An open letter to the Learned Elders of Zion.

reply to post by Pythein


I say so, indeed.

Perhaps the flourish with which I tried to conclude my previous post gave you the wrong impression. Bill Clinton is a fine, supple mind in such big-picture discussions, but I think relying too heavily on Clinton’s education and schooling is taking the case for his suitability - or not - for brokering such an agreement, a little too far.

For let us remember that at Oxford he did not gain the Philosophy, Economics, and Politics degree he was studying, making it a scholarship cut short, and so therefore making it more of an addendum to his biography than a distinction of such an important note as you’ve attributed. Nor did he excel in Quigley’s course in the only way success can be measured at, one of the world's leading international affairs schools, grasping for a mere ‘B’, overall. Hardly the noteworthy standards of accomplishment needed for a such a complex landscape, which you inspiringly refer to as the “Holie” Holy land.

I do agree, that unlike someone like former Prime Minister of Australia the Honourable John Howard, who met with world Jewish leader Mr Isi Leibler and Mr Yasser Arafat in May 2000, with high hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinian people, but in effect he came up with a failure he simply blamed Mr Arafat for -- President Clinton would have the necessary freedom to explore the secret societies aspect in viewing the broader picture of the roadmap to peace, and the effects on the end game. Combined with his significant experience in finding success in Northern Ireland, discussion of his schooling and education becomes superfluous. Indeed, his Rhodes Scholarship only further suggests that he played a scholar’s game of medieval diplomacy and conflict, with his fellow students for a time, or at least once, at Rhodes House. Certainly President Clinton knows that there is no difference between your "realpolik" and my realpolitik.

Moreover, beside current President Barack Obama’s recent effort at the White House with Bibi – President Clinton’s potential effort would likely be perceived as something much more compelling than a four-year-old Hamas headline, which the 44th President seemed to try and capture, hopelessly, and well a little embarrassingly. Nevertheless, it is not for me to discuss the intricacies of borders being defensible, or not -- when it’s clear to all people that peace makes borders for defence unnecessary.

But to come back to your important point on the issue of the existence of holes and them containing things which call for the close observance of such things as ownership and handling.

Here you may be onto something, but I also tend to think you are muddying the waters, but perhaps with this muddying things are a little more clear on settling, with the layers finding their respective depths, making observation of subjects theology and philosophy much clearer to identify in the essential question concerning what this whole subject of peace in the Holy land is all about, and indeed its effects on the entire world.

I won’t deny the potential that there may be groups intent on maintaining the status quo, certainly I would be more readily able to accept that this is more prevalent in the greater area which you rightly have described as the Near East -- but then again I won’t enter blindly into your intriguing – and perhaps complimentary - position that anything other than the Hand of G_D will bring about such an outcome in such a timeframe. I wouldn’t want to play into the hands of the fundamentalist Christians which tend to read things far too literally for my liking, and thus agreeing to certain potential outcomes may cause them to enter into another state of panic for the end of the world.

But really, beyond such a tongue-in-cheek comment as it can aptly be described -- I have studied certain sacred Jewish texts from two perspectives and whilst they are in the Polish of my ancestry, the Learned Elders may have the more accurately-read, if same texts, and therefore the ability to discern the Hand of G_D in all this, their position, and indeed my “wish” - as you call it – made evident. In short, perhaps in their Hebrew I am more of a feature, and thus more of a supportive figure in bringing the deadline forward for peace in the Holy Land between the Palestinian people and the people of Israel.

Then again, I wouldn’t pretend to have any great power beyond just being someone who was in the right place at the right time, in finding this work of rare intensity I am threatening to release, if the Learned Elders of Zion do not lobby the Israeli government for a two-State solution outcome between themselves and the oppressed Palestinian people.

In conclusion, I thank you for your luck and support inferred.

I wish you only peace, and may peace come to the people of the Holy land,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


Clinton's level of education is irrelevent in all respects other than the connections it will have afforded him, it is his stance or what he represents, that is important in diplomacy. Anyone can be briefed, he was selected in Ireland because, ideologically, he was neutral in those talks and able to gain the respect of both parties. He would be entirely unsuitable in Palestine and Israel on moral grounds alone, but his is the kind of perspective that is required. If someone is able to engage both Palestine and Israel in constructive dialogue, I don't care whether they have 7 PhDs or left school age 14 without a single qualification. Such petty snobberies are for old wives and children. Either way, someone akin to Clinton, not Clinton. A businessman with nothing to gain from the deal personally, a Warren Buffet type would be a far more effective broker in the Near East than any career politician or diplomat. These people need someone with the courage to speak the truth to them and to explain the long term implications. Simple as that. Or not, but you know... Someone who can not only see through the bull#, but also achieve a level of communication that by-passes any need to pander to ideology...and, though I despise such notions, money talks and bull# walks. Money, or rather economic resources, other than human, is, in my opinion, the only way to bring about lasting peace in the region.

If you look at the example of Ireland, firstly, inward investment was used to drive up the economy in Southern Ireland, thus plumping up employment and the cost of living and then peace was negotiated. The argument had always been that the English, by partitioning the country had kept the rich industrial heartland for itself and that the South had been robbed of it's jobs. Post-industrial revolution and the North is as worthless as the South was once thought to be, and the South didn't want 'em back. Without support in the South, there was little point to fighting anymore, just needed someone who could understand all the pride and the needing to save face involved. So if you transpose those same parametres on the Palestine and Israel situation you will understand how much needs to be given to Palestine before they are able to bring anything other than aggression and beligerence to the table. They do not even have access to water, they are entirely dependent upon Israel for all their basic needs in some cases or at certain times. How can they approach any peace talks with dignity? It is ridiculous to even suggest that they should. Do you ask to join a game of poker when you already know that someone is holding all four aces? Perhaps, if the other player gives you two of those aces to make it fair and on equal footing.

The majority of those in Israel, those of Jewish ancestory, are not Semitic people, it was inevitable that they would clash culturally, but that does not mean that they are incapable of compromise and learning to co-exist, it just seems that no-one has really thought to try it. There is more than enough to share, people don't need to be resettled if a single-state solution can be found, no need to draw lines in the sand when all have equal access and benefit from the resources of the land that they share. God did not hand out a contract that gave rights to one person or people, the word of God is not proof of ownership or admissible in a court of law (possibly some courts, I don't know), the Jews are no more entitled to live in Israel than anyone else, and certainly not more entitled to than those that lived upon that land during the many centuries that the ancestors of modern Israelis were in Europe or elsewhere in the world. Such a position by the Israelis is no grounds to find peace, and belongs in the world of 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'.

Either way, you are correct that it is Israel that has to make peace, and in that sense, perhaps they can be forced to make the necessary concessions via blackmail. I don't though support a continued panderance to the minority who fear a loss of control or ideological identity, when the majority can be so much greater the persausive force. They both worship almost exactly the same thing, in essence, and I'm sure some of them though feigning ignorance, have exchanged enough notes to know that, they should have no differences ideologically. So it comes down to money, and if Israel isn't willing to let go of a little, I suppose they can be forced to. Would that be a solution, or just a short-term fix while Israel thought of a way to grasp it back?

The Protocol, I don't know about the one that you have, I refer to that provenanced to 1903, was a work of fiction, but it was a working, work of fiction, it was a highly effective tool of propaganda, and was utilised by numerous factions for this purpose. But that is not to say that it does not contain realistic or realised aspirations, the most effective lies rest on a grain of truth, and it was certainly adopted and used as a blueprint by factions responsible for WW2. It therefore is a dynamic document and I have no doubt that it is capable of renewal, but given it's dynamism, it is not something I suspect, that can easily be directed or contained.

reply to post by Pythein


I fully appreciate your roundabout manner in clarifying that suitability for important diplomatic engagements is centered around the most ideal round table a broker brings into the diplomatic room, and not necessarily such things as the paperwork he might place before him. Even though this paperwork might have come from the same wood used in the construction of the table, itself.

So, certainly someone who can cook, serve, and set their own table is needed, no doubt.

Your suggestion of a Mr Warren Buffett-type certainly makes for this someone to be regarded as having nothing financial to benefit, although even with the distinction of such a type being listed, in 2007, as among the “Time's 100 most Influential People”, and recently claiming the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- you are perhaps incorrectly allowing this someone's money to get in the way of your money talks and bull# walks, false analogy. For whilst he will have the highest propriety, he won't have your rightly described, “stance”. Moreover, attaching high personal wealth to good or suitable character for an important position, is just another example of the John Kerry Presidential campaign. And we both know that this ended in failure, although I'm sure we could argue on the merits of it being described as a spectacular one.

