Category Archives: Anti-Zionism

Lenin on Anti-Semitism

Excellent video from Lenin on anti-Semitism.

This is an excellent analysis of the phenomenon, though I do know some true leftwing, liberal and Leftist anti-Semites, they are not common. Actually, they are pretty rare.

However, on the Arab Left, there is a tremendous amount of overt anti-Semitism. I used to associate with some folks who were linked to the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Basically Arab Commies. They and their friends were very anti-Semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They were also very anti-Iranian, which is typical of Arab nationalists.

Eventually they accused me of being a “Zionist spy” and threw me out of their little circle (I was doing some media work with them). Pretty paranoid group of people, not that I blame them.

However, anti-Semitism is basically at its heart a rightwing movement. You can see that in that the various anti-Semites who have shown up on this site are by and large rightwingers of one type or another. In particular, they are social conservatives. After all, the Jew is the bearer of modernity in all of its depravity and moral dissolution, no?

Anti-Semites also tend to be anti-Communist, as the Jews brought us Communism, eh? Especially in China. After all, that fellow Mao was a Jew, right?

Those of us on the Left who are not opposed to progress and all of the various social and political revolutions of the last 200 years would error in making enemies of the Jews. Anyway, we on the Left owe a vast debt to the Jews, as they were very important to our movement. And sympathizers with various progressive revolutions from Napoleon’s time on must sympathize with the Jews, as the Jews were typically in the forefront of social progress for one reason or another.

Yes, Jews can be silly, crazy and obnoxious, but even most Jews are well aware of that.

At the end of the day, there really is not much in anti-Semitism for those of us on the Left. There is nothing in it for us, and it’s fundamentally reactionary anyway.

But we can always be critical of the Jews in a good way. After all, nobody does this better than the Jews themselves.

There is a trend on the Right, especially the Jewish Right, to say that Communism was anti-Jewish. Well, the Jewish Right thinks everything is anti-Jewish. As you can see in this video, it is not really so. Yitzak Shamir was correct when we called the Soviet Union an “anti-anti-Semitic state,” perhaps the first that had ever been created. Stalin signed a bill making anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death. Stalin was an anti-Semite? Come on now.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Arab Nationalism, Arab Racism, Conservatism, History, Jews, Left, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, USSR

From Jew to Jew: Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Repost from the old site.

Here is a document I received from a progressive Jewish colleague who is associated with the group that published this document, A Jewish Voice For Peace. The group is located in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.

In this struggle, we need all the allies we can get. A real 2-state solution, described below, would, for all its deficiencies, be light years better than the hardline Zionist horrorshow that has America in a death grip. The single-state solution preferred by so many anti-Zionists lacks international support at this time and thus is little more than a pipe dream, whatever moral weight it may throw.

While Hamas was surely the democratic choice of the people, so was Hitler. So was George Bush. So was Ariel Sharon. So what? Many Hamas members are racist anti-Semitic bigots who have no interest in sharing Palestine with Jews.

They have helped spread backwards Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine, which has encouraged abuse and terrorization of secular Muslims and especially of Palestinian Christians. The emigration of Palestinian Christians is to a large degree due to the increasing fundamentalism in Palestine. But see here for some recent commendable positive moves by Hamas towards Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem.

This blog condemns fundamentalism in all forms and all religions everywhere on Earth, from Afghanistan to India to America to Palestine. While Hamas is not Al Qaeda at all, there is much to criticize there.

Furthermore, the activists described above would attack the essay below for “being directed only at Jews” and for being “Jewish-centric”. Yet politics is the art of the possible, and with the region in flames and the conflagration threatening to spread to new lands, the sane people need all the friends we can get at this point.

Those who know quite about the Middle East conflict will find this essay, which is somewhat dated, to be old hat and may wish to skip it.

Those who know little about the Middle East (only 15% of Americans realize that Bethlehem is a mixed Muslim-Christian city in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine) will find it an excellent primer to the conflict, with good, moderate, sensible advice that may be palatable to many politically moderate Americans.

Along similar lines as this article, see Christopher Hedges, Get Carter, in the January 7, 2007 issue of The Nation. Although the 2-state solution may seem like a shameless sellout to the fringe anti-Zionists described above, in the US right now, sentiments like we see both this and Hedges article are regarded by the Israeli Lobby as ultraradical and are attacked with animal-like ferocity.

Note: This publication is seriously dated, dating back possibly to 2002. Nevertheless, it is still quite relevant.

From Jew to Jew:

Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Written by Jews for Fellow Jews

A Jewish Voice For Peace Publication

Download the PDF file here


Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, A Jewish Voice For Peace is the oldest and largest of a growing number of Jewish groups that are convinced that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory must end. There are two compelling reasons for this.

First, we wish to preserve the best part of our Jewish heritage -a deeply-ingrained sense of morality – and pass it on to the next generation, unsullied by the mistreatment of another people. We were brought up to believe that, as Jews, we are obligated to always take the moral high road and we can’t imagine letting this proud ethical tradition die now.

Second, as we will show in this paper, we are convinced that the only way to ensure the security of the people of Israel is for their government to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians. Without some reasonable version of justice being done, there will never be peace, and so we oppose any Israeli government policy that denies the Palestinians their legitimate rights. What those are will be examined shortly.

Is this position “anti-Jewish”? No, it is not (any more than criticizing U.S. government policies is anti-American.) Even as we love all of humanity, we have a special love for the Jewish people and for the warm and compassionate side of Jewish culture. We share with all Jews the trauma of the genocide of our people by the Nazis and our long history of periodic persecution.

We understand the instinct to “circle the wagons” when our people face danger, and we long for the day when Jews in Israel, as everywhere, will be able to lead normal, secure, productive lives. The question is how will that happy day come about? By blindly supporting the Israeli government’s self-destructive path to war and more war? We don’t think so.

We feel that these crucial issues need more discussion within the American Jewish community, not less. They certainly are debated at length in Israel itself, as evidenced by a recent Ma’ariv poll showing that 52% of Israelis support the 2002 Saudi peace plan calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories in exchange for peace with the Arab world—in total opposition to the Israeli government’s policy.

It’s time for us to join the debate as well, and help formulate a more reasonable solution to the conflict.

Unfortunately, the ongoing violence in Palestine and Israel has led too many people, on both sides, to adopt blanket stereotypes of one another, turning them into something “less-than-human”. This process of dehumanization then allows people to justify the violence committed by their own side, starting the cycle all over again. This is a classic “lose-lose” situation that can continue on forever.

Is there a way out of this mess? Yes, we think so, but only if we suspend our understandable reaction of automatically blaming the other side. Only then can we objectively assess the root causes of the conflict and the realistic choices there are for resolving it. So, in the interest of peace, and with an open heart and mind, please consider the following facts.


The international community, through the United Nations and other forums, has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupation of territories it captured in the 1967 war to be wrong and contrary to basic principles of international law.

Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (usually by lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in exchange for security guaranteed by the international community, in accordance with UN Resolution 242.

While the circumstances were much different, the legal basis of these resolutions is the same principle used to force Iraq out of Kuwait—i.e., a country cannot annex or indefinitely occupy territory gained by force of arms.

The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the US routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law.

One of the original goals of Zionism was to create a Jewish state that would be just another normal country. If that is what Israel wants (and that is a reasonable goal), then it must be held to the same standards as any other country, including the prohibition against annexing territory captured by force of arms.


Similarly, all Jewish settlements, every single one, in territories outside Israel’s 1967 boundaries, are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and is obligated to abide by, as well as UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465.

As John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State has written,

The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the country.

This prohibition is found in the Convention’s Article 49, which states:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

Here’s what former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post at the beginning of the current intifada:

An underlying reason that years of US diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to create facts by building settlements in occupied territory…it is unlikely that real progress can be made…as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations.

In fact, on December 5, 2001, Switzerland convened a conference of 114 nations that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention (a conference boycotted by the US and Israel).

The assembled nations decided unanimously that the Convention did indeed apply to the occupied territories, that Israel was in gross violation of their obligations under that Convention, that Jewish-only settlements in those territories were illegal under the rules of the Convention, and that it was the responsibility of the other contracting parties to stop these violations of international law.

To be in such flagrant violation of the norms of international behavior is bad for Israel’s standing in the world, bad for the Jewish people as a whole and, as we shall see, totally unnecessary.


It is sometimes argued that the settlements are necessary for Israel’s security, to protect Israel from terrorism and the threat of violence. But the reality is that the settlements are a major cause of Israel’s current security problems, not the cure for them.

New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis pointed out the aggressive nature of the settlements as follows:

It is false to see the settlements as ordinary villages or towns where Israelis only want to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbors. They are in fact imposed by force—superior Israeli military force—on Palestinian territory.

Many have been built precisely to assert Israeli power and ownership. They are not peaceful villages but militarized encampments. . .The settlement policy is not just a political but a moral danger to the character of the state.

“But wouldn’t the Palestinians use their own state as a base for even more attacks against Israel?”, it might be asked. For one, the Palestinians have long agreed that their future state would be non-militarized, no foreign forces hostile to Israel would be allowed in, and international monitors could be stationed on Palestinian land in order to verify these conditions.

As for individual acts of terrorism, there is an historical precedent that gives a realistic answer to this question. During the first years after the Oslo agreements were signed, Hamas tried to disrupt the peace process but, because of the prevailing optimism, their influence in Palestinian society diminished and their armed attacks fell off sharply.

What that means for the future is that if the Palestinian people feel that even a rough version of justice has been done, they will not support the more extreme elements in their political spectrum. This is not just guesswork; it already happened with just the hope of justice being done.

Another aspect of this is that if Israel had internationally recognized borders, then they could be defended much more easily than the current situation where every hill in Palestine is a potential bone of contention because of Jewish settlements encroaching on Palestinian land.

If the settlements and their settlers and the military apparatus they require were gone, and the Palestinians were given enough aid by the international community to create a viable economy in their own state, they would naturally be overjoyed and a positive turn of events would be the inevitable result.


Officially since 1988, and unofficially for years before that, the Palestinian position has been that they recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within their 1967 borders. Period. At the same time, they expect to be allowed to establish a truly independent, viable, contiguous, non-militarized state in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

This is what UN Resolution 242 says: “Land for Peace” – and the Palestinian Authority has stated repeatedly that UN Resolution 242 has to be the basis for any long-lasting solution to the conflict.

