US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Race
Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
21 Dec 2005
Modified: 05:22:57 PM
"Many believe that Israel is NOT a democracy. When they listen to speeches or several pro-Israel ads, they react negatively toward Israel's democratic ideals because they don't consider them true." (18)
"How the Next Generation Views Israel" - we should be so lucky!
By Henry Norr

I recently spotted an ad, I think on the Ha'aretz web site, inviting me to request a free copy of a study called "America 2020: How the Next Generation Views Israel," written by Frank Luntz and published by something called The Israel Project.

Luntz, as you may know, is a key pollster, focus groupie, strategist, and tactician for the Republicans - he's most famous for coming up with language that will attract support for policies people would otherwise oppose. (For example, he's supposedly behind the idea of labeling the estate tax the "death tax" and giving Bush's pollution plans labels like "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies.") In addition,, he has a slew of corporate clients, including (according to his web site, ) Merrill Lynch, American Express, Federal Express, Disney, AT&T, Pfizer, Kroger supermarkets, McDonalds, eBay,,, and the soft drink and motion picture industries, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable.
He's also Jewish, at least according to numerous online biographies.
As for The Israel Project, which I hadn't heard of before, it's evidently a Zionist propaganda initiative. They describe themselves as follows: "The Israel Project (TIP) is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel."

Anyway, my free copy of the report - a glossy, 57-page booklet, with a blonde, blue-eyed, conventionally gorgeous and not at all Jewish-looking "co-ed" (or, more likely, a model) on the cover, and a slew of similar pictures scattered throughout - arrived yesterday, and I promptly plowed through it. It's a remarkable document - by turns encouraging, illuminating, infuriating, and in some places flat-out funny. You can request your own free copy at their web site,, but I thought others might appreciate a summary.

It's based on "face-to-face group interviews with almost 150 randomly selected students under age thirty attending the top graduate schools in America - including the top business school, the top law school, the top school of government and the top school of journalism - in five mind-shaping centers in America: Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Los Angeles." Specifically, the students came from Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Georgetown, George Washington, Johns Hopkins (I guess they consider Baltimore to be part of D.C.), the University of Chicago, Northwestern, and UCLA. (Note the absence of Stanford and UC Berkeley, among other elite schools.)

Oddly, the report gives no other information about the sample - nothing about religious or ethnic background (something you'd think might be particularly relevant to the issue at hand), nothing about class (in the socio-economic sense), and nothing about specific fields of study. And there's not a shred of quantitative data backing up its assertions.

What the report says:

The main conclusion, repeated dozens of times over, is that "Students at the finest graduate schools in America are turning against Israel in alarming numbers. Never in the modern history of Jewish State has there been more outspoken public opposition on ELITE college campuses to the basic principles and tenets of Israel. To be brutally frank, if current attitudes are not reversed, America's core commitment to - and alliance with - Israel may not survive." (p. 2)
Some choice quotes follow, with page reference in parentheses. Emphasis (bold and all-caps type) is from the original. Aside from a few bracketed exclamations, I've restrained myself from commenting on Luntz's assertions:

"Conducting the extensive research for this report was a nightmare for me. their lack of identification with the Jewish State is really not a surprise, It is the intensity of their hostility that I find so alarming. ...the momentum away from Israel is even greater than we once feared." (3)

"In their own words:
* To be pro-Israel is to close their eyes to reality and cling to obsolete loyalties. It is also a very unpopular and socially unacceptable position to take on campus.
* To support the Palestinians is a mature moral judgment based on the facts of today and will be embraced by fellow students and faculty alike." (8)

"While it may be hard for people reading this report to imagine, the students ... believe press reports from the region, especially the print sources where they get the majority of their news, are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Israeli point of view." (9)

" many of the young elite in America are openly hostile toward the perceived power of Jews in America." (12)

" they view any U.S. support of Israel as generated by wealthy Jewish special interests rather than as a reflection of the national interest." (13)

"In plain English, for many non-Jewish elites on campus the only Jews that are credible to non-Jews are those who speak about Israel's mistakes and misdeed and are critical of the current government....the fact that too many Jewish students refuse to make the case for Israel convinces non-Jews that a case cannot be made." (15)

"Virtually every student we interviewed said he or she had drifted away from Israel and toward the Palestinian point of view over the past few years. Most said that 'learning more about the situation' (often through the media) had sent them into the Palestinian camp. And talking to a Palestinian face-to-face in a university setting is enough to seal the deal - regardless of how many Jews they encounter." (16)

"Many believe that Israel is NOT a democracy. When they listen to speeches or several pro-Israel ads, they react negatively toward Israel's democratic ideals because they don't consider them true." (18)

"Support for Israel is intellectual, while support for the Palestinians is emotional. [This seems to contradict the point that the students have move toward the Palestinian perspective as they learn more, but whatever}

" Any lingering support for Israel is a largely rational, cerebral matter and is not especially passionate or vocal. The Palestinians are the 'underdogs.' Sympathy for the Palestinians is expressed in emotional terms. In the end, the Palestinians are winning hearts and minds because they have humanized the conflict." (19-20)

"There is growing support among elite graduate students for a 'one-state solution' … Even when told that such an outcome would potentially destroy the Jewish nature of Israel, opinions did not change." (19)

"They consistently refer to Israel's security fence as a 'wall,' and so what is entirely a defensive measure is now seen as offensive and aggressive. They actually believe that Israel's security measures create more problems than solutions - and that the fence is a particularly ugly symbol of 'division,' 'oppression' and 'occupation.'" (24)

"Bush voters are almost all supporters of Israel, while Kerry voters almost unanimously back the Palestinians." (24)