It is a given that since the Industrial Revolution the lives of people in the West has steadily improved, with large numbers being pulled out of poverty and into a higher standard of living. There is no reason to believe that “economic resources” or the wealth a thriving economy spreads amongst the population –- is anything other than an effective way to sustain peace and stability of society. I would further add that with such wealth creation and redistribution comes greater opportunities for education amongst people, and education will further compliment peace which is likely to be long lasting.

Since it is important to discuss such a matter as this; I think someone very much like a diplomat – or a former one - would be – in fact - most suitable to bring the necessary influence for a meeting between these two sides. Having watched his intense and masterful performance at a table opposite the late Tariq Aziz -- in his role as Chairman of UNSCOM, I would throw the name of Australian Richard Butler into the ring as a suitable candidate for this position. He certainly ticks all the boxes you have properly mentioned as being needed to affect suitable engagement, together with my view of him having a more eloquent and credible street-fighter position on two feet.

However, I wouldn't stop there, when the possibility of President Jimmy Carter is still available. Surely no one can deny either his devotion to the cause - having come closest to resolving the deadlock in what is called The Camp David Accords - his high moral standing, and the trust and respect he's earned in the eyes of both sides from these earlier engagements. I do acknowledge however, that his history of rebuking Israel may make him a little uncomfortable for them.

To address your political question, the existence of which broadens this discussion even more broadly:

The majority of the electorate in any open and transparent democracy -- will always force change at the poll box on an issue of relevance. Problem with this issue in Israel is that a political leader who enacts such a policy is going to be the one seen as responsible for it - if things were to go wrong, or if there were to be teething problems as there undoubtedly would be early on. Politicians don't try to make bad decisions, and so attaching anything other than a plebiscite on this issue would be political suicide. It is within the power of influence for the Learned Elders of Zion to lobby for such an option to be included soon, which in today's climate – given the 70+ percent of Israelis in favor of peace - would be seen to pass successfully, in favor. Since a plebiscite is far too expensive to float outside of an election, I should have had more foresight in setting the deadline to fall sometime after the next general election in Israel, thereby giving the Learned Elders of Zion this added opportunity to lobby the government. My blackmail has the potential to work, regardless.

While you build expertly on your initial position that you cannot “see the possibility of a stable return to 1967 borders and view a single unified state as the only lasting solution”, finding in the sand not so much lines but what can come economically from moving the grains about in a profitable way, with the intention that it might benefit all involved and thus in the process releasing the mind which has only known poverty and oppression in finding something more than the primeval response at realizing oneself in such a disadvantaged position –- you then make me lower my opinion of your quality of argument. It's not a sticking point with me, but I don't understand how you can claim that, “the majority of those in Israel, those of Jewish ancestry, are not semitic people”. Moreover, discrediting the role of G_D's involvement in this, by proclaiming that G_D “did not hand out a contract that gave rights to one person or people” -- makes me think that your entire foundation for questioning the world is based on a flawed philosophy, or one from a compact, Reader's Digest book.

Where is your evidence of this? I certainly am more inclined to believe that such a contract exists when the Jewish people received The Torah from G_D. Have you read the Zorah, for instance, to categorically reject the presence of such a contract from G_D between its pages? This presents as a similar misunderstanding to your earlier comment concerning Northern Ireland, and that “continued hostilities were no longer benefiting anyone”.

Nevertheless, I will acknowledge your point, that even if a contract existed, the Israelis position is “no grounds to find peace”, further adding that it only serves to support the superiority of one people over another when it should be the dealer which offers the call on the wild card - in your game of Poker - to the one sitting opposite. Your analogy for the Israeli's using such an argument can rightly be attributed – also - to the popular 1962 novel by Ken Kesey. But perhaps in doing so, one overlooks a people's other works of literature and oral traditions, in favor of what occurs in the secular court process, a place full of interpretations, it must be admitted.

I'm not confident to proclaim that the “Khawdash” is the 100% legitimate work of the minutes from the meetings held by the Learned Elders. However, if it is a work of fiction it more likely to be credible as the materials used in its construction are not widely available today, whilst the scientific methods used to detect a potential forgery have much improved. I tend to agree with you that the one you mention was a work of fiction. If the “Khawdash” is to be a work of fiction than its likely to be a work of fiction from the period mentioned.

