When
a big event serves as impetus to the start of a new movement, all kinds of
individuals join the movement, and there is no way to differentiate between the
noble and the ignoble among them.
But
as time passes and the movement marches on, it hits bumps that force its
adherents to make tough decisions as to whether they should stay with the
movement and go along with the majority, or stay with the movement and speak
against its excesses, or leave the movement altogether.
There
has been such a movement in the last century whose adherents call Zionist. One
of its early adherents was Bernie Sanders who did exactly what was expected of
him at the time. But when he started to feel uncomfortable with the direction
that the movement had taken, Sanders left it. He did not disapprove of its
premise; he disapproved of the direction it had taken. He did not actively or
loudly oppose what it was doing; he avoided being drawn into its activities lest
he become a part of what it was doing.
But
having gained much knowledge about the human condition as a result of his
sojourn with the movement, and being American by birth, Bernie Sanders chose to
get involved in American politics. To his dismay, he discovered that the
movement whose excesses he disapproved of, had permeated America's politics,
and was closing in on him as it was on the other politicians. The aim was to
make him a “friend” of Israel but he preferred to be a friend of the
downtrodden wherever they lived.
The
arm of the Zionist movement overseeing that effort in America was and remains
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) whose beginnings had been
one of the most demonic undertakings ever devised by people whose hands did more
than drip with the blood of innocent Palestinian farmers. These were the hands
of people that intended to intensify their murderous activities, engaging as
they did in the ethnic cleansing of the land, and giving it to losers they
beckoned around the world. But because they thought that America would disprove
of the butchery they were committing and were about to intensify, the Zionists
created AIPAC to work on confusing the Americans as to what they were doing in
Palestine.
Confusing
the American elites as well as the masses has remained the mission of AIPAC
ever since that time. Knowing all this, Bernie Sanders decided that the best
thing to do was to cut all relations with AIPAC. He made his decision known,
but as you would expect, he was attacked by the fanatic hardliners who thought
they could still bring him back into the fold. They failed but as you'll see,
they did not go quietly. Two of those attackers were the editors of the New
York Post, and Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.
Philip
Klein wrote: “Bernie Sanders boycotts AIPAC but spoke at conference featuring
parade of anti-Semites and extremists,” published on February 24, 2020 in the
Washington Examiner. As to the New York post editors, they wrote a piece under
the title: “Bernie Sanders' outrageous AIPAC attack,” and published it on
February 25, 2020 in the New York Post.
This
is how Philip Klein began his discussion:
“Bernie
Sanders has claimed he's concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for
leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. He announced
his intention to boycott AIPAC's Policy Conference, which features a number of
speakers touting the need for a strong US-Israel relationship. But Sanders
spoke at the Islamic Society of North America's annual conference. ISNA has
long generated controversy for hosting radical speakers”.
Klein
went on to slander the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); slander being
the specialty of the hate machine to which he belongs. It turned out that the
editors of the New York Post, who are members of the same hate machine, had a
similar idea. And so, they too joined the slander chorus and spewed their hate
at Bernie Sanders the way they have been slandering the individuals they spent
years trying to intimidate.
But,
in juxtaposing the willingness of Sanders to speak at the ISNA annual
conference while refusing to speak at the AIPAC policy conference, Philip Klein
shed light on a very important point. It is that ISNA was holding a conference
whose intent was to review the year that just ended, whereas AIPAC was holding
a “policy” conference whose intent was to strengthen US-Israel relationship,
according to Klein. This is euphemism that means Israel will use the AIPAC
conference to make new demands on America. The Israelis got Jerusalem, the
Golan, the green light to annex more of the West Bank, financial punishment of
the Palestinians –– and they wanted more as they always do.
If
someone should complain about the conference of the other, it is the adherents
of ISNA who should complain about AIPAC that is gathering to get more from
America so as to do more of the things that hurt the Palestinian people ISNA
wants to protect.
But
this being the upside-down world that Bernie Sanders has rejected, it turned
out that the protectors of AIPAC were the ones to complain about the ISNA
people for doing nothing more than gather to review the year that just ended.