facilities.

The Mithraic Mysteries were a mystery religion practiced in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to 4th centuries AD.
Worshippers of Mithras had a complex system of 7 grades of initiation, with ritual meals. Initiates called themselves syndexioi, those “united by the handshake”.

The long and rectangular shape (of what?) allowed for the celebration of ritual banquets. Sometimes, in addition to an atrium or lounge of lost steps, changing rooms and baths with swimming pools were incorporated (as in Mérida).

It appears that the right bank was associated with Cautes (dawn), and the left to Cautópates (dusk), and that the upper grades sat on the right bank — as in the guild rituals — with the starry sky on which the sun travels represented on the roof of the mithraeum — many of them in caves-“sepeleums”.

The communities could not have more than 40 men. When that number was exceeded — in any case before reaching fifty — the community was divided into two (which brings us to Dunbar’s number). They met, at least, on Sundays (the day of the Sun).

”The ceremonies were probably preceded by ablutions and ritual baths. ”It is possible, given their appearance in initiations, that the meetings culminated with some kind of clash of hands or “chain of union.”

The story of the myth was transmitted through 3 levels (crow, lion, and father) which then would rise to seven after a series of initiations for each grade (sacramentum) aimed at exalting the serenity of the initiate .

Apparently, for what the frescoes in the mithraeum of Capua Vetere describe, in the first degree (the raven) the applicant was driven, blindfolded and naked, to the mithraeum. Upon entering the “cave” (speleum) he was made to kneel and his hands were tied behind his back, and the pater (with a Phrygian cap) showed him a torch so that he could sense the light through the blindfold.

Presumably after several ritual questions, some kind of analogy was established with the crow (light bearer).
Possibly, the fourth symbolic test was related to water and several testimonies of church fathers even suggest a ritual baptism. (tests of fire and wind, “to give light,” the test of water…)

The incorporation of the caduceus among the symbols of the raven’s grade may indicate its ritual use at the end of the initiation to “resurrect” the initiate and take his vows. Some have seen in this possibility a history of the guilds’ flaming swords, but there is not a sufficient record to confirm this.

Like any system of degrees in a community based exclusively on worship, one of the main attractions of the Mithraic communities resided in the cultivation of fraternity and the dissolution of external social hierarchies.

No automatic alt text available.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

Blog Stats

  • 1,106,218 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 556 other followers

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: