Friday, December 22, 2006

The Next Possible Terror Event

Thinking of the unfavorable response that the current Bush Administration has received in their handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign, as well as domestic policy, something substantial and unbelievable must occur to keep them in power. In this case, when I say "them", I mean the Neo-conservatives who have distorted the constitution and run amuck with the power that they've managed to extract from the Judicial, Legislative, and of course, the Executive Branch of government. Only now has this unilateral power surge started to wane. Yet, those with vast control of power cannot readily allow the reigns to weaken.

With the 2008 Presidential Elections fast approaching, the Neo-conservatives must devise a new strategic plan to cope with the possible shift in power. Naturally, the best course of action is for another planned terror event to scare the public, and enable the Fascists in disguise (Neo-Cons) to continue dominating American, as well as the worldwide political landscape.

Of the various scenarios that can possibly occur, I have come up with one that will not only allow the Administration to extend their Illegal war outside of Iraq, but to also quell Domestic policy regarding Illegal Immigration and resolve the Border Fence issue. What I envision is a "terror attack" on one of the Nuclear Power Plants. I don't believe the attacks will be done for success as much as national fear. A truckload of explosives with the potential of mass destruction is all that will be required. Of all the Nuclear reactors, I believe San Onofre:
(, in Southern California, will be one of the prime target. Considering the short distance to the "porous" Mexican border, and the population density of the region, San Onofre should be avoided in the first half of 2008. Since the National Elections (Presidential Included) will be in November of 2008, the staged event, in order to be most politically effective, would probably happen 6-9 months prior to the Elections.

Like most current Nuclear Generating Plants, the actual reactors in San Onofre are housed in thick, reinforced concrete to contain a moderate sized meltdown. These concrete casings are generally too strong to be substantially damaged, but the potential impact of an attempt at damage will suffice for the mass hysteria of the public. After the incident, fear will grip many Americans, and we will be reminded of the porous nature of the border. We will find that these "terrorists" probably arrived through the border illegally, and therefore, we must reinforce and expedite the current security fence. Not only will Domestic Policy become malleable as foreign policy was under the Bush Administration, but we will also come to realize that the terrorists were funded by Syrians, or even possibly Iranians. Considering that Iran would be a likely scapegoat, and doubt would surface, Syria is probably a better patsy for the terrorists. Realizing that they "came" from Syria, we would launch political initiatives to coerce Syria into allowing us on their soil to search for evidence. Naturally, Syria would deny these incursions, and the US would launch an air campaign against a few targets on Syrian soil. Naturally, this would infuriate the region, with the hope that Iran would become involved. Once Iran's support for Syria becomes evident, the Administration will finally be able to quell their perceived enemies there as well. Thinking that they're making the world safer for American and subsequently Israeli greed, there would be no stopping the inevitable.

Naturally, this scenario is somewhat of a slippery slope, but the possibility that this can become reality is enough to be concerned. In a previous article, I had stated that diplomacy is the only recourse in this situation, yet, every possibly scenario planned by the current Administration purposely attempts at circumventing and ultimately impeding diplomacy. The possibility that multi-level talks with Iran and Syria may prove fruitful are not seriously on the Administrations agenda because it would upset the Israeli's, especially the Israeli Lobby in America. Since politicians think first with their pocket books, and very distantly for the national interest, it is but inevitable that the contributions they receive from the Israeli lobby should remain a primary source. A solution to all of this, as I've explained before, would be the end to political contributions. Politicians should NOT be swayed by special interests, and the only way to maintain honesty is to prevent them from making any money. Politicians should instead, live in Dormitories in the Capitol, and be present for at least 90% of their sessions. They have an important job to do, and they mustn’t be distracted by prestigious vacations but must work like the rest of us.

In the next blog, I shall attempt to expand on the idea of the steps to take for an honest congress. The system cannot remain as it is, because these politicians are far removed from mainstream thinking. This is why the thought that they can easily be swayed by special interests on the event that another possible terror incident is revealed, is frightening to say the least.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Why I Blog

Throughout the course of human history, there have been many breakthrough moments in culture and thought. Through the last 10,000 years, most of us have gone from primitive agricultural and pastoral lives to the modern world we see around us. We have developed tools to probe the universe with, technology to travel interplanetary distances, communication to interconnect the globe, and the knowledge and accumulated wisdom of millennia.

In times past, technological breakthroughs were slow in development, and diffused at a glacial pace. The means of communication that we've grown so accustomed with were virtually unheard 150 years prior to our current generation. Communication by horse lead to communication by train, then telegraph, telephone, internet, etc. These rapid communication advancements have allowed for a great deal of shared information and development. With the world literally at our fingertips, we have built a complex interconnected web of information and knowledge. Prior to this vast information basin, advancement often met a brick wall and resulted in numerous dead ends. During the Chalcolithic (Copper) Age, human beings had begun to smelt copper, out of the minerals that had been present in surface rocks. The discovery, eventually heralding the Bronze age, although rapid by geological standards, was slow compared to the power of communication in the present day. It took well over a thousand years for the process of smelting copper and then bronze to spread from Anatolia and the Near East, to Greece, Central and Western Europe, Northern Africa, and Asia. The process developed over time to involve various techniques and methods to achieve the temperatures needed to melt metallic minerals into their purer forms.

The greatest amount of accumulated knowledge occurred during the advent of the Written Age. Writing has to be one of the most important tools in the human arsenal for communication. As more of the general public began to become literate, a larger amount of people were able to contribute to the pool of ideas and technology. Advancements began to proceed at paces only dreamt of centuries earlier. Before literacy crept upon the general populace, many ideas now proven correct took a back seat to wild theories. The microscopic structure of the world was initially defined by many theories and ideas, yet, the most applicable was that of Democritus, who was one of the first to theorize about the existence of the atom (over 2000 years prior). It's specifically because of the written knowledge passed down to us that we're aware of Democritus' near prophetic theories. The possibility that other philosophers and theorists had explained the existence of the atom before Democritus cannot be eliminated. Chances are, others may have had similar ideas, but because of the difficulty in transmitting the information (even through writing), those records have not survived to the present day. Even with the idea of the atom, it was Aristotle's view of the four elements that stalled many aspects of science and technology for well over 1500 years. Another applicable example, involving the theoretical and influential world of Greeks, and that of our own Modern Age, was Medicine. Although highly advanced during the Greek Era, it wasn't until Galen's written texts (Roman Era) of human anatomy that the Zenith of Medicine was thought to have reached. He was so convinced of his theory’s superiority, that he said any further work in the area would be an insult to all of humanity. Galen wrote texts with pictures and anatomical features that he thought described human beings. The studies he used was that of other animals, since dissecting a human being was considered forbidden. Modern Anatomical Medicine didn't really advance again until Andreas Vesalius (mid 1500's), a headstrong and anti-authoritarian anatomist began to challenge Galen's work. Due to the religious restrictions on the treatment of corpses, the Middle Ages saw very little breakthroughs in human anatomy. Thanks to the partial liberalization of religious restriction and the allowance of executed criminals to serve as cadavers, Vesalius was able to determine anatomical features missing from Galen's written accounts. With the pace of Medicine advancing again, we were finally able to delay, and to some extent control, the greatest force of nature. Death, having been a foe that seemed inescapable was suddenly becoming less of a concern. Although unavoidable, we were finally able to diagnose, heal, treat and cure diseases, and the agents (parasites, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) which often brought about an "untimely" demise.

However, through fires and various other catastrophes, many ancient written records, that could have provided us with a greater amount of historical data and knowledge, perished. Even with the possibility of written information being destroyed, the chances for technological advancement were greater then if those records had never been produced. Some that were destroyed found audience in other languages, the translation having come down to us, even with the original having been eliminated. Written information for most of its inception was also heavily biased. Often times, the records that reach us have been those of the victor, and our attempts at consolidating history can be marred by inaccuracies. Yet, even with biased historical records, a lot of context could be revealed, and a greater objective understanding of the forces involved could become apparent.

Compared to the geological time frame of Modern Homo Sapien evolution (about 200,000 years), the lives of individual humans is but a mere blink of the eye. Billions of human beings have come and gone, variations in climate has existed, new species have evolved and become extinct, and yet, our experiences with time allow for more of the same to happen. Just as the fossil record is written in the very ground (land and sea bed) that once occupied all the animals that ever existed on Earth, the record of human achievement is written in the books and knowledge that has also accumulated chronologically. Even our genes don't really matter, because over the course of a few generations, they are diluted to some random genetic consistency very different from our exact sequences. What survives past one's lifetime are thoughts and ideas. Naturalist, and one of the leaders of modern day Evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins has explained this cultural trait, similar to genetic code in evolution, as a "meme". A meme, just like a gene, is a snippet of information that is able to replicate and transfer its information to the next generation. In terms of a gene, it's the gene's ability to generally out compete other genes and transfer it's information to the next generation. Meme's function very similarly, but the replicating information is not nucleic acids (like DNA and RNA in genes), but thoughts and ideas. Those thoughts and ideas that out compete others to remain in circulation are the successful ones; not unlike survival of the fittest under Darwinian Natural Selection. A great tool to help perpetuate those memes that are truly beneficial is science. Through critical thinking and the scientific theory, scientifically relevant memes can be tested against others, until one that is superior to others can be produced and replicated. Eventually, further additions will help focus the meme into more and more specific information. It's as though a beneficial mutation in DNA will result in advantages that can be focused to near perfection. The Eye is an example of a structure, that through a half billion years has evolved from a disk of light sensitive cells, to the variation we see in all the creatures today.

Having digressed far from the title heading, if it hasn't become apparent already, I must explain my humble reasons for blogging. Long after we're all dead and gone, few of us will have any individual impact on the future of the world. Although we're all contributing to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and our massive ecological footprints, taken together, contributes in exhausting the raw materials of the Earth, our individual achievements will become just a passing whisper in time. Our atoms will eventually disperse back into the universe, and our individual being will have vanished. As bleak as all this sounds, it may be that only the information and knowledge we leave behind will survive in some form into the future. It is our duty and obligation, having come this far, through countless near misses with fate (extinction events such as asteroid collisions that paved the way for us, or minor climatic changes that resulted in our enlarged brains and eventual cultural growth and sentience, even personal brushes with fate such as car accidents, stupid juvenile snowboard tricks to impress the girls, that trampoline accident when you nearly severed your head, etc), to further our knowledge base and expand beyond individual capacity. If all the information that human beings had collected was somehow preserved, then life would not be in vain. How many people lived through life, with all the information spinning in their heads, died having left nothing for other's to feed off? No matter how much one writes, or attempts to present collected and gathered information in various perspectives (some perhaps never thought of before), there will always be a residual amount lost. Even with this loss, the possibility that some of these theories, thoughts, and ideas will help to perpetuate certain necessary meme's (whether to create new ones or strengthen and elaborate upon existing ones), remains a prime reason for attempting to pass on as much accumulated knowledge as possible. After all, attempting to quench one's thirst for knowledge can never be fully satisfying, unless it's processed and released.

Friday, December 08, 2006

The Russia and Syria Blame Bandwagon

Considering the blatant speculation and misinformation spreading through the American media establishment, it's no surprise that so many people have already passed judgment and guilt upon notable entities within recent years. I shall present two examples that clearly illuminate the acrimonious reactions present. However, because of our increased information onslaught, many important items are easily forgotten when another equally if not more compelling item is presented. The information I will present will involve some historical background to counter the overexposure and public weariness of occurrences with significant notoriety.

Due to the bombardment of a certain high profile story in recent news, my first case will involve Russia -- more specifically the Russian President Vladimir Putin. In two separate incidents spanning just over two years, the burden of guilt lay heavily on the Russian Secret Service, and ultimately, Putin. During the Autumn of 2004, Ukraine was undergoing an election to determine the direction of its political future. The two candidates in question were involved in a tightly contested battle, differing on many issues, but highlighted by the candidate's foreign outlook. Viktor Yushchenko, having held the position of Prime Minister previously, and his rival, Viktor Yanukovych, the outgoing Prime Minister, were primed for a heated election. Yushchenko was showing hostility towards Russia (Ukraine's primary arguable ally) and initiating closer ties to the West, while Yanukovych attempted to forge even closer ties with Russia, both economically and politically. Yanukovych was declared the winner initially, but due to a high level of election fraud the voting results were overturned and once the dust settled Yushchenko was ceremoniously declared the winner. His victory, signaled a radical shift in policy away from Russia, hailed as the "Orange Revolution" throughout the Media. Through all this, Yushchenko was undergoing mysterious physical changes to his skin, which eventually lead to the discovery that he was poisoned by a heavy dose of Dioxin (a toxic organic compound). Considering his opposition to Putin, the blame for the poisoning fell upon Russia's Secret Service, and ultimately Putin. With months of investigation and countless inquiries, the true perpetrators of this crime have remained a mystery. There are no paths leading to even to the remotest shred of evidence linking Putin and Russia's spy services to this case.