"The real problem is how quickly attitudes and perceptions about Israel are deteriorating among elite graduate students. …based on what we heard at all eight sessions in all five cities, hostility toward Israel is likely to increase before attitudes can be turned." (25)

"Support exists and is growing for a NON-JEWISH one-state solution. Of all the findings, this one is perhaps the most dangerous. To up-and-coming elites, the notion of a "Jewish State" rings of an ethnic nationalism that has been widely rejecte. It sounds religious, extremist and even racist. For an audience desperate for any solution at all, a secular bi-national state seems a rational option at least worth exploring." (26)

The New York Times and BBC - especially the online versions of those outlets - and CNN are the top sources of news for these students, but they spend only 10-15 minutes a day consuming news. (31-32)

Tough nuts to crack
Luntz repeatedly waxes eloquent on the supposedly unique challenge of communicating the pro-Israel message to these students. For example:

"Reaching America's future decision-makers requires special sensitivities with regard to both substance and style. Speaking to these individuals is very different from speaking to any other audience you may encounter. This is an exceptionally skeptical if not hostile group of people. They are already predisposed against any kind of marketing, public relations or lobbying. They consume national and international sources of news so it is hard to communicate with them on a one-to-one basis. [Huh?] (33)

"America's future leaders [shorthand in this study for the young people interviewed] will assume you're biased or lying until you tell them something they know to be true - which isn't much - or something that sheds a negative light on Israel - which isn't helpful. And they will reject anything that to them appears to be one-sided - which is almost everything." (33)

"The future leaders are acutely sensitive to 'rhetoric.' This will be tough because this group is extremely sensitive to 'spin' and extremely hostile when they feel they are being spun. More troublesome are their negative reactions to any Israeli spokesperson they deem insensitive and uncaring. The problem [ellipsis in original] they see most pro-Israel spokespeople as insensitive and uncaring." (40)

"We tested roughly 20 television spots and 40 print executions to what, if anything, would have a measurable and positive impact on the way these future leaders think and feel about the Middle East in general and Israel in particular. The bad news is that more than 80% of what they saw either had absolutely no impact or actually generated a negative response."

Luntz to the rescue
Not to fear, though - Luntz will solve the problem. Several final sections of the report are explicitly devoted to "solutions," and there are tips and advice for Zionist propagandists scattered throughout. Just so we'll all know what to watch for, here are some of his suggestions:

" Spokespersons for Israel should always emphasize that they're for peace. "The only way for Israel to evoke sympathy is to be the side working hardest for peace. The best case for Israel is to demonstrate that she is willing to go twice as far as her neighbors to establish peace." (16-17)

"One solution is for Israeli politicians to sound less political and more human when they communicate on American television." (20)
Since the students "have doubts about the Palestinian leadership," and their positive feelings about Palestine don't extend to other Arab states like Syria and Saudi Arabia, "there is a genuine opportunity to help shift blame" - by focusing on the personal fortune Arafat allegedly accumulated (and other evidence of PA corruption) and by blaming the Saudis, etc., for rewarding the families of suicide bombers." (20-21, 35)

"Diffusing the one-state solution is achievable if you play on the emotions of Palestinian sympathizers by emphasizing that the Palestinians themselves oppose this solution." (27)
"It is critically important that the reporters in Israel have the facts and visuals they need to get the Israel story right [sic] before they go to press." Pay special attention to the NY Times, BBC, and CNN. Since the young people often just glance at the stories, pay particular attention to headlines, visuals, and the first few paragraphs of any story. "Unless our spokespeople are quoted near the top of an article, their message won't get through." (31)

"The British press matters. The BBC matters a lot The Internet allows easy access to the European press and reinforces the urgent necessity of correcting the extraordinary biases that exist in the British media. Unfortunately, thus far, efforts to discredit the BBC have not succeeded." (32)
"Express your genuine and sincere recognition that the average Palestinian has suffered. This will undoubtedly be rejected by some readers, but it is equally important to admit that Israel has sometimes [!!] contributed to that suffering. the goal here is to strike a note of magnanimity.

"Acknowledge the legitimate aspirations of most Palestinians. There are few things more encouraging to this elite campus audience than pro-Israel leaders speaking convincingly about their hopes for a bright Palestinian future. Always start and end with an optimistic, hopeful message. The first and last statement should be about achieving peace." (33-35)

"It's not just a conflict, it's culture." Blame alleged defects in Palestinian culture, such as anti-Israel incitement in the media and schools, a culture of martyrdom, etc. "But be careful - do not directly accuse the Palestinians of depravity. Simply show it, and let the images and words speak for themselves. Let the Palestinians speak for themselves. Show them Palestinian TV, unedited, without voiceover." (35-36)

Emphasize Palestinian rejection of Barak's supposedly generous offer at Camp David in 2000. "There is no more powerful tool in driving home Israel's commitment to a peaceful solution [!!] than the Camp David offer." (37)

Emphasize the locations of suicide bombings, especially "places that graduate students can imagine themselves congregating [at] - Sbarro pizza restaurant, Dolphinarium disco, Hebrew University cafeteria." (37)
Blame the Wall and the perpetuation of the conflict in general on Hamas and Islamic Jihad. "America's future leaders hate Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If there is such a thing as a magic bullet, this is it." (37)
"START EARLY. The earlier in life future leaders hear about Israel in a positive vein, the less likely they are to support the Palestinian position as they grow older. those kids who first heard of Israel through Biblical references when they were five, six, or seven grew up to appreciate the spiritual importance of the Jewish State [!!]. Every Rabbi, Jewish community leader, and knowledgeable pro-Israel activist in America should commit to visiting parochial schools and Sunday schools to talk about Israel to as many children as possible.

Israel has developed a powerful alliance with many Christian organizations, and these alliances need to be utilized to provide teaching opportunities within the church itself." (38)
"Identify non-Jewish, pro-Israel professors and broadly respected student leaders at the elite college campuses and ask them to help spread the word outside of class." (39)
"They're disputed territories, not occupied territories." (40)
"They're Arabs, not Palestinians. The term 'Palestinians' evokes images of refugee camps, victims and oppression. 'Arab' says wealth, oil and Islam." (40)

While the recommendations above deal with the content, more or less, of pro-Israel propaganda, Luntz also has lots of recommendations about form
"The best way to cut through the clutter of competitive message and their own established biases is, in a word, surprise.

Jewish organizations and those who seek to influence the public debate in favor of Israel must accept the fact that outside-the-box, unconventional advertising is imperative for reaching the future elite." (44)

Pictures and headlines matter more than body copy in ads. "A large, single striking photo or graphic is more important than all the words on the page." (44-45)

"Get real. The young elites detest the appearance of anything staged. The only way to grab their hearts and diffuse their skepticism is to provide a does of reality. Everything has to look real, sound real and feel real. One of the most important reasons why the ad campaigns of so many Jewish organizations have failed to move these people is because of the unreal nature of the executions - words and visuals that were so clearly written by ad executives rather than by real people." (45) [He's right on that score!]
"The face says everything. In their own words, "all the photos in almost all of these ads are hokey and fake looking, and all the crappy smiles." (45) [Either the designer of the report missed that passage, or, more likely, the report is designed not for these skeptical students but for their more gullible elders.]
TV advertising isn't a cost-effective way to reach such a narrow stratum, but online advertising could have an impact. (45-46)
In any such ads, "adhere to the rule of no voiceover. Narrators evoke a harshly negative reaction because they are removed from the crisis at hand and are therefore nothing more than pitchmen. If you want to personalize and humanize your story, rely on the voices of those immersed in this crisis - particularly younger women." (46)
"The messenger is as important as the message. Stylistically, it is always better to be soft-spoken and mild-mannered:
*Aggressive, loud men are a turn-off.
*Broken English or a heavy accent is a turn-off. A British accent is the most appealing. [!!]
*Attractive women are always a plus."
Mothers, especially mothers of terror victims, are especially effective. (39)
"Take politicians out of the equation. Whenever a U.S. public official appeared in a television or print ad, the young elites lost interest and even grew angry. The presence of political figures - even from Israel [sic] - only fuels the young elites' hostility toward Israel."
"Selling democracy will succeed. Selling Israel as a model of democracy will fail. The better approach is to call for true democracy for the Palestinians." (46)

The last pages of the report feature eight sample poster-style ads - five presented as "Ads That Work," three as "Ads That Fail" - with detailed notes about their merits and deficiencies. I won't be surprised to see some derivatives in the BART and MUNI before too long.

My take
Not having much contact with elite campuses, I'm not in much of a position to assess the accuracy of Luntz's findings about the mood of grad students there. But from my casual observations in Berkeley, my home town, and from my general sense of the zeitgeist, I'm quite prepared to believe there's a lot to it. Clearly there's far more sympathy for Palestine, and skepticism about Israel, than there was five or ten years ago. Luntz's report documents one aspect of this trend, and in that sense it's great news.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that the report tells the whole story, and the conspicuous absence of quantitative data backing its assertions reinforces my suspicions.

Given the firm grip that Zionism still holds is virtually every other milieu in America, the apparent strength of Zionist activism among undergraduates at elite as well as non-elite schools, the enormous representation of Jews on the faculties of most universities (perhaps most of all at the elite schools in his sample), the clear pro-Israel bias of the American media (including the sources Luntz says his students rely on most), and a host of other factors, it's simply not credible that Zionism has ceased to exist or nearly so, among elite graduate students.
One clue is Luntz's observation that "Bush voters are almost all supporters of Israel." Yet the report says virtually nothing about the views of such students.

It's not hard to believe that a majority of students in Luntz's sample were anti-Bush, but it's hard to believe that there were so few Bush supporters as to deserve no discussion. Given that Kerry positioned himself as an even more ardent supporter of Zionism than Bush, Luntz's assertion that "Kerry voters almost unanimously back the Palestinians" also strains credulity.
So what else is going on here that might have caused Luntz to exaggerate his findings?

One factor, I suspect, is that Luntz is reflecting and playing to a central theme in the culture of both Israeli and American (and probably European) Jews: "we're fated to be victims until eternity - even though we may seem to be on top of the world at the moment, any day now it could all come crashing down, and our only hope is to wage unremitting struggle to crush our (potential) enemies before they can get to us."

Among many Jews, in my experience, this is a sincere conviction; many others seem to find it a useful stance toward the world, an operating assumption, even if they don't really believe the analysis it's based on. (In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein talks about the same phenomenon, in a somewhat different form, in his discussion of Jewish-American leaders so often "crying wolf" about new waves of anti-Semitism.)

A second factor I suspect underlies Luntz's analysis: because that sense of victimhood is so prevalent among Jewish-Americans, tapping it is a great way to raise money - in this case, for The Israel Project and, no doubt, directly or indirectly, for Luntz himself.

After all, if the situation is as dire as they describe - from a Zionist perspective - your average rich American Jew will feel duty-bound to chip in to fight back. In this context, it's easier to understand the report's narrow focus on elite universities: the many Jewish alumni of these institutions are, on average, especially wealthy.

Indeed, the report comes with a fund-raising pitch and return envelope, and even before I'd received my copy, I received an e-mail message from Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of the The Israel Project, inviting me to participate in an "exclusive VIP briefing" (a conference call) with Luntz, Ms. Mizrahi herself, and the executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. All this "at no charge" - even the long-distance call is free - on just one condition: "make a contribution to TIP by noon, December 13th."