But even if we were to go further along these lines with the aid of author Ian Haywood's assertion that, in the Modern Age, “the cultural custodians of authenticity have triumphed, deterring the would-be forger with sophisticated bibliographical methods” -- the rare and secretive nature of such a work makes investigating bibliographical evidence very difficult. Evidently, this would support your position that even a fictitious work, which the “Khawdash” might be, can still be very powerful when released.

I would prefer if you were to elaborate on your final paragraph further, before I was to comment. Although at this stage, I believe I have directed my threat with well-targeted assertiveness and panache. Given the freedom of the internet and ease of sharing files, any potential release of the work will make its containment very difficult by those who would be adversely affected. Therefore, a more important question is the one which asks whether such a dynamic work released, has the potential to cause more harm to how the Jewish people are perceived in the world than finding a lasting peace with the stateless Palestinian people, which the Israeli people now want to happen more than ever before.

Peace,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


Feel free to criticise my world view and education, I have no pretensions of genius or great insight, and I do not, as a rule keep up with 'current affairs', and certainly do not follow the cults of celebrity and personality as you, clearly, do. A Warren Buffet-type is about the best I can do, without researching the matter. But, since it is unlikely that anyone is going to ask my opinion, in a practical rather than theoretical sense, there seems to be little worth in my immersing myself in such matters to come up with a better answer. And you seem far more aware of such matters, I will happily defer to your opinion on suitable brokers, however, the point I was taking to make was that, for the right person, one wishing to leave a lasting legacy (or for the cynically minded buy their way out of past sins and hedge their bets on heaven), resolving the Palestine-Israel issue, would leave that persons name etched in history. Some people, certain types, like Buffet perhaps, would or could be attracted by such a challenge, and it is that drive that gets changes made and the wish for immortality ensures that more stable foundations of peace are put in place.

Personally though, again in a cloud cuckoo land where my opinion counts, I would assemble a team of negotiators based on research on the ground gained through talking to 'the people', not businesses or politicians, but local groups and movements, find out what they wanted/needed, and then I would provide the resources to empower them to represent themselves and their people. With the power of the majority organised and proportionally represented at discussions, the suitability of a body of intermediaries between the Israelis and the Palestine, headed by, a 'personality' or two, suitably qualified and motivated to represent those peoples interest in the map room.

But, primarily, there is the matter of ignorance and bigotry, on both sides that has to be addressed. Peace talks have failed in the past to respect not only the Palestinian people as individuals but also their cultural heritage and identity, while expecting the world to accept, carte blanche, the historicised mythology of the Israelis and their 'right' to the land. To help qualify my position, sociologically, I am inclined toward Marxism, though veering closer to Durkheim really, I do not support land ownership, but I accept that most do not agree with me and that ownership of property is the perceived norm and social aspiration. In compromise, therefore, ideologically, I accept the rights of individuals to own land and property, though with certain caveats that are hardly relevent to this discussion. But again, those are my views and until I do rule the world, I am unable to impose those on all, and accept the role of governments in overseeing the rights of the individual, but recognise, equally, the unequal distribution of wealth and by default power, and that by consequence, the majority is often legislated against in favour of a minority elite. What that elite is expecting, in Palestine, is for the Arab peoples to accept perpetual childhood, or enslavement. Dependent on others for their 'bounty'. Understandably, the Arab people do not want this, they want self-determination. However, they, if given such powers, are not really equipped to use it. They are not, in terms of the wider perception of the world considered 'civilised'. This is bigotry. Realism, or Realpolitik, demonstrates that while the media perpetuates the myth of their 'primitiveness', corporate interests, funded and supported by foreign policy in the Western Powers, maintain a militant theocracy ideology disseminated via the Madrassa system. Until this matter is addressed, peace in the region cannot be realistically pursued. Abject honesty as I pointed out previously, and acceptance, followed by forgiveness, is how real peace is achieved.