The Second case involving a Media Blitz against Russia and Putin occurred with the radioactive poisoning death, in London, of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. His gruesome death from radiation poisoning expeditiously circulated around the world. The attention caused from the nature of this act cannot go unnoticed. Polonium 210, the highly radioactive substance used is not the most efficient method of assassination. For one thing, it leaves a detectable trail of radioactivity, and with a half life of about 4 months, it degrades quickly, releasing enough radioactivity to leave a trail. Furthermore, Po 210 is not a common substance, and must be produced and used within a short period of time. In this instance, the rumors linking Litvinenko's death to Putin are more substantial, considering his public announcement of Putin's guilt in the matter. Alexander Litvinenko was one of Putin's most vocal critics, yet, rationalizing his attention grabbing death and linking it to Putin is a reach. Putin used to be one of the most up-and-coming KGB spies during the Soviet Union, and his methods of dispatch would be a lot more subtle. A death like this will only draw attention to the situation, and unlike fictional spies like James Bond, a true intelligence officers primary duty is to remain covert. Actions and even consequences must remain covert, so as not to draw any attention.

To understand Russia's role, one has to dig a little deep and reason who has most to gain for the developments. In Litvinenko's death, Putin loses a critic, but at what price? The finger of culpability is pointing towards him, and his political life will be marred with the linkage to this death. There is no long term benefit for Putin or Russia in such a high profile death. Speaking of the same, Yushchenko's Dioxin poisoning was also quite high profile, yet subtler. It is possible that there was a possible linkage to Russia, but that angle was downplayed, considering the lack of evidence. In this instance, the West also had something to gain by publicizing the poisoning of Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution was considered to be a political shift in climate away from Russian influence, and by "martyrizing" him, the ill will towards Russia would grow profoundly. In both cases, the West could be equally as culpable as Russia, if not more. One final food for thought, a possible link connecting Litvinenko to Israel has been downplayed by every Media organization ( There is valid justification for attempting to gather further evidence in this case before rushing to judgment on the blame train.

Having spoken of Russia already, it's best to begin dissecting the Second major entity blamed with no substantiation. In this instance, Syria will present as the second example of the absurdity and misinformation associated with media rumor mongering. To be more specific, there have been 2 assassinations of anti-Syrian individuals in the Lebanese government with the blame falling on Syria's supposed involvement. On the day of February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a vehicular explosion when 1000 kg of TNT were detonated as his convoy was driving. Without any direct proof, the blame for Hariri's assassination fell upon Syria. The reasoning was that Hariri was anti-Syrian and pro Western, so his assassination would quiet a vocal critic of Syria and Syrian Influence. The benefit to Syria however, was far outweighed by the reality of the post-assassinated situation. A lot of pro-Syrian sentiment in Lebanese political circles began to wane, with more and more of the public demonstrating for the ouster of Syrian troops. Naturally, within months of the assassination, not one Syrian troop remained in Lebanon. With Syria gone, the "Cedar Revolution" had started to flower, and all would be well in Lebanon. As with most things, instead of improving for the good, with Syria gone, Israel did not have time to blink before they were ready to bomb and reoccupy Southern Lebanon. Although the reason for invasion involved the alleged "cross-border" raid into Israel by Hezbollah militants to kidnap Israeli soldiers, Israel's response was unbelievably brutal. Besides the US' support for Israel's actions, the UN and most countries were highly of Israel's bloody escalation. It seems as though Syria's withdrawal lead to greater problems in Lebanon then solved. Yet, to this day, the facts of the matter have never lead anywhere in Syria's direction and, by and large, the only people still entertaining the thought of Syria's direct involvement are Israeli, American, and anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians.