Bottom line: Luntz and TIP are very likely on to some real and positive trends among the students they surveyed, but they've latched on to these phenomena so they can exploit them for their own political and financial ends. Let's celebrate the good news underlying their report, but not delude ourselves into thinking it accurately reflects reality, even in the small world it focuses on.

A final thought: Ms. Mizrahi's fundraising pitch notes that "the considerable cost The Israel Project incurred to reprint the book came at the expense of your [sic] other programs." One more reason to put in your request for a free copy¦

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
21 Dec 2005
Excellent work. this is the kind of indepemdent journalism we need to see more of here on IMC. Way to expose these violent racists in thier own words. thanks again for posting this great and revealing piece.
Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
21 Dec 2005
As a Jew I am so ashamed of the zionists on the Harvard campus.They are giving all of us a bad name.I wish they would all go to hell.I hate zionism and pray the Palestinians will be able to return to their homeland and be free to live without fear and humiliation.How can anyone support the terrorist state of Israel?
Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
22 Dec 2005
Many anti-Christian people support the offense of the Zionist crusader state BECAUSE they call it "Israel." God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. Anti-Christian TV preachers push that idea all the time.

Is it any wonder that Zionist crusaders would highjack the name of Israel? How else could they get allegedly Christian people to treat Palestinians as they would NOT have the Palestinians treating them???

You don't have to go into the new testiment to know that Zionists are not the biblical Israel but are the enemies of God. The old testiment does that quite well.
Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
22 Dec 2005
Comment on this article | Email this Article
Hidden with code "Duplicate post"
News :: Education
boston policy either wrong or arbitrary
by commentator
(No verified email address) 20 Dec 2005
christozionazi censorship is what boston is all about
Hidden with code "Other"
(this is posted in other locations online, this contains content that could be considered "disruptive". for almost 5 years Boston IndyMedia has had a policy of hiding religious posts that are not specifically related to current news OF religion or religious groups because we consider them to be advertising. this particular post is hidden for all of those reasons, and this repost (and any others of its type) will be hidden because they are disruptive. cursing at our editorial decisions will not make us change our policies. writing us a personal e-mail or posting to our editorial list is a much more reliable way of convincing us that we have hidden an article in error. please consider that before reposting this particular article with gratuitous cursing or capital letters, or any others that you think we may have hidden inappropriately.) :



News :: Education
by antizio
(No verified email address) 18 Dec 2005
Comment on this article | Email this Article
Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
News :: Education
by status hidden
(No verified email address) 14 Dec 2005

Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
News :: Education
gospel jesus never was 12.13.2005 version
by aletes
(No verified email address) 13 Dec 2005
jesus as portrayed by the 4 canonic gospels is a lie.

i solved the 2000-year- old quest for the historical jesus i think.

simon bar jair leader of jewish resistance fighters during the 66-70 AD phase of the 66-73 AD antiroman war gave the gospel fabricators the story they transmogrified into "jesus" ' resurrection.
but first i shall demonstrate how the gospel lie also stems from the by the gospels skewed and twisted story of a second character in the same war:
jesus bar sappha also portrayed by flavius josephus in his book jewish war which is the underlying basis for the gospel liars.
thus it will become clear that the false gospel jesus was the remix of both simon bar jair (simon peter) and jesus bar saffia. call it patchwork or collage. minor pieces were added to the mix too such as a jesus bar ananus also a character from flavius joseph's jewish war.


The first occurrence of jesus bar sappha is at II,20,4,566 in the jewish war (bellum iudaicum).bar is aramaic for hebrew ben meaning son of.
we are in the context of the 66-73 AD war by which militant jews tried desperately and in vain to regain their independence from the romans hoping god would send a son of man down the clouds that would lead them to victory and to rule the world as prophesied or believed prophesied by their all-important prophet or believed-prophet daniel.
now one might object here that we are accostumed to think jesus lived and died as the gospels have it under pontius pilate who ruled until 37 AD.
yet it will appear clear to you by the end of my essay that this is a gospel lie tout court.
to begin with flavius joseph tells us in another book of his called antiquitates judaicae or jewish ancient history that john the baptist died in 36 and since the gospels have it that "jesus" started preaching from john the baptist's death or arrest then he couldn't have died before 39 AD that is after pilate's tenure in judaea anyway because christian lore has it that jesus preached for 3 years and then died.
there is no certainly authentic/truthful record/document/source whatsoever attesting to a charismatic messianic jewish leader by the name of jesus who was crucified under pontius pilate.

whereas there is ample testimony to a jesus - our jesus bar sappha - who fought (and died?) around 67 AD.
and this jesus i'll proceed to show will look to you very familiar very much like gospel jesus but with inverted purposes and means.
now at bellum iudaicum II,20,4,566 flavius josephus who witnessed many of the events he describes in his book albeit with a proroman bias jewish turncoat that he was introduces a jesus bar sappha one of the high priests elected to militarily preside over idumea first - a region near judea - and then galilee during the antiroman struggle.

anyway josephus has been handed down to us only in greek but he originally wrote in aramaic and must have said something like yeshu'a bar sappha which sounds suspiciously like jesus son of (jo)seph doesn't it to begin with...
I am not thereby necessarily implying that saffa=(yus)sef=joseph. flavius josephus has another 2 variants to this jesus's last name:
bar sapphia and bar saphat.
Could these all be variant/short aramaic forms for hebrew yussef or yehoshaphat?
Or could the gospel liars/rewriters simply have replaced flavius' sappha/sapphia/saphat or whatever it was meant to be with joseph? for dissimulation purposes i mean.
bar means son of in aramaic of course.
aramaic being the variant of hebrew spoken in palestine and the middle east around jesus' time I century AD.