It is true that some Palestinians advocate that all of historic Palestine should be under Arab control, but there is no support for this position, either in the international community, nor among most Palestinians. Statements to that effect are just hyperbole and do not represent the official Palestinian position.

Similarly, statements by some Palestinians inciting people to violence against Israelis can easily be matched by statements from Orthodox rabbis and fundamentalist settlers calling for death to the Arabs. There are meshuganahs aplenty on both sides.

But since the Palestinians’ official position is clear, why shouldn’t Israel take the Palestinians up on this offer and withdraw from the occupied territories?

Israel is far stronger militarily than all the Arab armies combined and would face no credible military threat from a Palestinian state. And the threat of individual terrorist acts would, of necessity, be much less once the Palestinians felt that they had received a modicum of justice.

What would Israel lose by this obvious solution of just ending the occupation, which they could do tomorrow if they wanted to (or if the US insisted that they do)? The only thing it would “lose” is the dream of some of its citizens for a “Greater Israel”, where Israel’s boundaries are expanded to its biblical borders.

The problem with that dream is that it totally ignores the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the will of virtually the entire international community. As long as the right-wing settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government insist on pursuing this dream, there will be nothing but bloodshed forever.

The Palestinian people have lived in Palestine for thousands of years and they are not going away. Israel must conclude a just peace with them or innocent blood will continue to be shed indefinitely.


It has often been asked, “But didn’t Barak offer 95% of the Occupied Territories to Arafat at Camp David and doesn’t his rejection of that offer mean that they don’t want peace?” There are several crucial things to understand here. First, prisoners may occupy 95% of a prison’s space, but it is the other 5% that determines who is in control.

Similarly, the offer Barak made at Camp David II would have left the main settlement blocks and their Jewish-only bypass roads in place.

Along with the extensive areas Israel planned on retaining indefinitely for its military use, this would have dissected Palestinian territory into separate bantustans (“native reservations”), isolated from each other, each surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory and having no common borders with each other or other Arab nations.

The territories would have had no control over their own air space; their main water aquifers (underneath the settlement blocs) would have been taken by Israel; and the Israeli military would have able to surround and blockade each enclave at will.

See this map courtesy of the Foundation for Middle East Peace for a bird’s eye view of the problems of Barak’s plan.

Jerusalem would have been similarly dissected so that each Palestinian island would be surrounded by an Israeli sea. This wouldn’t be an acceptable “end of the conflict” if you were Palestinian, would it? (Israel actually presented no maps at Camp David itself, but this was their offer of two months previous, and only marginal additional territory was theoretically offered at Camp David.)

The other important question here is 95% of what? “Greater Jerusalem” was unilaterally annexed by Israel after the 1967 war, so it was not included as West Bank territory in Barak’s offer, even though it takes up a large chunk of the West Bank, most of it having no municipal connection with the actual city of Jerusalem.

The international community has never recognized Israeli sovereignty over “Greater Jerusalem” and has repeatedly declared that Israel should withdraw from this and all territories it conquered by force of arms in 1967. Barak’s offer also excluded large swaths of the Jordan Valley which the Israeli military would control indefinitely.

Thus the Foundation for Middle East Peace estimates that the actual percentage of occupied land offered to the Palestinians was more like 80%, not 95%.

After the Camp David talks ended without an agreement, did Arafat refuse to negotiate? In a word, no. At the end of Camp David, it was Barak who said that his offers there would not be the basis for further discussions, that they were now “null and void”, and that Camp David was an “all or nothing” summit.

The Palestinians were willing to continue serious negotiations, and did at Taba, even after the current intifada had started.

According to Ron Pundak, an Israeli diplomat who was a key architect of the Oslo Accords:

The negotiations in Taba, which took place moments before Barak’s government lost the elections, proved that a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was within reach. (It) led to dramatic progress on all issues on the agenda.

But meanwhile, Sharon had gone to the Temple Mount with 1000 Israeli soldiers in tow, followed the next day by a demonstration of Palestinians (who had no firearms), which was met with totally unnecessary lethal force by the Israeli police, resulting in at least four Palestinians being shot and killed.

This demonstration, which could have been contained by nonlethal means if the Israeli government had wanted to, was the beginning of the current cycle of violence.


“What about Palestinian crimes? Why don’t you lay equal blame on them?” Certainly, Palestinians have committed grave crimes, and in any process of reconciliation, both sides will have much to answer for. But as Jews, we are responsible to look at Israel objectively, and not just when Israelis are victims of violence.

In order to understand why there is the level of violence we see today, it is necessary to understand how we got to this point.

a) Before the 1967 war. Before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there was little organized Palestinian resistance. The majority of the tension was between Israel and the neighboring states. For the most part, violence between Israel and the Palestinians was limited to isolated Palestinian “infiltrations”, as Israel generally referred to them.

The Israeli population may certainly have believed that they were in mortal danger from the armies of their Arab neighbors. But by the mid-1960s, Israeli leaders had a good deal of confidence that they could defeat a combination of Arab forces similar to what they accomplished in 1948, and with greater ease.

History, of course, proved them correct, which calls into question the myth that Israel was fighting a self-defensive war for its very existence in 1967.

b) The 1967 war itself. The myth that the 1967 war was a purely defensive one is further weakened by statements of Israeli leaders themselves.

For example, the New York Times published an article on May 11, 1997 quoting Moshe Dayan’s own diaries, in which he admits that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights in 1967 did so less for security than for the farmland. Dayan wrote:

They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land…The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.

Or again from Prof. John Quigley’s landmark book, Palestine And Israel:

Mordecai Bentov, a cabinet minister who attended the June 4 (1967) cabinet meeting and supported the decision to invade Egypt, said Israel’s ‘entire story’ about ‘the danger of extermination’ was ‘invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories’.

Even Menachem Begin said:

The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

In short, the argument of self-defense does not stand up to a close examination of the historical record.

c) Peace Proposals after the 1967 war. In 1969, Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, proposed a peace plan based on UN Resolution 242, which would have guaranteed Israel’s security within her pre-1967 borders. Israel rejected it out-of-hand. In 1971, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat offered Israel a similar proposal (which did not mention Palestinian rights at all). This was also rejected by Israel.

In 1976, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO supported a resolution in the UN Security Council affirming Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, as in UN Resolution 242, but with a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. Israel opposed it and the US vetoed it.

Arafat personally reaffirmed his support of a two-state solution in statements made to Senator Adlai Stevenson in 1976, and Rep. Paul Findley and New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis in 1978. The Saudis made similar proposals in 1979 and 1981, which were reiterated in their 2002 peace proposal, adopted by the entire Arab League.

Yet Israel rejected all these peace proposals, and more, even though Israel’s security was guaranteed in each one of them. Why? The historical record is clear that Israel’s desire for additional land has been the single most important factor behind its expansionist policies.

As David Ben-Gurion said in 1938:

I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine.

In sum, the 1967 war was not a purely defensive war on Israel’s part, as Begin told us.

The Israeli army met very little Palestinian resistance during the early years of the occupation. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, most Palestinian violence came from groups outside of the Occupied Territories. It is the Israeli desire to retain control over the West Bank, its expanding settlements and land appropriations that have sown the seeds of the situation we have today.

d) The Israeli occupation as the root cause of the violence. The main hallmark of the Israeli occupation has been the forcible expropriation of over half of the West Bank and Gaza for Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only by-pass roads and Israeli closed military areas.

These expropriations are possible only because of overwhelming Israeli military might and are, in and of themselves, acts of violence—just as armed robbery is an act of violence, even if no one is hurt. Can we really expect that no violent reaction to it would have occurred?

Israel’s former Attorney General, Michael Ben-Yair stated point-blank in Ha’aretz (3/3/02):

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. . . In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

e) How did the current level of violence come about? Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are well documented in our own media. And, while major Israeli incursions have gotten a good deal of attention, day-to-day excesses of the Israeli military have not been so widely reported. To get an accurate picture of the chain of events, let’s look at the reports issued by human rights groups near the beginning of the current intifada.

Human Rights Watch, for example, stated:

Israeli security forces have committed by far the most serious and systematic violations. We documented excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, arbitrary killings, and collective punishment, including willful destruction of property and severe restrictions on movement that far exceed any possible military necessity.

B’Tselem is Israel’s leading human rights group and their detailed analyses of the current intifada can be found at their website.

They concluded early on:

In spite of claims to the contrary, Israel has not adopted a policy of restraint in its response to events in the Occupied Territories…Israel uses excessive and disproportionate force in dispersing demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians…Collective punishment, in the form of Israel’s severe restrictions on Palestinians’ movement in the Occupied Territories, makes life unbearable for hundreds of thousands with no justification.

Collective punishment is illegal under international law.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reported the following:

There is considerable evidence of indiscriminate firing at civilians in the proximity of demonstrations and elsewhere (by Israeli troops)…The live ammunition employed includes high-velocity bullets which splinter on impact and cause the maximum harm.

Equally disturbing is the evidence that many of the deaths and injuries inflicted were the result of head wounds and wounds to the upper body, which suggests an intention to cause serious bodily injury rather than restrain demonstrations…The measures of closure, curfew or destruction of property constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and human rights obligations binding upon Israel.

Amnesty International has also made numerous statements on the current intifada, including the following:

Amnesty International reiterated its long-standing calls to Israel to end its policy of liquidations and other arbitrary killings and urged the international community to send international observers…In these state assassinations the Israeli authorities offer no proof of guilt, no right to defense. Extrajudicial executions are absolutely prohibited by international law.

This attitude of the disposability of Palestinian life has now filtered down to the ordinary soldier. An IDF reservist interviewed on prime-time First Channel Israeli TV (12/14/01) stated:

Nowadays, there is much less of a dilemma. We more or less got a clearance from both the military and the political echelons. Nowadays, we shoot them in the head and no questions asked.

Is this what we want our Jewish legacy to be?

The overwhelming consensus of these reports means that Israeli demands for the Palestinians to “stop the violence” turn reality on its head. The Palestinians have suffered almost four times the fatalities that Israel has in the current fighting, as well as tens of thousands of serious injuries.

Furthermore, answering stone throwing with M-16 military weapons designed for battlefield use, or responding to ineffective Molotov cocktails with very effective armored tanks and attack helicopters is simply not morally justifiable.

It is also important to keep in mind that many of Israel’s current actions have been going on, in various degrees, for the last 35 years – systematic torture of Palestinians in Israeli jails, the forcible and illegal appropriation of over half the West Bank and Gaza by Israel for Jewish-only uses, daily humiliations and abuse at Israeli military checkpoints all over Palestinian land—these have combined to bring Palestinian anger to a boiling point.

In sum, we have seen that Israeli actions have served to seriously escalate the violence, and that Israel’s stubborn refusal to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even to the extent of just stopping its settlement activity, has been a major obstacle to any progress towards peace.

To be sure, Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians have also been major obstacles towards such progress. Occupation and repression can never justify terrorism against civilians, but neither do terrorist acts by a few negate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The best way to address these crimes is to end the occupation which inspires the Palestinians to commit them. Recent history has demonstrated clearly that support for such crimes, and the number of Palestinians willing to commit them, drops precipitously when the Palestinians have had hope for independence, and risen sharply in response to the intensifying occupation and expansion of settlements.

We must also bear in mind that we are not morally responsible for Palestinian crimes, although we must work to prevent them. But we are morally responsible for Israeli actions taken in our name and with our tax dollars.


One’s opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict need not be a black or white question; you can support the Israeli people but still criticize their government’s illegal and ultimately self-destructive policies.

We believe that the Jewish peace movement, both in Israel and around the world, has a far better plan to ensure Israel’s security. That plan is to create real peace as a consequence of real justice being done, not a “peace” of victor and vanquished. We recommend that you go to Gush Shalom, Btselem, and Batshalom and read for yourself what thinking Israelis demand of their own government.

Thousands of Israelis, including hundreds of Israel’s top university professors, are convinced their government is committing unpardonable acts and have taken public stands against them.

For example, over 400 reserve combat officers and soldiers in the IDF have publicly stated their moral opposition to Sharon’s increasingly brutal use of force during the current intifada. These “refuseniks” have the sympathy of a growing portion of the Israeli public, now up to 26% of those surveyed in a February 2002 poll. Their statement reads, in part:

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country… hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight in this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people. We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense. The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose—and we shall take no part in them.

Even Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s equivalent to the FBI), recently stated in Le Monde:

I favor unconditional withdrawal from the Territories, preferably in the context of an agreement, but not necessarily. What needs to be done, urgently, is to withdraw from the Territories, a true withdrawal which gives the Palestinians territorial continuity.

So if disagreement with the Israeli government is kosher in Israel, shouldn’t it also be a topic of discussion among American Jews? For just one example, a recent survey of American Jewish attitudes showed that 35% of us think that sharing Jerusalem would be an acceptable outcome of peace talks, in total contradiction to the views expressed by the major American Jewish organizations that claim to speak in our name.

Our community does not, and should not, have just one opinion on these questions. What is needed is more discussion, not less, on these crucial matters.

The intifada is not primarily the result of the religious fanaticism, the blind anti-Semitism or the “inherent violent tendencies” of the Arabs. Rather, in our view, it is the inevitable result of the most basic human emotions – their need to be free and to live with dignity in the land of their ancestors.

A Palestinian child who is awakened at dawn by Israeli soldiers demolishing his home and uprooting the family’s olive grove does not need anyone to tell him to hate.

The Israeli Occupation has seriously eroded the Jewish people’s proud moral heritage, developed over the centuries; and, in any case, we are convinced it will never work, even in the most pragmatic terms.

The Palestinians will always resist being under military occupation, and have the right, under international law, to do so. As a result, there will never be real security for Israel until there is a reasonable version of justice for the Palestinians. How could it be otherwise?

8. ISRAEL’S SECURITY – Continued

“But doesn’t Israel have to do something to stop the suicide bombers?” A reasonable question, and here is a most reasonable answer from Gush Shalom’s founder, Uri Avnery:

When tanks run amok in the center of a town, crushing cars and destroying walls, tearing up roads, shooting indiscriminately in all directions, causing panic to a whole population —it induces helpless rage.

When soldiers crush through a wall into the living room of a family, causing shock to children and adults, ransacking their belongings, destroying the fruits of a life of hard work, and then break the wall to the next apartment to wreck havoc there—it induces helpless rage.

When officers order to shoot at ambulances, killing doctors and paramedics engaged in saving the lives of the wounded, bleeding to death—it induces helpless rage. And then it appears that the rage is not helpless after all. The suicide bombers go forward to avenge…

Anyone who believes that Arafat can push a button and stop this is living in a dream world…At best, the pressure cooker can cool off slowly, if the majority of the people are persuaded that their honor has been restored and their liberation guaranteed. Then public support for the ‘terrorists’ will diminish, they will be isolated and wither away. That was what happened in the past.


A major cause of misunderstanding between the Jewish peace movement and other American Jews is that we rely on different sources of information. If what you know about Israel and Palestine comes from the US corporate press, TV news and/or the mainstream US Jewish press, then your perception of events will be determined by their worldview.

As Jewish media critic Norman Solomon wrote in 2001:

Searching the Nexis database of U.S. media coverage during the first 100 days of this year, I found several dozen stories using the phrase ‘Israeli retaliation’ or ‘Israel retaliated.’

During the same period, how many stories used the phrase ‘Palestinian retaliation’ or ‘Palestinians retaliated’? One. Both sides of the conflict, of course, describe their violence as retaliatory. But only one side routinely benefits from having its violent moves depicted that way by major American media.

If, however, you supplement your information by reading the Israeli press, progressive magazines like Tikkun or The Nation, internet sites like Common Dreams and radio stations of the Pacifica network, then a very different picture of what is going on emerges.

In particular, we suggest that you sign up for our free email news service, the Jewish Peace News , which gives you the latest news and most cogent analyses of Middle East events, much of it from the Israeli press. You can subscribe by sending an e-mail to:


Ariel Sharon has always opposed real negotiations with the Palestinians, preferring instead to try to defeat them militarily. He has vehemently opposed all Palestinian/Israel agreements and has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of returning a single settlement to Palestinian rule.

Even the editors of the Washington Post (2/22/02) wrote:

During lulls in the conflict, Mr. Sharon frequently has been the first to renew the fight; during three weeks in December (2001) and early January (2002) when the Palestinians responded to a call from Mr. Arafat and stopped almost all attacks, Israeli forces killed a dozen Palestinians.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that Sharon does not want peace or real negotiations, just a vanquishing of his sworn enemies.

Indeed, if Sharon really wanted Arafat to arrest Palestinian militants, then why has he systematically destroyed the Palestinian Authority’s ability to do so? According to the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom:

The Palestinian police and security services have hardly any premises or prisons left in which to put terrorists, even if the decision was taken to arrest them; the bombardments were all too thorough.

Most crucially, in the spring of 2002, Israel commenced its most severe armed attacks yet in the West Bank, involving the following “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions— some of them rising to the level of war crimes, according to Human Rights Watch and other monitoring groups.

  • Israeli snipers on the tops of buildings, shooting anything that moves.
  • Ambulances shot at, medical personnel unable to evacuate the wounded, who have then died needlessly from their wounds.
  • Civilian neighborhoods bombed by U.S.-supplied helicopter gunships, F-16 fighter jets and Israeli tanks, causing widespread devastation and, inevitably, many civilian casualties.
  • Palestinian homes crushed by military bulldozers—sometimes, as in Jenin, with the occupants still inside.
  • Wanton destruction of the infrastructure of Palestinian civil society—water pipes and pumping stations, electrical power poles and plants, medical facilities, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches, public buildings, etc., in addition to massive looting and gratuitous vandalization of homes, businesses and governmental offices.
  • The use of “human shields” for Israeli military actions.
  • Journalists shot at who try to document the above gross violations of international law.

And Israel is now constructing a “buffer zone” that will de facto annex about 15% of the West Bank to Israel and break it up into eight separate bantustans, each surrounded by concrete barricades, hi-tech barbed-wire and electric fences, canals, guard towers, etc.

In other words, eight big open-air prisons, which Palestinians cannot get out of, except at the whim of the Israeli authorities. Again, this kind of collective punishment is specifically outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

A joint statement by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (4/07/02) stated:

We strongly deplore actions by the state of Israel that harm persons protected by international humanitarian law. . . Such actions violate international standards and transcend any justification of military necessity.

Even in practical terms, these Israeli actions are counterproductive. As Gush Shalom writes:

The retaliatory and punitive raids by the army do manage to intercept some potential suicide bombers—but the very same raids and incursions, by demonstrating the brutality of the Occupation, also increase on the Palestinian side, the motivation for retribution, and help the recruitment of new suicide bombers.

Only an end to the Occupation by political means, allowing a fair expression of the basic Palestinian aspirations, can dry up the suicide bombing phenomenon at its source, and provide new hope to the desperate young Palestinians from whose ranks the bombers are recruited.

The recent upsurge in anti-Semitism worldwide is clearly connected with escalated Israeli aggression. As Israel has succeeded in convincing many people that it represents World Jewry, many supporters of Palestinians have directed their anger at Israeli actions against Jewish institutions in their own countries.

Right-wing white supremacist forces have also seized this opportunity to give their anti-Semitic venom legitimacy. Thus all Jews have a stake in seeing the sorts of human rights violations we have just described stopped.


Any country has the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens, and Israel is no exception. But its policies for the last 35 years, and especially during the current intifada, have been based on the old adage, “The best defense is a good offense”.

While that’s OK in football, in Israel that has translated into systematic torture or ill-treatment of literally hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, according to B’Tselem and other reputable groups. It means wanton cruelty being inflicted every day at military checkpoints, wanton destruction of Palestinian homes, and illegal strangling of Palestinian economic life, leading to extreme deprivation.

And there is no other phrase than “war crimes” to accurately describe many of the actions of the IDF during the attacks against the Palestinian civilian population in the spring of 2002. In short, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is simply wrong—brutal, illegal and unnecessary.

We do agree that both sides have done poorly in advancing the cause of peace. As Jews, however, it is incumbent upon us to put our own house in order, above all else. As Americans, our responsibility is doubled.

Our government has, through unprecedented financial and political support, allowed Israel to maintain its occupation and commit human rights violations with complete impunity. Thus, we are both responsible for the escalation and in a unique position to do something about it.

In the long-run, the only hope for a normal, peaceful life for the people of Israel is for their government to end their occupation of Palestinian land, allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and live and let live. The only other alternative is the current situation of endless bloodshed, which our silence, among other things, makes possible.