Anyway, the sun is shining, I have a garden to attend to and children to supervise. So I'll wrap up quickly, the continuation of the argument that the 'Jews' have a right to land because god said so, is entirely counter-productive and based upon archaic principles and beliefs which should not be pandered to. Realpolitik. Such a claim cannot stand scrutiny, and cannot be proven, in a court of law, proof is required. It can be reasonably argued that through Abraham, Hebron and the surrounding areas are owned by his descendants, but since Islam can also claim heritage to Abraham, that too will quickly become a squabble. All such notions of ancient ownership have to be dismissed unless physical or documentary proof can be provided to support it. Can god appear in court to verify that that claim of ownership came from him and not someone pretending to be him? Can we be assured that god was of sound mind when he issued such a proclamation? Perhaps, I, claiming to be the direct descendant of the High Priestess of Inanna, the Mother of God and All things, first promised the entire globe to my people and it is up to me who gets what?

The history of the Protocol is complicated. I think that those that wrote it, clearly had literary talent and the works plagarised are sufficently obscure to imply that they served as the inspiration and model for the document. It is possible that for the writers of the Protocol that it was a harmless jape, a satire on European anti-jewishness, but it is more likely to my mind that it was commissioned, and due to a number of circumstantial connections, Cecil Rhodes and his associates seem the most likely candidates. Dependent as they were on the financial acumen of the House of Rothschild combined with the colonial aspirations of Rhodes and the Milner Group, the Protocols could be about them, if it wasn't for the over preponderance upon Jews, but that can be said to be more a matter of the beholder, and hence the documents dynamism. It is not a roaring assault on Jewishness, but an implication, or rather affirmation, that Jews feel themselves superior. In the first half of the twentieth century, with an emergent 'science' of race preoccupying most colonial powers in their attempts to justify exploitation, the Protocols provided justification for the poor white working class peoples, and the displaced of war, to focus their blame and attention on a single body of people, and to base that blame on 'race'.

While the Protocol served it's intended purpose, destabilising the power in Russia, thus enabling Britain to gain stable ground in Afghanistan. Russia became too destabilised though, and factions became exaggerated as funds from Germany sought to back those that would take Russia out of the war, and from Britain, those that wanted Russia to stay in the war. The White Russians adopted the Protocols, and in their exiles, brought the Protocol to new and receptive audience in Germany and the USA. In 1919, Captain Muller von Hausen, under the pseudonym, Gottfried Zur Beek republished the Protocols in German, incorporating the references which implicate the Freemasons in the conspiracy. The Protocols are quoted as an inspiration for Alfred Rosenberg's writings, such as The Tracks of the Jews through the Ages; Immortality in the Talmud, and The Crimes of Freemasonry. The German edition of the Protocols was very successful, by 1939 it was in it's 23rd print run.

There is some evidence that the Milner Group understood that the Protocol had taken on a life of it's own, and certainly in the USA, there seems to have been some attempt to limit it's influence. The 'Princess' Radiwill, a known associate of Rhodes, or a member of one of the groups who operated in his periphery, held a public lecture to disclaim the Protocol as a 'fake'. However, the situation can also be read that the lecture was held to intensify the mystique of the document and therefore to imprint in the mind-set, doubt. The following link is a New York Times article reporting on the event, as you can see, it is somewhat curious...

query.nytimes.com...

Either way, the long and the short of it, those people who 'created' the conditions that ensured a second world war, and those within Germany who saw the need for a messiah to lead Germany into war, certainly drew inspiration and more importantly, guidance from that document. Whether that was the intended outcome when the Protocols were produced is debatable, but it found a very ready champion in conditions in Europe, and while the Protocols outline a 'plan' by one group, that 'plan' was used by an equally resourceful power that via the second world war was able to eclipse the originator. If that makes sense, i am trying to be brief, time and all... but evidence suggests, to me, that those who created the Protocols, for whatever reason, succeeded in creating a power/force to match the force implied in the Protocols, and that force was not grounded on the same level of understanding and intellect as the first, which has meant, that in the scheme of things, an unruly child has been given control and the originators of the myth, are relegated to babysitting duties. Can you perhaps now see why i would question the production of a new and revised Protocol, especially given your tone and the content of the document that that implies? And how any peace that such a document could force, would most likely come at the expense of some other people, or just The People...the reality of war and conflict seldom affects those that instigate and proliferate.

Sorry for the tattiness of my reply...unavoidable distractions...If it is non-sensical, I will try and clarify in a later edit when I have time, but I've run out of time for now...

reply to post by Pythein


Thank you for permitting me to criticize your world view and education. Since you fail to refute some of my assertions concerning your inaccuracies and inconsistencies -- I will conclude that some of them have struck true.