but even if sappha/sapphia/saphat had nothing to do with joseph as a name still again joseph that is yussef could be an overwrite to hide the real jesus's last name.


let me try and make this point absolutely clear:
there is no evidence whatsoever that gospel jesus ever existed.
there is no hard evidence whatsoever that his father was called joseph.
but if you want to fabricate a regime religion for mass consumptio you'd better twist bits of truth and overwrite/rewrite them so that the people after a while having forgotten all the details will relate to your foundational myth because they will somehow have a memory of some heroic jesus of some kind or messiah etc.
in other words you can't feed the masses a 911 that didn't happen - you must at least bring down the twin towers for real so everybody goes wow and then they'll be more inclined to accept the regime propaganda bullshit about 19 kamikazes from the caves hijacking planes noone ever saw.

similarly they may have taken jesus bar sappha/sapphia/saphat and turned him into jesus bar yussef.

Robert Eisenman in his all-important book James the brother of Jesus/faber and faber 1997/vol 1 avers that barabbas the famous murderer allegedly preferred to jesus by the jews for freeing from prison really stands for bar abbas which literally means son of the father which makes little if any sense at all as a last name.

but in the acts of the apostles 1.23 and 15.22 we have a joseph barsabbas and a judas barsabbas respectively the second one even being called barabbas in a variant reading of a manuscript thus attesting to the confusion/possible equivalence barabbas=barsabbas.
joseph and judas being 2 of jesus' brothers according to the gospels.
now doesn't bar sabbas sound suspiciously like our jesus bar sappha from flavius josephus?

ancient aramaic probably differentiated little between p and b just like arabic has nablus from neapolis for instance and arabic represents a more ancient pronunciation phase of this language cluster. which means that arabic pronunciation of today is closer to how hebrew/aramaic was pronounced in the first century AD than modern hebrew.
in other words:
aramaic BAR SABBA resembles BAR SAPPHA in pronunciation.
the barabbas that is bar abbas of gospel lore might have been the real jesus of history the lestès as flavius josephus called jewish zealot revolutionaries of his time - I century AD: lestès is greek for latro in latin meaning robber or bandit - today they'd say terrorists.

but acts of the apostles has bar sabbas as surname of 2 namesakes of jesus' brothers therefore if they really were jesus' bros then it was sabbas or bar sappha family!

further evidence that the gospels are just skewed rewrites of the real story of a jewish antiroman fighter called jesus is in a few variant manuscripts of matthew (refered to by eisenman) who instead of simply calling the gospel lestès/latro barabbas call him...JESUS BARABBAS!!!

need any more evidence?


now josephus flavius tells us this jesus was one of the high priests.
the reader accostumed to 2000 years of gospel lie will object that gospel jesus is a poor carpenter's son...
but i will proceed to show how the 4 canonic gospels are a pack of lies so i refer the reader further below after which he/she will have to concede that the minimum we can say about the poor carpenter's son story is that we have no evidence whatsoever corroborating it so we can only suspend judgement about it for the time being.
what if jesus son of (jo)seph had instead really been jesus bar sappha one of the high priests as flavius' jesus bar sappha reportedly was?
anyway. maybe sappha/sapphia/saphat does not = joseph but again joseph may be an overwrite for sappha.
and again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabbas ie bar sappha the lestes/latro/bandit who had been involved in the uprising against rome according to the canonic gospels really is a much better match for whatever the historical jesus might have been in the turmoil of those revolution-laden times.
no meek pacifist gandhiesque tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have made it with the jewish masses of his time,who were hell-bent on awaitin' a fighting messiah who would free them from the hated romans with all their taxes and crosses for rebels.


now flavius josephus in his jewish war at this point knows exactly what he's talking about because he too before switching sides had been assigned by jerusalem to be in charge of galilee's defence.
but since he was quite lukewarm already about fighting the mighty roman the more radical jewish militants started blasting him as a traitor - which he turned out to be - and in the hippodrome of the town of tarichaeae on the sea -that is in jewish parlance lake - of galilee also called lake tiberias and lake gennezareth - the radicals kicked up a riot agains flavius (who by then was still only joseph) shouting he should be stoned or burned alive.
the chief instigators of the fuss says flavius were our jesus son of sapphia - maybe better sapphia variant of sappha flavius uses the first time he mentions him - and a john...


so there you have your gospel jesus and john - though probably not john the baptist because flavius in another book antiquitates judaicae informs us that john the baptist died around 36 AD.
jesus bar sapphia had by 66 or 67 been assigned to governing tiberias a nearby town also in galilee and also on the seashore that is lakeshore very familiar to the reader from gospel lore...
so there you have your jesus just exactly where the gospels place him in galilee near the lake - but not out to perform miracles and give to caesar what's caesar's but instead out to fight caesar to the bitter end alongside john...this john may well have been the one among gospel jesus' apostles called john the son of zebedee and thought to be the evangelist - and he may have been jesus' brother too although the name john is not among those of jesus' bros in the gospels - because ZEBED(ee) sounds suspiciously like a variant greek transliteration of the aramaic SAPHAT which is one of the 3 variants in flavius joseph's jewish war for jesus' last name:SAPPHA/SAPPHIA/SAPHAT.

note also how jesus bar sappha/barsabbas/barabbas that is (maybe) son of (jo)seph is a high priest in flavius and is assigned to galilee presumably from jerusalem see of high priests.

also please note that flavius joseph upon introducing jesus bar sappha says he was one of the high priests plural which means that around that time - about 66 AD - there were more than just one high priest.


take your 'matthew' 13:55's list of jesus' brothers:
the standard scientific edition of the new testament nestle-aland/novum testamentum graece et latine/2002 has in the original greek "james and joseph and simon and judas" .