If you have found this paper enlightening, please join A Jewish Voice For Peace and help us in our work. We have been organizing and educating people about the real causes of the unrest in Israel and Palestine since 1996.

Among our many useful projects, we make available to people, free of charge, an e-news service that delivers daily to its readers the best articles on the current conflict, largely from the Israeli press. To sign up for the Jewish Peace News, simply send an e-mail to

A Jewish Voice For Peace has made great strides in the past year. In order for us to continue to grow and expand our services and our reach, we need your help. Your donations will make it possible for us to hire new staff members, increase our educational services and vastly expand our media reach. All contributions are tax-deductible.

To get in touch with us, write us at P.O. Box 13286, Berkeley, CA.


Filed under Africa, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Arabs, Christianity, Egypt, Europeans, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Law, Left, Middle East, North Africa, Palestine, Palestinians, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Terrorism, US Politics, War, Zionism

Antisemites and Zionists Agree Once Again

One thing super-Jews and Israelis (along with antisemites of course) are always doing is conflating Israel with Jews. That’s problematic, because Zionism is Jewish fascism and Israel is the fascist state of the Jews. Most American Jews are not particularly fascistic, or at least I hope they are not.

This is why attacking Israel is so problematic. Super Jews and Zionists always insist that every time we bash Israel, we are bashing all Jews. Unfortunately, much anti-Zionism is in fact antisemitic, but not all of it. In particular, Left anti-Zionism has always tried pretty hard to separate the two.

Zionists say when you attack Israel, you attack all Jews.
Antisemites attack Israel, but attack all Jews in the process. Antisemites agree that attacks on Israel are attacks on all Jews.

Once again, we see that Zionists and antisemites share so many things in common!

In Der Judenstaat, Herzl himself agreed that Jews can never live with Gentiles. Why? Because Jews suck, according to Herzl. So Herzl himself agreed with antisemites. This crap has a long tradition in Zionism.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Europeans, Fascism, Israel, Jews, Left, Middle East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, The Jewish Question, Zionism

Jewish Family Feuds

Repost from the old site.

This matter is actually quite complex, and for background please see this article here. This involves a feud between some anti-Zionist Jews mostly located in the UK. It involves a splinter Troskyidiot sect called the Socialist Workers Party. In brief, some of the anti-Zionist Leftist Jews have accused some of the other anti-Zionist Leftist Jews of being anti-Semites. Dumb, huh?

It’s just Jewish Family Feud, that’s all. On one side is Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo, who runs a superb blog called Peace Palestine (the so-called anti-Semites). On the other side is the whole of the SWP, including most particularly persons such as Roland Rance, Tony Greenstein and the author of the Jews Sans Frontiers blog.

These Jews are sitting around arguing about what is the best way to “support the Palestinians”. Should we be anti-Semites about it or not? Supposedly the fate of the Palestinians hinges on the conclusion of this Jewish Family Feud. As in most cases of these sorts of intratribal conflicts, no one outside the tribe very much gives a fuck.

I’m sure the Palestinians could care less what a bunch of Jews outside Israel who aren’t trying to kill them think about them. They’ve got their own battles to wage. I’m more or less neutral on the whole affair, and I think everyone involved has a case of excessive self-importance going on.

Excessive self-importance is typical of Jewish Family Feuds. They act like the fate of Western Civilization hangs on the thread of these intra-Jewish conflicts, but the truth is that almost everyone who is not a Jew (and even most Jews) could give a flying fuck how it all turns out.

Neither Mary nor Atzmon are anti-Semites (surely not Mary), though Atzmon really pushes the envelope. Shamir is an anti-Semite sometimes, and other times he is not. He’s a real shit-stirrer. I think Shamir is a brilliant writer and thinker, and his anti-Semitism should just be ignored. His work is valuable and deserves a critical reading. I disagree that Shamir is a supporter White Power.

I do not agree that Atzmon is a Holocaust Denier. That is a feverish, absurd charge.

Bottom line is I think that anti-Palestinianism is a Hell of a lot more dangerous to Palestinians than anti-Semitism is to Jews these days. How many of the world’s 18 million Jews are getting killed per year by anti-Semites? Not too many. How many of the 4 million Palestinians in Palestine are getting injured or killed by anti-Palestinians every year. Way, way more. So who’s in greater danger?

The problems of the Palestinians are so massive, and the pro-Palestinian movement in the US and UK so pitiful that this whole spat boils down to a tempest in a teapot. Palestinians would do better to focus on how to resist Zionism, preferably with improved weaponry, in my opinion.

We should note that all parties mentioned above are Jewish.

Here is Tony Greenstein’s response to a previous article of mine on this rather obscure spat. In v., Tony says that my characterization of him as a ‘tribal and ethnocentric Leftist Jew’ is itself racist. Of course, I deny the charge.

i. The latest problems with the Peace Palestine site have nothing whatsoever to do with me. If the blog was described as a ‘spam blog’ that was entirely Google’s doing and in fact the same happened to the Azvsas blog which I help run.

ii. I have nothing to do with the Socialist Workers Party.

iii. My article on Socialist Unity and Azvsas on why Gilad Atzmon is a Holocaust Denier, and a number of other articles, demonstrates why he is not an anti-Zionist but is anti-Semitic.

iv. Mary Rizzo has worked alongside and defending Atzmon too long for some of it not to have rubbed off. That is why she was so effusive about The Radical Press (again see Socialist Unity/Azvsas) where she defended them against such accusation.

v. The term ‘tribal and ethnocentric Leftist Jews’ is itself racist. It presumes if someone speaks out because they are Jewish they represent or purport to represent others besides themselves as part of some Jewish power interest.

Criticism of Atzmon for advocating conspiracy theories, including his notion that it is irrelevant if the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a forgery (The Times managed that one a mere 87 years ago) suggest deep anti-Semitism i.e. racism towards Jews.

vi. Yes life is complicated by those who associate my criticisms of Atzmon with that of a person known as Ibraham Av. Av supports the Israeli state, I don’t. I just happen to understand that indulging in puerile and childish accusations of conspiracy, seeing the hidden hand of Jews everywhere, including financing New Labour in Britain, isn’t the best way of supporting the Palestinians.

However the attacks were begun by Atzmon and his even more anti-Semitic White Power chum Israel Shamir. We responded, we didn’t initiate.

vii. If you think that anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, nonsense about ‘Jewish Power’ is going to help the Palestinians in any way, then fine. The irony is that whereas some of us are to the fore in the Boycott campaign, it is Atzmon who opposes that campaign whilst at the same time continually attacking Jewish Anti-Zionists.

viii. And why is he attacking Jewish anti-Zionists, which Atzmon says is automatically Zionist because to him being Jewish is to be a Zionist? Because Israel claims all sorts of things on our behalf and we reject them.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Arabs, Europeans, Jews, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Palestine, Palestinians, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Sociology, The Jewish Conspiracy To Subject Humankind, The Jewish Question, Trotskidiots, Zionism

“Into the Fray: A Study in Self-Cannibalization,” by Martin Sherman

A very interesting article from the Jerusalem Post. The author is in all probability a Jew, as Sherman is a Jewish name. I don’t like the JP much, but the article is correct. I am by and large a political liberal, at least here in the US. Certainly I do not wish to see non-Muslim societies taken over by Muslims whereby Islamic Law is imposed. Sharia is completely opposed to my liberalism and even my Leftism. Even in a totalitarian Leftist state (dictatorship of the proletariat), I could not see putting in Islamic Law. Indeed, the USSR wiped out all traces of Sharia from its legal code, even in Republics and autonomous regions that were majority Muslim. China has also eliminated Sharia in its Muslim majority provinces.

Now, if Muslim states wish to live under Sharia, I think that is pretty terrible, but there is nothing that I can do about it. They can live however they want to in their sandboxes. However, when Muslims come to the West, they need to live under our secular laws. There is no place for Sharia for the Muslim minorities of the West. And importing large numbers of Muslims into the West seems to be a catastrophe. There have not been many problems here in the US yet, but there have been untold problems in Europe.

Finally, just because we on the Left don’t think that Islam or Sharia is good, does not mean that the Jews in Israel have a right to steal the Palestinians’ land and settle Jewish colonists on it. Muslims have a right to be protected from land theft and settler colonialism just like anyone else. On the other hand, I do not think that the Jews presently in Israel should have to be ruled by Muslims or live under Sharia or Muslim type laws. I don’t know what the solution is here.

Also, we Christians should keep in mind that 18% of the people that the Jews stole land from were us Christians.

Into the Fray: A Study in Self-Cannibalization

By Martin Sherman

Over a century ago, Churchill warned that Western civilization will face an existential challenge from the Muslim world. It is now upon us.

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

– W. R. Inge, dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1915

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

– Karl Popper, “On the Paradox of Tolerance,” in The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945

Many Western Europeans, from the man on the street to the cop on the corner, from the politician in Parliament to the immigration official at the border, have long considered it their obligation… to tolerate intolerance.

– from “Tolerating Intolerance: The Challenge of Fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe,” Partisan Review, 2002.

Across the Western world today, political liberalism is undergoing a process of self-cannibalization. It is being devoured by the very values which made it into arguably the most successful and influential sociopolitical doctrine in modern history.

At the very minimum, it is being complicit in actively facilitating its own demise though an unrestrained and undiscerning compulsion to apply these values universally – even when such application is not only inappropriate but detrimental to those values.

Acknowledging Diversity Is…Diverse

Devotees of political liberalism fervently advocate – quite correctly – the need to acknowledge the diversity of humanity and to accept the existence of those different from us, i.e., the “Other.”

However, they then go on to advocate – with equal fervor – something that in effect empties the previous acknowledgment of all significance, i.e., that we relate to all the diverse “Others” as equals.

For what is the point of acknowledging diversity if we are called upon to ignore the possible ramifications of that diversity and to relate to those discernibly different from us as if they were essentially the same as us? Prima facie, this is absurdly self-contradictory.

For surely the awareness of difference raises the possibility that different attitudes (and actions) toward the “Other” may be called for.

Although acknowledging diversity necessarily negates equality, this does not a priori mean that “Ours” is morally superior to “Theirs” – although the plausible assumption is that “We” have a subjective preference for “Ours” over “Theirs.”

This, of course, might entail certain practical ramifications for the preservation of “Ours” lest it be consumed by “Theirs” – depending on “Their” appetites and aspirations.