The blame directed towards Syria had just about run its course when suddenly, another assassination of a high level Lebanese official took place. Pierre Amine Gemayel, an anti-Syrian proponent was attacked by a well armed group in November 21, 2006. Again, the finger points to Syria, thanks in large part to anti-Syrian sentiment. The possibility of Syria being involved in this case, like the previous cannot be completely excluded, but the fallout directed towards Syria does not result in any benefits. Sure, an additional voice of Syrian opposition was silenced, yet, at what cost? Syria, like Russia, has the aura of blame cast upon itself, and in no way improves the political situation and stability. In regards to who has more to gain, it's those who are being mobilized into building a great deal of anger and hate towards Syria. Lebanon is nearing the brink of civil war, with Israel and the US backing anti-Syrian sentiment, and Hezbollah, backing anti-US and anti-Israeli sentiment within Lebanese borders. Under the current administration and Israeli doctrine, a divided Lebanon entrenched in civil war, destabilizing the region, and resulting in further polarization of the world, is better then a Lebanon with Hezbollah (Which Israel itself created by occupying Lebanon in the first place). It comes down to the fact that it doesn't matter how badly the rest of the world is jeopardized, as long as Israel and the Neo-Cons are happy.

Ultimately then, politically motivated assassinations gain more anger and hate, further mobilizing the opposition, and do greater harm then good. Properly conducted assassinations do not appear as such, and tend to stay under media radar. In order to fully understand events unfolding in the world, it's best to understand the issues, and reason out the scenario. It's best to start asking questions by inquiring as to Who has the most to gain? Do the benefits of such acts outweigh the consequences? Is the act so visible and shocking as to garner greater attention on itself and it's supposed perpetrator? Why is the Media so compliant in chasing after rumor and suspicion, instead of exercising objectivity and reasoning? These are the types of questions that must be answered to fully comprehend an issue. Political powers, although dense at times, and frequently conflicted, are not stupid. These are people who have built careers in manipulating others, and developing a sense of self-preservation. They fight and claw to remain in power, and visible acts such as the ones explained in this blog (among countless others) only do more damage. It's amazing how many parallels can be drawn between the events that transpired towards anti-Russian crowds, and those with anti-Syrian affiliation. Thoughts and conflict, skepticism and critical thinking are tools that help navigate through these troubled waters.

Regardless of how the Influentials (such as the media, the elite, politicians, etc.) attempt to distort reality, the truth is there to be uncovered. One is not a conspiracy monger when deciding on gathering information with a skeptical mind. As thoughtful as my humble blogs may be, I hope that every individual reading can look at the facts and use their own judgment to reach a conclusion. Perhaps those conclusions are different then mine, and perhaps they are complete polar opposites, but as long as the facts are properly analyzed, there will always be room for debate. That's what leads to understanding and advancement.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Two Bridges for Peace

Watching British Parliament on the Political Cable Network, I couldn't help but notice the honest debate and somewhat combative nature of politics in the UK. Especially for Tony Blaire, as Prime Minister, he must defend his actions and policies from both the opposition and those in his party. At times, it's comical due to the reaction from the members of parliament (awws, and boos), and others, it's very educational. Within one hour of watching the session, one begins to grasp the forces and politics involved. It becomes very difficult to defend one's position when constantly bombarded with disapproval and questions. The biggest realization is the lack of interest in American politics. Without such debate, the political process in the United States is as dry as it can possibly be, with very little improvement. If Bush had to stand up to the scrutiny of his policies in session, the situation would be completely different. In actuality however, due to the difference between the British Government and the US, the role of Prime Minister is not the same as that of the President. The Executive Branch of the US government can be as exclusive as it wants, or as willing to pressure the Legislative Branch. Real Checks and Balances, which were intended to allow for accountability cannot be found in the current American Political system.