but instead of joseph we find IOANNES (john) as variant reading in:
1. the all-important codex alpha 01 IV century london brit libr add 43275 (albeit not clearly legible);
2. codex D, V century cambridge univ libr
3. codex gamma 036, X century oxford+st petersburg
and many other manuscripts.

how interesting.
maybe the real name of jesus' 2nd brother was john not joseph.
if so this brother john would come after james.
"james and john and simon and judas".

but james and john are also the names of jesus' 3d and 4th disciples according to 'matthew' 4:21:
" 2 brothers, james the son of zebedee and john his brother" .
therefore what the underlying original text may have said was that jesus son of
SAPHAT (flavius joseph)
SABBA (gospel (bar)abbas,acts (bar)sabbas)
=BAR SAPHAT=BAR SABBAS=BAR ZEBED in aramaic had 2 brothers by the names of james and john who went on to naturally become 2 of his first disciples.

one of the 24 priestly courses that is groups of jewish priests taking turns in attending to the jerusalem temple was called HAPPIZZEZ and is attested to as living in nazareth albeit after AD 135.
what if jesus had been a happizzez high priest?
check this out :


so jesus really was:
1.a jewish high priest from jerusalem ;
2.a theocommunist jewish radical antiroman messianic but this-worldy militant fighting the war for freedom from the romans and return to the golden david and maccabee era of jewish independence ;
3.military commander in the 66-73 jewish-roman war.around the lake of galilee or tiberias or gennezareth .

AGAIN LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO LOOK FOR JUST ONE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS.this is the mistaken approach that has led many truth-seekers astray so far.
because it is absolutely clear from the gospels' modus operandi that gospel jesus is the product of collage work . reediting together broken pieces of various would-be-messiahs of the first century AD.
the gospels' jesus is the product of centuries of patchwork.


alright let's roll on.
flavius continues the jesus story at bellum iudaicum III,9,7,450 ff:
here jesus bar sapphia becomes bar saphat but it's always the same jesus barsappha/barsaba/barabbas in charge of defending galilee against the incoming roman army and jewish turncoats the likes of flavius.
who graciously says here that jesus commanded a band of brigands - today they'd say terrorists...
that is patriots freedom fighters.
mind you not that I sympathize with them in any way: i hate all imperialisms and therefore i hate the romans
but i also hate all religious fundamentalisms and if jesus bar sappha had won we would now have a world-wide iran...or orthodox israel.

roman general soon-to-become-emperor vespasianus with his son and fellow jew-butcherer titus arrives near tiberias and proceeds to lay siege and build camps.
first he sends out officer valerianus and 50 horsemen to parlay with jesus' patriots who not only won't surrender but proceed to attack valerianus led by jesus who forces the romans to flee but then just before the bulk of the romans somehow manages to enter tiberias jesus and his men flee to nearby tarichaeae also on the lake..

now flavius informs us that both tiberias and tarichaeae lie at the feet of mountains - just like we know from the gospels' mount sermons of the doctored jesus...

and here comes the whole real story about boats on the lake and fishermen who become fishers of men.
the inhabitants of tarichaeae who evidently sided with jesus had readied a number of large boats on the adjoining lake both for the purpose of fleeing if things turned nasty and to fight a possible sea battle against the romans or pelt the romans from the lake that the jews call sea.

so the romans start building up their siege camp for tarichaeae but bold jesus' guerrillas assail them with hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.
a group of jewish fighters fights from the boats another from the plain in front of the city.
they have no fear of sinking like gospel simon...
instead it's the romans who dread the fury of the jews and titus has to rebuke them - which in the gospel lie becomes jesus rebuking simon and the others for their lack of faith.

eventually the jews on the plain have to flee and others try desperately to join the fighters already on the boats.
this in the gospel misrepresentation becomes the storm that threatens to sink simon peter's boat...
the romans capture tarichaeae.
resistance continues on the lake.
jesus and his men flee trhu the plain says flavius josephus so at this point they drop off our radar screen.
vespasian joins titus in tarichaeae and congratulates his son over the slaughter...and orders that someone be put to death.

this is an all-important point because here you would expect the accounting for the capture and crucifiction of jesus - the punishment romans meted out on rebels.
instead all manuscripts that handed down flavius' bellum iudaicum to us...contain a gap here so we don't know the name or names of those vespasian orders put to death!
coincidence - i'd rather say deliberate erasure on the part of later church rewriters who kept flavius' manuscripts under tight lock for centuries....

bear with me there's more to come.


the technical term for a gap in a manuscript is lacuna.
at flavius josephus jewish war III,10,6,505 there's a lacuna just where we may have expected to read jesus' name as the chief crucified by the romans for rebellion after the capture of tarichaeae on the lake of galilee.
but the church daddies would not let us realize who the real crucified jesus really was mostly based on so they erased this bit most likely.
also notice here how this is the only lacuna in the entire bellum judaicum book! if i am not mistaken.
anyway it's pretty obvious just whose name is missing there and how the real jesus was put to death - the romans always crucified rebels except when they were roman citizens in which case they did them the favor of just beheading them thus cutting their suffering short.
and since tarichaeae lay at the feet of a mountain it is likely the lacuna also told us that jesus was crucified on the mountain for all to see the macabre terroristic deterrent spectacle of what end awaited those who dared defy the romans ...