‘Us’ As An Item On ‘Their’ Menu

As the foregoing citation from W.R. Inge underscores, it would be injudicious to relate to carnivores and herbivores with an undiscriminating sense of egalitarianism. Indeed, if one is not mindful of the differences between oneself and the “Other” (say with regard to dietary preferences or predatory predilections), disaster may well be unavoidable.

Note that making such a diagnosis of difference does not necessarily imply a value judgment as to the relative moral merits of eating flesh or eating grass. However, operationally, it is a distinction that is essential for the preservation of grass-grazers and – and no less pointedly – for the shepherd charged with their welfare.

For no matter how sympathetic to, or appreciative of, the untamed majesty of predators one might be, the fate of the flock is likely to be grim if it is left to graze in wolf frequented territory with nothing more coercive to protect it than an appeal for understanding.

Now while I do not wish to push Inge’s ovine-lupine analogy too far, those who would dismiss it as overly facile would do well to recall that political liberalism has faced several challenges in the last century from adversaries which could plausibly be viewed as predatory.

It has had to contend with ideologies that were totalitarian, expansionary and irreconcilably inimical to its core values of sociocultural tolerance and individual liberty.

The ‘Other’ As…‘Other’

There was, for example, the kinetic clash with Nazism and the ideological clash with Communism. Political liberalism withstood them and prevailed.

It is facing another fateful encounter in this century: The existential clash with Islamism – a foe not less totalitarian, no less expansionary and no less irreconcilably inimical to its core values.

It is far from certain that this time it will prevail.

The major source of peril today is the reluctance – indeed the resolute refusal – to acknowledge the emerging threat. True, there were sympathizers in the West for both the Nazi and Soviet causes, which although they viewed themselves as antithetically adversarial to each other, both strove to eliminate our democratic freedoms and way of life.

However, the denial we are witnessing today seems qualitatively different. Leading liberal opinion-makers in mainstream intellectual establishment appear totally incapable of conceiving (or at least, totally unwilling to acknowledge that they are capable of conceiving) of the “Other” as anything but a darker skin-toned version of themselves – with perhaps somewhat more exotic tastes in dress and a greater penchant for spicy food, but with essentially the same value system as theirs, or at least one not significantly incompatible with it.

Indeed, there seems to be an overriding inability to admit the possibility that the “Other” is in fact fundamentally different – i.e., genuinely “Other” – and may hold entirely different beliefs as to what is good and bad, what is legitimate and what is not.

A Catastrophic Corruption of the Discourse

It is of little practical consequence whether this is the product of an overbearing intellectual arrogance, which precludes the possibility of any alternative value system, or of an underlying moral cowardice, which precludes the will to defend the validity of one’s own value system.

The result is the ongoing retreat from the defense of liberty and tolerance in the face of an ever-emboldened, intolerant Muslim militancy – not only across the Islamic world but within the urban heart of many Western nations as well.

Even more serious, it has undermined the capacity for honest debate, for accurate assessment of strategic geopolitical shifts… and for formulating timely and effective responses to deal with them.

Take the Arab Spring, for example, which much of the mainstream media heralded as the dawning of a new spirit of freedom and enlightenment from the Maghreb to the Persian Gulf. Almost a year since it began, the results are hardly cause for optimism. In Tunisia and Libya, Islamist governments have been ensconced by popular vote. In other countries, such as in Egypt, the religious fundamentalists has been hugely empowered; in yet others, such as Syria and Bahrain, similar outcomes have only been avoided – so far – by wholesale massacres.

Nothing that has occurred – or been prevented from occurring – seems to vaguely justify the rosy forecast that accompanied the initial stages of revolt as to the imminent emergence of Arab regimes founded on values and systems analogous to those of Western democracy.

None of this should have been unexpected.

The facts were available for anyone willing to recognize them. On the verge of the Arab Spring (December 2011), the respected Pew Research Center conducted a survey of popular opinion in several Muslim countries.

The two countries included in the poll with relevance for the Arab Spring were Egypt and Jordan. In both, massive majorities (over 70 percent on average for Jordan and over 80% for Egypt) supported:

• execution by stoning for adultery;
• whippings or amputation of hands for theft and robbery;
• the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.

This then was the broad-based value system of the masses who drove the popular uprisings across the Arab world, despite the external trappings of modernity, despite the tweets, the smart phones and the social network connections.

It is a safe bet that had such a poll been conducted in the EU, North America or Australasia, the findings would have been radically different.

So perhaps it is time that we begin to recognize that the “Other” really is the “Other.”

Orwellian Mind-control Tactics

The politically correct endeavor to shy away from harsh truths has introduced an almost Orwellian atmosphere of 1984 mind control into the debate on the ramifications of Islam for political liberalism.

Pronouncements almost on a par with the “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength” employed by The Party to control the dystopian state of Oceania in George Orwell’s classic novel of pervasive dictatorship are emerging with disturbing frequency.

For example, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in effect pronounced that “religious fundamentalism is secular” when he characterized the radical Muslim Brotherhood as an organization that is “largely secular.”

A similar instance of convoluted, nonsensical gobbledygook came from the Obama administration’s homeland security adviser James O. Brennan, when he made the astounding claim that accurately defining the threat would exacerbate it: “Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists, because jihad is a holy struggle. [C]haracterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive,” he said.

So by reorganizing the rhetoric we will somehow dispel the misperceptions, from which the planners/perpetrators of wholesale carnage in the name of Islam apparently suffer, as to the sources of their beliefs and the nature of their motivations?

But perhaps the pinnacle of Orwellian endeavor came from then-British home secretary Jacqui Smith, who took it upon herself to bring home to radicalized UK Muslims that they were not who they thought they were. In a breathtaking stroke of self-contradictory double talk, she presumed to dub the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Her 2009 interview with Der Spiegel was shockingly reminiscent of the “mind control through language” policy employed by Orwell’s Big Brother and his omnipresent Party.

Clearly in an intellectual climate such as this – where truth is condemned and dismissed as politically incorrect hate speech – no effective response can be marshaled against the gathering storm facing Western civilization and the values of political liberalism that underpin it.

Menace of Muhammadanism: Prescient Premonitions

Such reticence and evasion was not always prevalent. In an era long before political correctness crippled the ability to articulate the truth in the public sphere, far-sighted men warned of the impending clash.

Thus seven decades ago, Hilaire Belloc, the prominent Anglo-French writer and historian, raised the trenchant question:

Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world… reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization? (The Great Heresies, 1938)

He was not alone in his sense of foreboding.

In the first edition of his The River War, published in 1899, Winston Churchill set out a withering critique of the effect Islam has on its followers, its debilitating effect on economies of nations that embrace it, and the enslavement of its luckless women.

While he admits that “individual Muslims may show splendid qualities,” he contrasts this with realities on collective level, where “the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Few who page through the latest Arab Human Development Report sponsored by the United Nations Development Program and independently authored by intellectuals and scholars from Arab countries would dispute this today.

Churchill goes on to warn:

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Muhammadanism is a militant and proselytizing faith…and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science…the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

But how long will the West remain “cradled in the strong arms of science?” Might this question not help concentrate minds over the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program?


Let me conclude with the observations of a gay intellectual regarding the propagation of Islam in Europe, where private Islamic academies – subsidized by European governments – “reinforce the Koran-based…morality learned at home that prescribes severe penalties for female adulterers and rape victims (though not necessarily for rapists), and that demands… that homosexuals be put to death.”

With some foreboding, he remarks:

If fundamentalist Muslims in Europe do not carry out these punishments, it is not because they’ve advanced beyond such thinking, but because they don’t have the power.


Filed under Africa, Anti-Zionism, Arabs, Britain, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, Egypt, Europe, History, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Law, Left, Liberalism, Libya, Middle East, Modern, North Africa, Palestine, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Settler-Colonialism, Syria, Tunisia

“Libya – Setback for Anti-Imperialist Struggle,” by Peter Tobin

Peter Tobin is a sometime contributor to this site. Unlike me, Peter is a real Communist through and through. Right now, he is in Nepal working with the Maoists there, spending much of his time at party headquarters. There is a lot going on there right now, but I have not been writing about it much.

Unlike Peter, I’m just a socialist. As Communists are part of the wide spectrum of the Left, we more or less support them, but we also support the rest of the Left too, all the way to social democracy and even US-style liberalism. I figure we are all one big happy family.


Gaddafi, lynched like Saddam Hussein, whatever his twists and turns of the last ten years, redeemed himself at the end, by dying fighting imperialism. The record shows that over the 42 years of his regime, he used Libya’s oil wealth against Western Imperialism, led by the US and its local military outpost – the white Zionist colony, Israel.

He utilized ‘terrorist’ methods that Arab militants found was the only military avenue of resistance open to them, a position that no Communist would criticize; it is for oppressed people to choose their way of struggle, according to their circumstances.

Therefore Gaddafi’s Libya bank-rolled many Palestinian resistance groups, and for decades was the most militant Arab leader on the Palestinian question, among Saudi Arabian lip-servers, Jordanian vacillators, or outright Egyptian traitors like Sadat and Mubarak after him.
He also came to see the African dimension, and uniquely for an Arab leader substantially funded the Organization of African Unity (OAU); an act of solidarity with the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, a recognition that their sufferings under Western imperialism were no different from those of the Arab masses – genocide, dispossession, theft of natural resources and brutal colonial or neo-colonial rule.

Gaddafi was also a strong financial and political supporter of the African National Congress (ANC) when the West labeled it a ‘Communist terror’ group. The fact that the first person Mandela visited outside South Africa was Gaddafi shows the depth of his, and the ANC’s, gratitude. He will be mourned there as a mark of their continuing respect.


Gaddafi’s attempt, as a devout Muslim, to counter the cultural imperialism of the West led to a radical interpretation of the Koran, which saw the ‘Ummah” (the body of the striving faithful) as the Arab masses desiring/requiring socialism. Hence the ‘Jamayriah,’ proposed in the ‘Green Book’ – an Islamist parody, a riposte and rival to Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ and ‘Red Revolution.’

He furthermore thought, until the millennium, at least, that he could build ‘Green socialism in one country,’ staving off imperialist designs on Libya’s oil wealth and the deadly enmity of all the pro-Western Arab regimes, led by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. His state tried to mobilize the masses through popular devolving committees. However, he had no formal role within the power structure, acting as a last ‘adviser/guru’ issues and policy.