The difference between a Statesman and a Bureaucrat is that a Statesman can represent himself clearly, directly, and confidently. Various world leaders can be categorized under either of these two governing methods. A statesmen is a good representation of his/her country, often times considered a populist. Bureaucrats on the other hand, cannot express themselves with clarity, and often times, have no political charisma. As an Example, Bush would fall well into the Bureaucrat category. With his lack of insight, narrow focus, and difficulty in bridging political gaps, he is the quintessential paper pusher. Pressing his agenda through manipulation and governance through power, greed, and corruption. Tony Blaire, however, with all his faults and weaknesses is the essential Statesman. He can Represent his position clearly, with complex language, and a learned knowledge basis. A leader should not represent the average segment of the population, but must excel at every level. In order to compete in the world, and strive to understand and attain such complex insights, a leader must have qualities that are lacking in Bush.

For all of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (the President of Iran) faults, his diplomatic skills cannot be underestimated. Bush, believing his beliefs to be superior to others could not begin to address the diplomatic savvy needed to combat the ills of the world. His stance on Israeli Aggression on the Palestinians, his virtual ignorance of South American Policy, and blind eye to the plight of Africa, are just a few examples. In the course of the last year, Ahmadinejad has attempted to extend a bridge of diplomacy with the United States. He has written two letters, one addressed to Bush, and another to the American People. Although part of his position can be argued, his genuine attempt at diplomatic conversation is a greater achievement then Bush's cold shoulder. It's unfortunate that a developing nation, holding the potential of regional power is completely ignored by the United States, thanks in large part for the benefit of Israel. As repugnant as Ahmadinejad's remarks can be, his attempt at diplomacy and regional cooperation cannot be excluded. Iran does hold a lot of sway, and can positively effect the stability of the region. However, with the US and Israel pressuring Iran, there is very little stability to be reached.

The following links are directed towards the unaltered letters sent by Ahmadinejad.

The first one, posted on May 9, 2006 -- directed to Bush

The second one, posted on November 29, 2006 -- directed to the American People

A careful reading of these letters will help illustrate the nature of a Statesman (even with certain faults deemed inexcusable). Reaching out, and putting Ego aside to attempt at establishing diplomatic relations is a Stately thing to do. Lying to your people on a daily basis, while perpetuation the same tired jargon, endlessly, and ignorantly till the world is exhausted of resources and hope, is what a Bureaucrat does.

Antagonism of Zionism

With so much talk and discussion about the state of the world, many words and phrases become tainted with antagonism and disgust. Much has changed through the last few centuries, but a lot has also remained the same. Human nature, which can be slowly molded and shaped cannot change to extremes, especially when masses are involved. Individuals can vary, and some will produce brilliant insights, but when a group of individuals are introduced, the variability of so many human beings becomes a very strong factor for a quasi-static equilibrium. In other words, the extremes in the spectrum, although strong when considered individually are diluted with the buffered middle ground. As with most stable systems, the outliers are far less numerous then the middle ground. Nothing explains this systemic formula better then language. Words especially, can be so powerful, as to significantly shape history. A few key words which I will address in this essay will be Zionism and Judaism (I would address anti-Semitism, but have already done so in a prior essay); explaining the differences and similarities of the terms, and helping to clarify a reasoned and thoughtful position.

Due to the situation in the world today, it's absolutely vital to first, elucidate the facts behind a philosophy called Zionism. This one word is heavily loaded with connotative meaning and can be used through instances ranging from vilification, to anger, pride, cultural kinship, etc. Through many of my previous essays, I have used the word negatively, but in a context outside cultural or religious exclusivity. As with any philosophical entity, Zionism can have positive and negative context, but due to the nature of the current political, religious, and social system, few positives can be gleamed from the modern incarnation and ultimate meaning behind the term. As with any philosophical entity, Zionism competes to influence as many people as possible. Just as Capitalism competes with Socialism and Communism, Zionism competes with other forms of philosophical thought. It just so happens that those other forms are extremely diverse, sharing only the lack of such specifics found in Zionism amongst themselves.