It is important for me to set the record straight, since you have formed and thus are in possession of inaccurate conclusions about me:

I don't follow the cults of celebrity and personality. If you have formed this belief because I choose to accurately distinguish the subject to which I may be referring, by giving it a detailed and long form of description –- then you are wrong to believe thus, and I would instruct you to find, instead, the habit of a researcher genuinely interested in all manner of subjects, books, and items, and wanting to be accurate.

There is no reason - at all - for you to come up with a better answer in finding a more appropriate broker than the one you named as a Warren Buffet-type, because I have done the research for both of us it seems, and indeed found the best answer you will ever find. Furthermore, that you have chosen to defer to my opinion concerning this matter, acknowledges that my answer is the superior one.

Regardless of who actually steps forth for such a challenge (if anyone even does?) it is true that they will have their name etched in history, pursuant to actually brokering such a peace. However, to invite speculation on the reason for a potential broker's reason for stepping into the role, presents an environment of stale insipidness and dearth of evidential inquiry. Here, you are telling me more about yourself, or rather your mindset, than the reason or reasons behind why someone would enter the position. The picture is clear, so thank you for painting it so clearly for me.

If you belong in the same place as you asserted the Israelis' belong, in making their claim of ownership to their land based on the G_D provision, you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but also dropping the credibility of your “cloud cuckoo land” position in regard to it. I was correct to object at your position since you released it with such abject ease, and indeed I have come out of this particular exploration in the ascendancy. The second one so far it seems, and I've barely cleared half-a-dozen paragraphs.

Your “map room” assembly, while idealized in the impression it presents, seems tricky, but it also seems to be the idea with the most common sense. I cannot fault it, and I would only hope that an eventual adviser doing research on behalf of the broker, would find this post of yours or form the same faultless, systematic approach.

Moreover, I will accept your obvious depth of knowledge concerning the ideology to which you refer in your longest paragraph as I am of the opinion that middle ground between a range of political theories can be accommodated in realizing a promising way forward for such tight places as the Holy Land. Indeed, here I am expounding on the central position and theme present in American political scientist and political economist, Francis Fukuyama's book titled, “The End of History and the Last Man”, which he expanded on from his 1989 article entitled “The End of History” for the journal, The National Interest, and which the American author and journalist Tom Wolfe quotes as; “A fascinating historical and philosophical setting for the twenty-first century.”

I don't accept your position that “the majority is often legislated against in favor of a minority elite”. There might be such a suggestion evident in the acceptance of the position that wealth buys access into the corridors of government, and this access provides a smoother lobby platform –- but to draw such an assumption over an undisclosed reference makes more for a jocular reference than actual, inverted happenstance. I mean, governments are varied and many across the globe, so until you pin down your position to the specific, you must see that you are being foolish with your statement. To which you would then need to attach appropriate evidence of a systematic and deliberate account of such instances, in any case.

...More appropriate is keeping the run on formulation to the Palestinian argument, which you tend to describe as something of a paternal form of enslavement. I would suggest that here, though, you have used a messy and broad brush to paint the picture from – and in relation to - the Arab perspective and question. I think this is the paragraph you feared as being “non-sensical” in your penultimate place of reply. Balderdash of the finest order, I am of the opinion, by skipping from one to the other in the kind of keen manner appropriate for a little girl who has found herself in the pouring rain, but in appropriate wet-weather gear. You would have done far better if you had decided to respect the existence of Hamas, and built your many varied paths from this central point; an Islamist political party which governs the Gaza Strip, and which could be suggested are similar to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland - a topic which we have discussed earlier, and not necessarily put to rest that it couldn't have been used again here.

I will admit that if one is to have a garden, a constant gardener approach is the best approach, for tending it constantly allows one to know what is happening in the garden. Knowing what is happening, therefore allows one to know the garden, and a garden which is understood allows one to know what to do with it, and where to take it. For example, knowing that when the sun is shining some good tending can be undertaken. Obviously, children need supervision and a responsible person should always carry out this obligation.