Libyan society, with a population of around 4 million, has not moved very far beyond four major ethnic groups into a cohesive voluntary civil society. It never was a nation, but always a collection of disputatious tribes, unified by Islam, if little else.

Hence, it was easily overcome by the modern industrial Italian state, looking for its ‘place in the sun,’ building an overseas empire with a series of incursions into Libya and subsequently Abyssinia, and in the former achieving imperial status in 1934. (Like clan Ireland fell to Strongbow & Henry II in 1169/71, and Native Americans fell to the white European colonizers on the North-American continent.)

The urban centres, mainly Benghazi and Tripoli, have a substantial free-market private sector with bourgeois and petit-bourgeois strata swollen by subsidies from oil revenues, and a largely Western educated, professional, media and technological elite, many of whom are culturally and ideologically hegemonized by bourgeois ideas, mores, and values.

This class has been prominent in all imperialist backed populist movements of the last few years – Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran, Burma, to list a few. They hang their hats on the ‘Human Rights’ and ‘Democracy’ banners against media demonised, ‘authentic’ villains , straight from Holly/Bollywood central casting.

Well – Gaddafi, in this gallery of Western ‘baddies’ was the baddest of them all! When Bin Laden was still wondering which of his father’s wives was his mother, Muhammar was Number One hate figure in Western media circles.


Take his relations with UK governments; he became convinced in the 1980’s that the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) was fighting a struggle of national liberation against British imperialism in the six counties of Ulster, one that reignited in 1969. I don’t intend to go into the pros and cons of this issue here, but the result was Libya that provided the PIRA with guns and most importantly, the new advanced Czech, plastic dynamite – Semtex.

This was a key factor in keeping the war going for another decade. PIRA did not bomb the million Protestants, loyal to Britain, into a republic, but they did bomb them to the negotiating table, as was graphically demonstrated by the effect of the campaign launched against the British homeland; the biggest attack devastating the entire square mile of London’s financial centre and seriously shaking the morale of the British Establishment.

Adams and Morrison would not be sitting on the Northern Ireland Executive were it not for his decisive, practical assistance, and the Provisional Sein Fein, both political and military wings, are also in his debt and owe his family condolences.

Another example – a tiny Trotskyite sect – the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) convinced Gaddafi that it was the authentic voice of the British Revolution, and seizure of state power was certain within a few years. All that was needed was a propaganda machine to convey ‘Bolshevik-Leninist-Trotskyist truth’ to the awaiting proletarian masses, eager to get on with the revolution by sweeping away their existing ‘reformist,’ ‘Stalinist’ leadership!

Gaddafi gave these buffoons millions, enabling them to produce a glossy daily newspaper, Newsline, something the entire British left wing movement, vastly outnumbering this semi-religious playgroup, could only match with the CPGB’s revisionist, economist, humanist, peacenik, plodding ‘Morning Star’, itself topped up by Moscow money in all events.

I cite these to show the weakness of charismatic leader systems – individuals who can act impulsively, emotionally, quixotically, often misguidedly and with impunity.


Certainly the cult of personality plays a progressive role in certain situations, the cult around Gaddafi, that caused him to become such a hate-figure in Western ruling, and thence through to popular circles, was because he stood up to the Americans/Zionists in Palestine, their stooges in the Arab League, and the West via OPEC to secure better prices for oil producers.

When you are so reviled by the Evil Empires of the West, then you must be doing something right?

But the truth is that the steam ran out of his ‘Green Revolution’ years ago, a national identity was never truly forged, with rural remaining tribal, and urban compromised by the developed world’s bourgeois culture – ‘psychologically colonized’ – as Franz Fanon, the formidable Algerian Marxist, put it, an ideological comprador class.

This class encompasses those successfully duped into believing that Western bourgeois democracy and capitalism express universal human values, demonstrating such a circle of perfection, as to constitute, in the words of the right-wing American ideologue, Fukuyama, parodying Hegel, the ‘end of history’.

Whereas Communists argue that Western, specifically Anglo-Saxon, global command, is a purely transitory, historical contingency, a stage like feudalism to be transcended, as Mao said, in the dialectical ‘action and reaction’ that has marked human society from pre-history.

Make no mistake, from General Ataturk, (four years after he kicked the bejasus out of the British ANZAC Dardanelles invasion) and the Young Turk movement, establishing modern, secular Turkey in 1919 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, to the Baathist secular socialist message of Aflaq in Syria, to the great Colonel Nasser, and also to the comparatively long-lived Baathist-type regimes of Syria, Algeria and Iraq – all were genuine anti-imperialists, who achieved much for their societies.

Syria is ‘last man standing’ and the next immediate target for the imperialists and Zionists. Where it not for these regimes, the Palestinian cause would have been completely lost, and Lebanon would have been Balkanized. That is why they have incurred the enmity of the American-led West; it is simply a question of settling geopolitical accounts hiding behind the flag of ‘Human Rights’ – ‘Liberty’ – ‘Freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

But, as with charismatic systems, military ones, however progressive, have limitations, as there is ultimately no authority, institutional or popular, to which they are answerable. The reason it occurred in the Arab world was because the army was the only modern institution in society, equipped, not only with access to superior killing equipment, but with modern linguistic, cultural and political influences.

From Lenin’s support for Ataturk, against the imperialist 1919 Versailles carve-up of the Middle East, Communists have supported these progressive anti-imperialist struggles, while recognizing the limitations outlined above, and their often explicit anti-Communism. The fact is these regimes have faded and crumbled, under the pressure from growing Western economic and military post-1945 superiority.

They have, and are, being picked off one-by-one. Gaddafi is just the latest, demonstrating that these forces can no longer carry forward the struggle against imperialism – the dog has barked, but the caravan has moved on. In this century, only revolutionary Communism can successfully challenge imperialism, because it is the only polity and ideology that recognizes the primacy of the people and unleashes their historical potential.

Like Baathism, of which he is a Islamist mutation, the road ran out for Gaddafi; his desperate attempts to make peace with Western imperialists, get rid of his ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ accept responsibility for Lockerbie, etc and avoid Saddam’s fate, have come to naught.

That’s the flexibility of the bourgeois democratic system – one day Tony Blair will come and hug you, another day one of his replacements will come and kill you (and your children – for good measure).

His Libya, like Saddam’s Iraq, was trashed and bombed, only the lies and the military modalities were different – against the former – to save the world from ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction” and latter – to save civilians from being massacred by a ‘evil regime’, in the hands of a certifiable ‘lunatic.’ The euphemism ‘humanitarian mission’ covers military aggression and invasion.

Both were lies based on the strategy of ‘Liberal Interventionism,’ another euphemism, propounded following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, that abandoned the prohibition enacted in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War in Europe against invading countries whose regimes you do not approve in order to replace them with more amenable ones.

The UN mandate to ‘protect civilians’ by enforcing a ‘no-fly zone’ did not sanction regime change, arming opposition forces, giving those forces close air support or assassinating the Head of State. NATO’s decisive intervention even exceeded the bounds of trans-national bourgeois jurisprudence with, among others, Gareth Evans, the co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty condemning the aggression, stating it was not allowed for under the explicit legal terms of the mandate.

This time also, America agreed the job be sub-let out to its junior partners-in-crime; principally Britain and France. The Secret Services of all NATO states were active in promoting the civil war, by arming and financially supporting a plethora of tribal, Islamic and comprador opposition groups who have they have shown themselves to be such an undisciplined, murderous Quisling rabble that they would not have succeeded without the sustained brutal NATO air assault.

Even so, we will see if Libyan patriots take Colonel Muhammar Gaddafi’s death as the end of hostilities? We will see if Gaddfiism has left any deep roots in Libyan society, or whether, like his ashes, it is blown away into the desert sands. He is probably the last effective member of a tough breed of nationalist Arab Bonapartist leaders who made history in the 20th century. The specific circumstances under which this genus flourished no longer apply, because imperialism is extinguishing its conditions of existence.

Successful Arab resistance, however, does continue, as Hamas and Hezbollah have shown, and while they are nominally Muslim organizations, albeit of Sunni and Shiite dispensations respectively, they are nonetheless closer to being genuine mass movements drawn from their peoples, and they are giving the Zionist/fascist US/Israeli expansionists a military run for their money.


Like Iraq, this is about oil; it is about securing a crucial natural resource, which enables a decadent, gluttonous, wasteful consumer-capitalist, commodity-obsessed, Western society to continue dancing on the edge of a volcano at the expense of the rest of the World.

To a secondary extent, it is about the constant need, in an economy with a huge military-industrial complex, to test rapidly evolving military equipment on a real enemy – the more defenceless the better. War is continuous under imperialism, and the US leads the way as chief warmonger. Now it is even a great video game for the militarily-minded armchair warrior retard.

The French philosopher Baudrillard said of the 1990 attack on Iraq, it was: “a virtual reality war” designed for a society, with a popular culture saturated by violent imagery and corrupted by generations of imperial slavery, genocide and brutality against the peoples outside the ‘First-World’ heartlands, and with the technological capacity to participate and gloat in the death and suffering of peoples in far-away lands, without in any way suffering retribution, or even the threat of it. (Drones watching Drones?)

The German Communist playwright Brecht in ‘The Three Penny Opera,’ has a policeman and a criminal reminisce about the great times they had serving in the British Army on the Indian sub-continent:

(German)                          (Eng. trans.)
“und es begegnete,                “and when they met
Inhnen ‘ne neue Rasse             a new race
‘ne braune oder blasé,            a brown, or a white one
Dann machen sie vielleicht        They’d probably make
Daraus ihr Beefsteak Tartar       Mincemeat outta them.”

NATO’s war crime against the Libyan people, however dressed up in modern ‘PR-speak,’ is another blood-soaked imperial adventure, driven by greed and treachery, where the flags of the NATO aggressors against the Libyan people are better described as butchers’ aprons, and the so-called ‘liberators’ of Libya are no more than imperialist running dogs, (with the exception among anti-Gaddafi forces being the Jihadists who have their own anti-Western combined Anti-Arab secularist/heretic agenda.)

Finally, Gaddafi’s brutal termination shows again that the default position against Western gangster imperialism, however and wherever it is manifest, is People’s War. Between the international proletariat and the bourgeoisie there can be stalemate, realignment, defeat or victory– but never compromise or agreement.