anyway it's not over yet because a bunch of heroic jihadist patriots are still resisting on the boats on the lake.
and their credo is no surrender.
so vespasian orders rafts built to attack the lakeborne rebels.
around the lake of tiberias/galilee/gennezareth there was plenty of logging to be done so the job is quickly carried thru by the roman army's many...CARPENTERS!
who of course in the gospel twisting and distorting of facts become jesus' father joseph who was a poor carpenter from nazareth in galilee which didn't even exist at the time most likely but anyway centuries later when the current text of the gospels was finally end-concoted in its present form everybody would believe this crap in the west because they knew shit about palestinian geography and the few who did would accept the story because the lakeshores were very woody anyway so what more natural than being a carpenter in nazareth which in the meantime had been founded for real...
see my essay the nazareth lie for more on nazareth.
link in bibliography at bottom.

flavius now informs us that the lake was rich in fish and that's where the gospel lie of jesus' disciples /apostles as fishermen originates.

by now you will have started to grasp the modus operandi of those mischievous westernized proroman gospel fabricators:
they took bits and pieces of underlying truth from flavius josephus' book and rewrote the story turning the fighting jesus into a meek nonviolent poor guy only intent on healing the sick and chasing demons...
and multiplying loaves and fish for mass picnics on lake gennezareth.
what a sick twist.
so jesus son of sappha high priest in jerusalem sent to galilee to fight the romans there becomes a little gandhi recommending to pay the roman tax which was the very reason the war and the real jesus' desperate fight were all about.

now the romans having built powerful rafts and packed them with legionaries proceed to slaughter the boatborne jews despite the latter's heroic resistance.
flavius depicts dramatically this epic scene of sinking boats and dying jews and lake reddening with their blood which the gospels turn into jesus walking on the water when in fact it was the romans who walked on the water aboard their rafts and the jews who did the same having tied all the boats together so as to form a blockade and were probably jumping from one to the other. and it wasn't simon who was afraid of sinking in a storm but the real jews who sank and drowned with their boats...

none of them got out alive.


and now at last the gospel story of the fishermen called on by jesus to become apostles and fishers of men in the spiritual sense for afterworldly purposes.
the real jesus story in flavius ends much more graphically:
the romans having butchered all the jewish partisans on the boats the lake got filled with corpses and since it was still summer soon a terrible stink filled the air and the boat wreckage and many of the dead were washed ashore and the rot soon became overwhelmingly pestilent.
so when the gospel rewriters/overwriters edified us with the saying of the falsified jesus that now peter and andrew etc were to follow him and become fishers of men what else could it be a distortion of if not of...
the tragic fact that there certainly being real fishermen on the lake which was so rich in various fish those real fishermen in the aftermath of the battle went about resuming their daily fishing but since there were thousands of corpses in the lake many of those who hadn't been washed ashore yet ended up getting stuck in the fishermen's nets who thus became fishers of (dead) men whereas in the gospel lie it's simon & co who prompted by jesus set out to fish and their catch is so plentiful they can hardly pull it up on board without sinking!
what a sick sadistic twist - what fun must it have been for the imperial gospel forgers to turn the slaughter into a fishing party and the dead into fish!

Another explanation or one that could coexist with the first is that the romans on the rafts may have included retiarii for close-quarter combat - the fighters with nets that got cast over the enemies to immobilize them and thus capture or butcher them more easily.

yes i'm aware that the fishers-of-men imagery is also derived from jeremiah 16:16 - but i think the old testament inspiration here may mesh with the rewriting of history.


so now comes the source for the part of the gospel lie that deals with jerusalem.
did gospel "jesus" really exist?
the real jesus was jesus bar sappha described above - as far as the galilee scenario in the gospel lie is concerned .
plus simon a violent theo-com(munist) antiroman patriot who thought his god would make him rex judaeorum and help him drive the romans out of palestine as far as the jerusalem scenario in the gospel lie is concerned.
instead the romans erased jerusalem off the map and murdered him.
now i shall proceed to prove all this.
only thing i'd like to make clear:
i am not quite sure i am the first to aver that jesus was sappha+simon because although i am well versed in classics i can't say i am aware of each and every single bit of jesus literature re the historical jesus of the past 2 or 3 hundred years and all times.
so if someone else came up with my same arguments before me please let me know.

now first of all:
why is gospel jesus a fake?
well first because he wasn't from nazareth.
for nazareth see my
the nazareth lie

anyway what really further proves that the gospel jesus is a lie is that at the time - a time of massive antiroman unrest in palestine - a proroman jewish messiah as gospel jesus is pictured to have been would never ever have enjoyed popularity and would never ever have been targeted by the proroman jewish priestly establishment or crucified by the romans - because he would have been their ally.

having thus established that gospel jesus is a fabrication how was this fabrication achieved?
pure invention?
no - the method was rather conflation of real people and events of first-century palestine but totally reversed and distorted to skew and falsify history in portraiting violent jewish revolutionaries as meek gandhiesque proroman tax-paying asskissers.

gospel jesus again being a collage of different characters from the messianic era in jewish palestine of the I century AD is also based on the very real simon bar ghiora but again reversed and deformed into a proroman idiot.
one only needs to carefully read the book bellum iudaicum - war against the jews - by flavius josephus a jewish turncoat who had betrayed the antiroman movement and switched sides.
the war in question happened between 66 and 70 AD with some fighting lasting into 73.
It was a horrible slaughter which ended with future emperor titus erasing jerusalem off the map after a long siege and the romans capturing the revolutionary resistance leader simon bar ghiora - simon son of ghiora - bringing him to rome for display in titus' and his father vespasianus' triumph and then executing him in the infamous tullianum jail/death chamber at the foot of the capitol hill.
I wrote elsewhere about how this very same simon also became the biggest piece of the "saint peter" puzzle:

so grab your flavius josephus jewish war VII 2,2.
the romans have entered jerusalem erased it to the ground and slaughtered most everyone and looted whatever they've found.
But resistance commander Simon had hidden in a subterranean secret gallery with his most trusted friends and a bunch of stonecutters with the aim of continuing to mine the gallery so as to find an opening onto some safe spot whence they might escape the romans.
but they soon gave up hope because they'd almost run out of food and made little progress in the excavations.
so Simon "put on white tunics and a purple cloak over them and came out of the ground where the temple had stood".
doesn't it sound like the real underlying model for the gospel fabricators who twisted it into the resurrection of "jesus"?
1-in the gospels we find the same element of jesus' tomb carved - newly carved - in rock.
2-when jesus resurrects he appears to some in white shining clothes/light.
3-when jesus is arrested and tortured his tormentors clothe him in a mock-kingly mantel purple in color.
4-both the real simon and the forged jesus "resurrect" by coming out of the ground and from the carved rock.
5-the simon of history resurfaces where the temple had stood - hadn't gospel jesus prophesied he would rebuild the temple in 3 days alluding to the temple of his body? well when the real simon resurfaces a few days had passed since the romans had occupied jerusalem and thereby destroyed the temple.
6.those who first saw simon in josephus were paralyzed by fear just like the first people to whom "jesus" appeared in the gospels right after resurrecting. josephus after the initial surprise those who first saw simon-without recognizing him-presumably roman soldiers presiding over the temple ruins run to their commander - just like in the gospels the women to whom jesus appeared ran to the apostles.
8.simon had wanted to be king of the jews - messianic king in the maccabean priestly-king tradition and the garment of such kings was the purple cloak whereas the white tunics were the garments of priests and militant daily-bathing sect members such as john the baptist essenes etc.

Enough "coincidences" folks?
no wait i ain't done yet.

simon gets arrested but not killed on the spot because titus wants to parade the vanquished enemy in rome during his triumphal gala parade.
so simon gets chained and brought to titus in caesarea on the sea a town on the coast of palestine.
just like in the acts of the apostles simon peter gets arrested and chained and in a separate episode ends up in caesarea...
so poor patriot simon bar ghiora ends up in rome and gets paraded in the triumphalis pompa amongst 700 other prisoners - a veritable via crucis without cross - and then those bastards tie a rope around his neck and drag him like an animal along the last bit "among abuse and beatings" - sounds familiar from jesus' arrest in the gospels?...-to the tullianum death chamber near the forum where they put him to death.
and pious christian lore has it that saint peter came to rome was arrested and thrown into the tullianum prison - only variation being his having been crucified upside down instead of the customary strangling in the tullianum reserved for enemy chiefs such as vercingetorix jugurtha and the like.
and even the strange position of peter's alleged crucifiction comes from flavius josephus bellum iudaicum V,11,1 "prompted by hatred and ire the roman soldiers amused themselves by crucifying prisoners in various positions"...
that's why i'm saying that the gospel mosaicists dissected simon bar ghiora and used some parts of his story for their jesus and others for their peter on whom see my peter essay quoted above.

are you convinced my fellow truth-seekers?
not yet?
wondering if the real jerusalem jesus,that is simon,had his own judas the traitor?
there you go:
flavius josephus bellum iudaicum V,13,2:
"a fellow of Simon's underlings" with a bunch of men tried to plot against Simon and call in the romans but Simon discovered the plot captured judas and his traitors killed them and mutilated their corpses - fossile of this is gospel peter cutting off the high priest's servant's ear - and cast them down the city walls.


one last piece of the jesus lie puzzle in the canonic gospels is a minor character from flavius joseph's jewish war a fellow jesus ben ananus who for some 7 years before the outbreak of the 66-73 war wandered around jerusalem obsessively repeating "woe to you jerusalem" in prediction of its impending fall - just like gospel jesus is portrayed after-the-fact as predicting that not a stone will be left of jerusalem's temple etc.

thanx for listening.
next time they forge a religion for us,let's try and not wait another 2000 years to call their cards...

christianity is over:


also read:
1. aletes
the nazareth lie
2. robert h eisenman
james the brother of jesus
volume 1
faber and faber 1997
3. aletes
"saint peter" is just fiction


This work is in the public domain

Please Don't Feed the Trolls
Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Boston IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.

-- Boston Indymedia volunteers

Re: gospel jesus never was 12.13.2005 version
by Me
(No verified email address) 13 Dec 2005
This is total Bullshit, without a shred of scholarly credibility.



GET CANCER AND DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
26 Dec 2005
It , the massive public support lent to Zionism, started with a LIE:"A land with no people for a people with no land". It then escalated into an cascade with the ceaseless milking and shameless BLACKMAIL for which the abominable Holocaust was employed .Recently it turned into a Tsunami with the unholy perverted WAR on TERROR .
All was done, and is being done, with the singleminded aim to mislead and disinform public opinion in the WEST about Zionism/Israel and hide its RACIST, AGGRESSIVE and ALIEN nature that has been slowly unravelling to all concerned.
Zionism/Israel has managed to conceal its true nature for quite some time; but in this much smaller world it is bound to be unveiled and recognized for what it truly is:a RACIST,AGGRESSIVE ,ALIEN and COLONIALIST movement that dislocated, disfranchised and dispossessed the indigenous Palestinian people in their homeland!
That is happenind daily all over the world!
Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
26 Dec 2005
"disfranchised and dispossessed the indigenous Palestinian "

Indigenous "palestinians" !!??

Yeah, indigenous to: Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, UAE etc , et al, ad nauseum....
The "palestinians" arrived in the region, after the ZIONISTS began agriculture and manufacturing....where NONEW existed. They were looking for jobs which were non-existent from whence they came.
Re: Zionist take aim on your childrens minds
26 Dec 2005
The basic problem, is that the majority of today's university students were born after the Six Day War. They've been subjected daily to "palestinian" the point that they actually believe there was a nation called "palestine" and that Israel invaded it.
Nothing is father from the truth.