So, the world we live in - is one where the sun sometimes shines and at other times it doesn't, it perhaps rains instead, and little girls with carefree outlooks get caught out, and so this world is also one where not all claims of ownership are taken to court and even counter-productive arguments are perpetuated. Then, do we substitute a word such as 'pander' with a word such as 'disrespect'? What would President Clinton think, now that you have abandoned your initially preferred “Realpolik” with my “Realpolitik”? He might say that the first time you used it you made a spelling error which wasn't an error, but a different form of spelling of the same word. So why change now, I ask? In fact; why suddenly claim that you might be the descendant of this or that, when we both know that G_D is eternal and so the inference of a creator creating the Creator is plainly immature? Wouldn't it be far superior a position to claim, to accept that some claims of ancient ownership exist through a historical understanding and working with this obvious evidence? I certainly maintain that such a claim can withstand even the closest and finest scrutiny, by the best and most supple minds in the business of investigating such things. The only thing which is unreasonable, in fact, in this position you have appropriated for yourself, here - the argument that the Arabs have somehow overlooked an opportunity for themselves to claim ownership to Hebron and its surrounds, by way of your Abraham descendant theory. For they haven't, and it would have been ludicrous for them to have ever attempted to do so, with one of the “four holy cities of Islam”. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are the three major Abrahamic religions, so for Islam to claim your position on those grounds, would confound the other two, I'm sure.

How "real" peace is achieved can best be described as you have done so, though.

Your 'Protocol complicated' paragraph and discussion is sound for the most part, and as far as such a complicated subject can go without requiring the need to itemize each point in description and origin by way of footnotes - it contains an understanding of fair import. But lets not import too much from one place as we might find that another place is going out of business. It may be appropriate to remember, therefore, that the Cliveden Set, and what happened with people's playing of the game of charades at this address – may have equally been responsible for links and relationships which only a closer study would make discovery likely.

Interesting to note your assertion that “the German edition of the Protocols was very successful”. I didn't know that, furthermore, I wasn't in possession of the interesting pdf link you provided, and so had no knowledge of its existence, in fact. Very interesting reading, indeed quite curious. Your understanding of the potential for either of the two probabilities being true is welcome, in terms of either limiting its influence or intensifying its mystique. Thanks for making it known. With doubt being such a powerful feeling in such affairs, I can fully accept that it would be used in such an underhand way.

So now, to get to your placement where things can be long and short, or simply conclusive in conclusion:

You make sense to some extent, and perhaps I have somehow set the groundwork, but your juxtaposition of 'plan' details also seems to mirror the whole Howard Hughes/Clifford Irving/Richard Nixon affair. In that, an equally resourceful power was able to eclipse the originator in bringing a suitable outcome for oneself. I would need you to comb this over a little more neatly to fully appreciate what you are saying, but I cannot accept that a production was to be forthcoming when this “Khawdash” production has existed for some sixty years from the evidence I have, and only its release by me would make its existence more real. And, also, that given the state of affairs in this world at the present it would be easy to understand for the Learned Elders of Zion, that the “Khawdash” Protocols would not make for appreciative reading with many people around the world looking for someone to blame for their lot in life at present. And, that very much, if I was an adviser to the Learned Elders of Zion, I would not wish for such a body of information to come to light, when all that is necessary to prevent it from coming out is a start on peace in the Middle East, in finding a Two-State solution between the oppressed Palestinian people and the people of Israel.

Finally, your “tattiness” matches your tardiness, but disclosing to me that it was through “unavoidable distractions” makes me think that your primary focus in life up till a little before, has been this thread. You understand, that if something is distracting it is distracting from what it is which is in focus. Apart from one instance, which I mentioned, it was hardly nonsensical, indeed it was appreciated for its meaningful and appropriate examination of a broad discussion. You have eluded, from some points of order, but in so doing you have also said so much to me that an inclusion wasn't necessary.

I would conclude by saying that if the Learned Elders of Zion were to ignore my threat, it is them and not me whom will instigate or proliferate the things which might potentially come from the release of the “Khawdash”. There is no peace presently in the Holy Land, in any case. If this is what they want than they must know that this is what they will make happen. After all, the “Khawdash” may be the first accurate and actual work of the meetings of the learned Elders of Zion. Only they know 100% if such a work is real. I have included as many details as necessary to provide an accurate portrayal of what I have in my possession, and am threatening to release. Indeed, threatening to release if peace is not found by the deadline I've put forward.