1) I have not discussed the events in Libya in relation to its distinct Maghreb identity within the Arab nation, comprising the states across North Africa; Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia. Even here, Gaddaffi’s Islamic faith make him stand out among the leaders who emerged in the anti-colonial struggles of mid-century. Ben Barka, Ben Bella, Bourguiba &c. were all secular cosmopolitan civilian politicians. The best authority on this is the Marxist-Leninist political economist Samir Amin.

2) There is no reference on the Libyan civil war in relation to the ‘Arab Spring’, because I do not think there is homogeneity among the recent regional upsurges. In this light, I think the Libyan situation is uniquely important (even from its next-door neighbor, Tunisia), as it closes a chapter on an historical period of resistance to imperialist hegemony in the Middle East. Communists can draw precise lessons from it.


Filed under Africa, Algeria, Anti-Zionism, Britain, Economics, Europe, Guest Posts, History, Imperialism, Iraq, Iraq War, Ireland, Islam, Italy, Journalism, Left, Libya, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, North Africa, Palestine, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Socialism, Syria, Turkey, War

Uncle Semite

Repost from the old site.

Subtitle, “Not Your Father’s Anti-Semitism”.

Ok, this site is pretty funny. I don’t think it’s really anti-Semitic at all, but I’m not sure. The whole thing is pretty much tongue in cheek, and after a while I thought it was another one of those fake anti-Semitic sites those hilarious Jewish comedians are always putting up.

According to recent studies by the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, Russia, and the United States. In Arab media, diatribes against Jews are increasingly overt and commonplace, “the elevator music for the Arab world.” Much of this anti-Semitic expression is characterized by shrill rhetoric and old prejudices, leaving little room for fresh dialog on the subject.Uncle Semite seeks to elevate the conversation, moving the rhetorical, knee-jerk anti-Semitism of the past towards a progressive, “green” anti-Semitism, relevant in our time.

We hope you enjoy your stay with us at* If this site displays improperly, please install the latest version of Fire Foxman, Sephardi, or your favourite web browser. Until this site can be fitted with a proper Content Management System, brief postings will be made below.

That’s actually pretty damn funny right there. Haha! As far as the articles go, it’s mostly leftwing anti-Zionist or at least anti-Israel stuff, pretty much like this blog.

I did read Shitler’s List, and that was pretty damn funny too.

Shilter’s List is an archive of the 120,000 people who signed the petition to have Jew-Watch removed from Google’s search engine, because when folks typed in “Jew”, the first link they got was Jew-Watch, which is run by some sort of anti-Semite Holocaust Denier type with a German name. Creepy!

I don’t really like Jew-Watch, but it’s one of my brother’s favorite sites. He never had anything against Jews until he sued the local cops for tasering him with stun guns just to torture someone for fun. The lawyer was some Jewish guy. Well, my brother found out and told my grandpa, who, bless his departed heart, was also an anti-Black racist and mild anti-Semite, but that’s what happens when you are born White in St. Louis in 1890 or so.

My grandpa made some cryptic comment about Jewish lawyers that meant Jewish lawyers were crooks, but I thought it meant they were the best to get you off the hook. Well, my brother repeated the comment and the lawyer went nuts, wanted to know all about our grandpa, wanted to know what kind of name my brother’s last name is (his last name is German, but he has a different last name than I do).

When he found out my brother had a German last name, he went totally psycho. My brother was just trying to apologize. Well, after that day, if you know Jews, things were never the same. My brother was an anti-Semite from an anti-Semitic German family. The lawyer quit trying to get a good deal and just sold out for peanuts and moved down to Mexico to retire. Plus, he sold out via a sweetheart deal with a Jewish judge.

Then my brother started developing some anti-Semitism and read all up on da Jews. Result is my brother is a good guy, and he’s brilliant, but he’s a bit of an anti-Semite, and it’s all cuz of some stupid Jewish lawyer with a persecution complex.

Anyway, if you go through Shitler’s List, it serves sort of like a WhoozaJew software program, because it is chock full of Jews! This is unfortunately important to know, as it’s important to try to figure out why some public figures act like they do and why some writers write what they do.

Jews are sneaky and tricky and use fancy hairstyles to cover up the horns on their head. They deviously change their names and take Gentile names, but almost never Christian or Christina.

Run the WhoozaJew program and uncover any suspicious dark-haired person’s deepest tribal connections.

I usually just go to Google and type “last name” + Jewish and try to go from there.

Keep in mind that a lot of Jewish names are also German names. As the Germans say, there’s a little bit of Jew in every German, which makes the Holocaust all the more poignant really, as it makes it seems suicidal.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Europeans, Jews, Left, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Reposts From The Old Site

Zionism Rots the Brain

Repost from the old site.

Once more, via my friend Joachim Martillo, another article, Zionism Rots the Brain. Martillo is a Jewish convert to Islam who lives in Boston. He is active in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. While somewhat monomaniacal, I find him worth reading because of his delectable prose style and the fact that he is one of the smartest guys I know. Zionists should be honored with such worthy and weighty opponents.

This article deals with a couple of things. First of all, some recent comments by actor Will Smith, which the US Jewish community has gone nuts over, calling them “pro-Hitler”. Whether they are or not depends on Smith’s state of mind.

I suspect that he had no anti-Semitic intentions in making that comment, which was: “I think he woke up in the morning and, using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.'” That’s probably a correct analysis. Most modern leaders actually wish to do good and not evil.

The open desire on the part of prominent human beings to do evil is part of a Devil Worship Cult that became popular via Aleister Crowley in the early 1900’s. This gave rise to post-modernist artists such as William Burroughs (one of my favorite authors) who wallowed in the lowest perversities that man is capable of. The statement is a modification of a previous Western avant-garde artistic statement.

The prior statement was a rebuke of the Christian notion that man is elevated morally above the lower animals. These artists constructed a vision in which man’s behavior was just as low as any lowly and lower animal, an artistic vision that repelled conservatives and outraged extreme rightists like fascists who found it coarse, devolved and debased.

Much later in the 20th Century ( Naked Lunch – highly recommended – was published in 1959) the Western avant-garde took it one step further and began to portray man as not only as low as lower animals, but in fact lower than any lower animal! This is a profound statement about mankind and conservatives are still reeling from that one.

Anyway, from this corrupt modernist artistic vision has derived a cult that has taken pride in “being evil”, worshipping Satan, and whatnot. The point here is that this is basically a modern phenomenon in the civilized world. Especially among world leaders, those who have deliberately sought to do evil are probably few.

Analysis of the Nazi worldview is difficult, and many did reject Christianity and dabble in Occultist arcana, but still I doubt that Nazism was objectively some sort of devil-worshipping cult that sought to do evil. Instead and as usual, they saw themselves as good guys fighting evil Jews, Gypsies and Communists.

Aryan and White was good and glorious and Non-White, Jewish and Communist were dark and wicked and needed to be destroyed to bring about the Master Race World. So, yes, I suppose Hitler did think he was doing a good thing – getting rid of the worst evils on Earth – Communism and Jews – in a dual blow.

But lots of wicked people fashion themselves psychodefensively as good persons fighting evil, and not the admittedly perverse vice versa. So, as such, Smith’s comments are not obviously anti-Semitic and Jews are overreacting as usual. But maybe we can hardly blame them?

A good post along the lines discussed here from the interesting Overcoming Bias blog is Are Your Enemies Innately Evil ?

Martillo also discusses how the German Jewish community attacked a very sensible Jewish intellectual named Tony Judt, who has written on junking Zionism and setting up some sort of single state project in Israel – Palestine.

He was granted the Hannah Arendt Award in Bremen, Germany by Hannah Arendt Prize Committee, the Heinrich Böll Institute and the Bremen Senate, probably for his prose. The Arendt prize was particularly appropriate as the great Hannah Arendt was a non-Zionist or possibly even an anti-Zionist.

Just another case of Jews policing their own to get them into line. Kevin MacDonald discusses the brutal and very effective Jewish technique in dealing with “treasonous” dissidents in his Understanding Jewish Influence II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism Here is Part I and Part III. Highly recommended!

On December 22, 2007, actor Will Smith made the perfectly reasonable statement about Hitler, “I think he woke up in the morning and, using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.'”

Throughout the media and blogosphere reports turned the statement into something of the order “Will Smith believes Hitler was basically a good person,” and Jewish groups demanded apologies.

ADL national director Abraham Foxman summarized the situation, “Unfortunately, in citing Hitler in what appears to be a positive context, Smith stirred up a hornet’s nest on the Internet, where hate groups and anti-Semites latched on to the remark and praised it.”

What positive context?

This stupidity of this controversy topped the recent nonsense in Bremen.

According to Lob und Tadel by Frank König in Jüdische Zeitung, Dezember 2007 (Martillo’s English translation of the German, amended by me, starts, followed by the original German text):

Judt, the Hannah Arendt Prize Committee, the Heinrich Böll Institute and the Bremen Senate were sharply criticized in an “open letter” from the Executive Committee of the Jewish Committee of Bremen. Because Judt injected an outspoken “anti-Israel” tendency in his essays in the last year, according to the Executive Committee, the Committee opposes the prize conferred on Judt by the three entities listed above.

In particular, an article that Judt published in 2003 in the New York Review of Books, as well as Judt’s later opinions, are “intolerable” for the Jewish Community of Bremen. Judt accuses Israel of propagating a form of state-nationalism, that makes it impossible to bring about a rational solution in the Middle East conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Judt argues for a one-state and binational solution to the conflict. In making this stance, said the Committee in its “open letter”, Judt acts on behalf of “the official Palestinian, propaganda view of the history, while throwing in some invented and twisted facts as well as some anti-Israel vocabulary”.

Kritisiert werden Judt, die Hannah-Arendt-Preis-Jury, die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung sowie der Bremer Senat besonders scharf in einem «offenen Brief» vom Präsidium der Jüdischen Gemeinde Bremen. Dass Judt in Aufsätzen der letzten Jahre eine ausgesprochen «antisraelische Haltung» lanciere, spreche nach Auffassung besagten Präsidiums keinesfalls dafür, einen solchen Preis zu erhalten.

Speziell ein Aufsatz, den Judt 2003 in der «New York Review of Books» publiziert hatte, sowie eine Auffassung Judts seien für die Jüdische Gemeinde Bremen «unerträglich». Judt werfe Israel vor, eine Art von staatlichem Nationalismus zu propagieren, der überhaupt nicht angemessen sei, um eine sinnvolle Lösung im Nahost-Konflikt zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern herbeizuführen.