Ultimately, a good place to start is to attempt to define what Zionism is in itself. I will avoid quoting the dictionary meaning because ultimately, if one wishes, they can readily reference any sources to find the appropriate definition. Therefore, in the broader socio-historical context, Zionism is a type of nationalism. It arose in the late 19th century; a time of worldwide nationalistic awakening. In a time when various small states where organizing into countries based on ethnic, social and linguistic ties, the map of the world was constantly being drawn and redrawn. Countries such as Germany arose out of the combined common states of the region, and vied for dominance with those of others, such as the Prussians, Poles, Russians, Austrians, Hungarians, Yugoslavians (in the nationalism context of the time). These trends did not go unnoticed in the population of Jews that lived in those regions. They had looked at the world changing around them, strengthening through nationalism, and realized that a similar trend within would have to start. With these benign origins, many unfortunate circumstances occurred to where the term now generally garners suspicion and negativity. The greatest disservice to Zionism was the establishment of the State of Israel with little thought to the displaced people of Palestine. The land that was once largely occupied by Semitic Palestinian Arabs, was established as a haven for mainly European Jews. Few of them had any genetic and biological ties to the region, with only a vague sense of religion tying them to those lands. Being such an unstable place, surrounded by those angered at the displacement of Palestinians (which also effected the economies of the Arab neighbor states), Israel needed the support of Europe and ultimately the United States. With the world opening its eyes and realizing that the United States has unilaterally supported Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, aggression upon its neighbors, and other antagonistic moves, many have developed a resentment and hatred. It's not often hatred based on the religion itself, but on the political entity, which ultimately becomes entangled and undistinguished from the religion. Judaism itself, being an organized religion has many faults, just as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of others. Faulting people for being religious is especially easy, when one feels partial to reason, and does not believe organized religion benefits the human condition. When Judaism is taken in religious context, then when one applies detrimental effects towards organized religion, Judaism cannot be excluded. Semantically speaking however, a Jew does not by necessity have to practice organized religion. It can be applied in a cultural and ethnic context. Even this context is difficult to define, because a Jew can be Italian, thus ethnically Italian, yet still identify as Jewish (through Religion). Even if that individual was not a practicing Jew, the context would remain. As an example, a Japanese person cannot be considered under any other ethnic grouping even when associating with various religions. The difficulty in thus describing Judaism is the confusion aroused between the religious, ethnic, cultural, and social ties. Therefore, it's difficult to remove the criticism of Israel, or Judaism, from racism. One can find fault with Christianity and France, without necessitating racism towards French people. However, finding fault with Judaism and Israel, does equate to racism in today's society. It's rather unfortunate, because nobody should be above accountability and reproach. Moreover, It has become such a powerful force in American Politics because the criticism of Israel's faults has become sacrilegious . In fact, there's more open and free debate and dialogue in Israel on the treatment of the Palestinians, then there is in the United States Congress.

In short summary then, my criticism of Israel, and even Judaism, does not equate to racism, because I am not directing it towards a specific people, but a specific system. Criticism can apply to a religious system, a political system, even a social system, without necessarily equating it to an individual. There are millions of Jews that are outside of the religious and Zionistic spectrum who do not keep Israel or Judaism above reproach. There is a natural tendency to feel defensive about one's own people and culture. Often times, I find that the criticism that I'm willing to place on other cultures, doesn't seem to apply as strongly to mine, and must force myself to think objectively and clearly. State corruption for example, provides a window into the inefficiency of some countries to function for their people's benefit. Armenia, is one of these countries that has a significant amount of corruption, and the same standards that I'm willing to apply to African countries should also as strongly apply to Armenia. There are times I find myself laxing in applying these standards, but must objectively look at the situation and leave defensive tendencies behind. Certain defensive tendencies are beneficial when used as an organizing force for good, however, any culture that feels morally, physical, and socially superior to another is not in itself superior. There is not one entity (whether a person, a state, a religion, a rule of law, etc.) that cannot benefit from some form of improvement and constructive criticism. When one looks at global politics today, the influence that Superiority has over others, destabilizes the world. Under the guidance of the Bush Administration, the egotistic belief over moral, religious, and cultural superiority cannot be underestimated. Just as Arab Nationalism believes in its own moral superiority, Zionism shares this common thread. In fact, having defined Zionism under the pretext of Nationalism, the belief in intrinsic superiority with other's extrinsic inferiority is perpetuated. Thus, the issue is not with Zionism, or Judaism, but with Nationalism, and Religion. These are the underlying themes and those in power are those that control the sense of religion and nationalism. It is up to the common people, those outside of the elite to thirst for knowledge and the freedom from mental enslavement.