Peace be with you, and may peace come to all the people of the Holy Land,
YHWH2

Now, you see, the attitude that you are displaying now, what's that about? Have I done something to offend you? Do I smell? I can't even see you but I can certainly feel you looking down your nose at me. Am I mistaken or do you speak to everyone in that supercilious tone? I apologise for not giving my response the obvious attention that you seem to imply that I should have. I have an actual garden and an actual child to rear, and friends of said child to supervise today. Three loud, energenic and continually hungry, children does not make concentrating easy. Then there was the washing, ironing etc, etc. Plus there is a storm due, and the rise in barometric pressure has given me a day-long bitch of a headache that has done my mood absolutely no end of good...would you like to know more about my domestic and personal arrangements?

I offered my opinion nothing more, I did not realise I was going to be so thoroughly examined and was expected to have prepared notes, I have enough work I can't find time to do already thank you all the same, I come here to let the excess unwind, not to take on more. As I said, someone gives me the job and I'll work my arse off at it, but until then, I have my priorities, you have yours. I am sorry that I (so clearly) intruded upon matter so obviously above my head.

I therefore withdraw all my comments and all that they may or may not have seemed to imply, and again wish you luck in your endeavours.

Too late to withdraw!

You've lost your nerve - spat the dummy - and lost your point as a result! You have become aimless and ineffective, where before you were concise, focused, and resolute.

I have defeated you, and you have lost, therefore.

Thank you for your time, and high-level engagement, and your wish of good luck.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

What a thread empty threats and nothing of substance. No one cares least of all the Israelite who even now are building new settlements outside the 67 borders.

Originally posted by UcDat
What a thread empty threats and nothing of substance. No one cares least of all the Israelite who even now are building new settlements outside the 67 borders.

edit on 5-6-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

I disagree with you. I believe this thread is full of merit and its threat solid. There is substance of a technical aspect which you may not appreciate, but it is there nevertheless.

Furthermore, you are wrong and inaccurate as plenty of people care. If you had read the thread in its enitre length you would see how wrong you are, and how many people care, in fact. Since you have not read the thread, you are in position to offer a proper opinion on the subject. I certainly am not taking it seriously.

You may not care, and stating so doesn't faze me in the least.

Peace,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


Hey, just checking in...anything new happening? When's the "drop" date for the book?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I appreciate your enthusiasm, and thank you for your interest. However, there are no developments with respect to my threat, and therefore nothing to report at present. Also, the date I put forward is evident earlier in the thread.

Peace,
YHWH2

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by YHWH2

 

When's the "drop" date for the book?

CJ

posted on 25-5-2011 @ 02:34 AM
An open letter to the Learned Elders of Zion.

So the drop-date should be 25-05-2012, so subscribe and wait

A rare occasion, but I watched the politics show this morning on BBC-something (my brother was staying with me, I wouldn't normally), which included an in-depth profile of Tony Blair's mission to Israel-Palestine. Once I had got over my spitting fit, and began to pay attention, I realised that Blair had clearly been reading my posts on this thread. He still needs to work on his bias, but he's definately made significant improvements that could truly bring about settlement.

I missed the broadcast to which you refer, however, on more than one occassion I drew attention to your inspired thinking on this thread with certain technical elements, and indeed exclaimed that I would hope a researcher would come upon it. That is to say, before the time you spat the dummy, lost your nerve, and lowered yourself to the position of a dog sniffing around for limp biscuits.

While I sense a little of a tongue-in-cheek tone in your comment, there is absolutely no reason why some of your posts weren't read and noted as some of the best ideas out there to get results. I certainly hold the view that they are, for what it's worth.

I hope you have found some peace in the meantime Pythein, and your gardening is going well. Judging by the weather at Wimbledon there must be some interesting activity going on in that garden of yours.

Like I said, I haven't seen the program, but am familiar with the opinions people have of the former PM Tony Blair, and clearly he can atone for a lot if he were to assist in reaching some lasting settlement.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

So it is coming up on 5 months PAST your "drop-date" (I bet you thought I forgot!)
So make your big revelation, if you even have one....

I notice that the OP hasn't contributed in a while. I also notice that no earth shattering revelations about the Jewish people have come to light. I'm sure some might say that he's been silenced by the evil Zionists, personally I think he's just too embarrassed to return.

I think he was just full of sh*t to begin with.

We're now more than 10 months past the date, and still nothing. What happened