Judt spricht sich für eine einstaatliche und binationale Lösung dieses Konflikts aus. Damit vertrete Judt «die offizielle palästinensische, propagandistische Sicht auf die Geschichte, samt der erfundenen und verdrehten Fakten sowie des antiisraelischen Vokabulars», wie es in dem «offenen Brief» heißt.

In other words the Bremen Jewish community attacked Judt just the way the American Jewish community attacked Arendt – for skepticism about Zionism and for proposing a one-state federated solution to the Middle East conflict. Finding a more appropriate recipient for the Hannah Arendt Prize would have been difficult.

I used to think the sort of Jewish behavior that characterized the Smith and Judt insanity resulted from Zionist/Holocaust brain-rot in combination with the arrogant belief that Jews are the moral arbitrators of everything, but the irrationalization of all discussion of Hitler, the Holocaust, Zionism and the State of Israel effectively prevents sensible debate over US and EU foreign policy in the Middle East.

I have even found evidence of the coordination between the Boston Jewish community and the German Jewish community over the last three years in ongoing projects to attack deviations from Zionist and Holocaust orthodoxy.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Art, Christianity, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Israel, Jews, Left, Literature, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, Novel, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Roma, South Asians, US Politics, White Racism, Whites, Zionism

Aztlan and Zionism: Dueling Idiocies

Repost from the old site.

In this post, we will take a look at two nationalisms, Zionism, the movement to (re)create the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Aztlan, the Mexican and Chicano movement that says that part of the Western US is actually part of Mexico, and more importantly, was the homeland of the Aztec people.

As with most forms of ultra-nationalism, both movements are exercises in lying and nonsense. And both are similar in other ways, too.

Both propose that, because the area in question (Western US, Palestine) was the ancient homeland of the people some 2,000-5,000 years ago, that they have a right to move en mass into the region and even to annex it or possibly make their state there (the Aztlan movement is divided on whether Aztlan should be annexed to Mexico or whether it should be its own state).

Both are based on some highly questionable claims of ownership. There is serious question whether or not Aztlan (an area covering part of the Western US – map here) is actually the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, as this article claims, supposedly with authoritative sources.

Let us examine the article, by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez, a writing team that somehow got UPI to syndicate their ultra-radical Chicano nationalist nonsense for many years.

The authors found a map in the National Archives in Washington from 1847 with a notation near the Four Corners Area in the US referring to The Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs.

This scribbling on a map somewhere by God knows who purportedly “proves incontrovertibly” that all Mexicans and all Central Americans have a right to move to the USA tomorrow, because the US Four Corners is their “ancient homeland”.

The authors also note a tradition of the US Pueblo, Hopi, and Lakota (!?) Indian tribes that Nahuatl speakers were their former relatives. There are major problems with this. How would these tribes describe these “Nahuatl” speaking people, since back then, there is no way that they called their language or themselves by that name?

Since they called themselves and their language something else, how did these tribes know that they were “Nahuatl”-speakers? And why the Lakota? They are located far from this fake homeland, way up in South Dakota.

Further, as one who worked with an Indian tribe on a government grant doing linguistic and anthropological field work, I assure you that Indian legends and oral history need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, to say the least!

The authors quote Cecelio Orozco, an education professor at my alma mater, California State University Fresno as saying this lines up with his research also putting the Aztec homeland in southern Utah. Professor Orozco has published two books of apparent pseudoarcheology on this subject.

Here is how Orozco discovered this homeland (try not to laugh when reading this):

Orozco said he came upon the site through a process called “archeo-astronomy.” He saw a photograph of four rivers in Utah in 1980, and based on previous research, recognized a mathematical formula in the photo that led him to believe that this was the place of origin of the Mexicas’ ancestors. Subsequent trips and research has confirmed his thesis… 

After reading this fascinating article on archaeoastronomy, I still do not see how that science relates to a photograph of four rivers in Utah. Does anyone have any idea how a photograph of four rivers anywhere on Earth contains some hidden mathematical formula?

He also found a painting on a wall in Utah from 500 BC that he says he claims corresponds to the the codec containing the Aztec calendar. Those of us familiar with the field realize that finds all over the world look like other finds, or resemble other peoples, or bear this or that passing resemblance to whatever. None of that usually proves anything; much more work needs to be done.

According to the article, because Aztecs have a homeland in Utah dating back 2500 BC, Mexicans and Central Americans are no longer foreigners or aliens or even immigrants in the US, but they are simply in their homeland.

By that lunatic thinking, all White Americans get emigrate back to Europe and live there, since that was our homeland at some point in the past. The Europeans have no right to stop us, and we can even call it Euroamland or whatever and carve out our own damn country out of several European countries, make English the official language and even sideline the several non-English European tongues spoken there.

Then we can demand to be united with the US across the sea or just up and make our own country, dissolving several European countries in the process.

It is this sort of nonsense that makes me wonder just how smart your average Mexican Reconquista type really is. On reflection, they are obviously bright people, it is just that ultranationalism, or even often just nationalism, damages people’s brains and makes them incapable of rational thought. It does this across the board to any ethnic group – there is no reason to single out Mexicans or Chicanos.

Let us examine some of the other insane suppositions of the Aztlan crowd. We have already delved into this a bit on this on an earlier post.

First of all, the Aztecs (Mexicas) had only taken over the Mexico City area about 200 years previous to the Spanish Conquest. The empire reached its peak only about 40 years before Cortes landed. Further, the Mexicas only lived in the area around Mexico City! That’s it. All of the rest of Mexico was not Mexica territory and the tribes (even those colonized by Mexicas) who lived there cannot be said to be Mexicas!

As an analogy, let us consider the Roman Empire. Its headquarters were in Rome. The rest of the empire were just colonies, conquered areas paying tribute to Rome. Can we say that everyone in the Roman Empire was a “Roman” or an “Italian”? By the same logic, do those residing in Rome today have a right to claim all of the former Roman Empire as their land?

This is what would happen if we applied “Aztlan”-logic to that situation. Do you see how stupid this Aztlan nonsense-lie is? The Aztecs did conquer quite a bit of land in the center of Mexico (map here), killing lots of folks and enslaving others.

As noted below, the homeland of the Nahua, according to prominent Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma was probably somewhere around Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán* . From this area, 2,000 years ago, various waves of Nahua speakers radiated out through Mexico and even Central America. This is why we have 28 living Aztec (or Nahuatl) languages today.

By the way, Wikipedia is wrong that these languages are almost dead. Most are quite vigorously used, and there are 1.5 million speakers of all Nahuatl languages.

27 of these 28 tribes are not, and were not, Mexicas, anymore than everyone speaking a Romance language today is a “Roman”. Follow?

A somewhat more rational take on the Aztlan lie can be found on the Reconquista site here. Apparently real anthropologists put the Aztec homeland somewhere around Nayarit on the west coast of Mexico. That’s a lot more reasonable, but it’s probably not true either. This comes from Mexican anthropologist Alfredo Chavero’s theory in 1887. Moctezuma’s locale is probably better.

The piece also argues that since Nahuatl is an Uto-Aztecan language and many Uto-Aztecans either lived in or traveled through “Aztlan”, that there is something to the Aztlan notion in that sense. Fair enough.

In fact, the homeland of the Uto-Aztecans in my opinion is in southern Arizona or northern Mexico. But all Native Americans traveled through Siberia on their way to the Americas. Does everyone with Indian blood in the Americas get to go back to Russia and take over the place because their ancestors strolled through it sometime in the past 20,000 years?

Looking at the linguistic contacts of pre-Nahuatl would be a good way of trying to find an Aztec homeland. We can see that they had contacts with languages spoken around Veracruz, on the east coast of Mexico. As you can see, the situation is complicated.

The authors in the first article make an even more ludicrous point. First, as usual, they conflate the “Aztecs” a single tribe called the Mexica, amongst Mexico’s over 200 tribes, that only lived around Mexico City, with all Mexicans.

According to idiot Chicano nationalists, all Mexicans with Indian blood are Mexica or part Mexica! That’s nuts. As noted, there were tribes all over the land, and the Mexica were only one of 200 or so. It’s as if one said that every Italian comes from Rome.

Next, they say that all of the tribes related to the Mexicas were “Mexicas” because they spoke Nahuatl languages. They certainly were not! It’s nonsense. Are all speakers of Indo-European languages the one and same group because they all came out the Indo-European homeland in Southern Ukraine 8,000 years ago?

Even worse, these fools claim that all Central Americans were Aztecs and get to go invade the USA because it’s home sweet home.

Ridiculous. There is only one tribe, the Pipil in El Salvador, that still speaks a Nahuatl language, and there are only 20 speakers left. There were a few other Nahuatl languages in Honduras, Panama and Guatemala, but these are long since extinct. They were not “Aztecs” anymore than English-speakers in the US are “Germans”.

However, the Pipil did come from the area around Mexico City around 1000 years ago; they were related to Olmecs, but also to the Nahuatl. In general, they were an Olmec grouping. Anyway, at that time, there were no such thing as Mexicas or Aztecs – that group came later. Another group of Pipil had come to Central America 5000 years ago and came under the influence of the Maya.

This is around the time when Proto-Uto-Aztecan itself was born in the southwest US. Both of these groups, by 1000 AD, became the Pipil, who came under even more Maya influence.

The Pipil are almost extinct culturally and linguistically today, an end result of the Matanza, when 10,000-30,000 Indians were slaughtered in only a few weeks in El Salvador in 1932, while US warships patrolled off the coast in case the victims of the genocide tried to fight back.

After that, most Salvadoran Indians took off their Indian clothes and quit speaking Indian languages, especially since Pipil was outlawed. They also intermarried heavily with non-Indians, so that to this day, only 1% of El Salvador’s population are Indians. The area of the Matanza became one of the most conservative, pro-government parts of El Salvador, little effected by the Civil War from 1980-1993.

The leader of the rebellion that set off the Matanza was Farabundo Marti, head of the Salvadoran Communist Party. The rebels that fought in the Civil War later on took their name, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, from him.

The cult surrounding Zionism is much the same as the Aztlan nonsense. True, Jews ruled the area long ago, but only for a brief time, similar to the Aztecs. Further, similar conflations are made about the Judean Empire and the Aztlan Empire, Judean language and religion and actual Jews and Jewish religion and the relevance of ancient Judean religion to the Jewish religion today.

Also similar is the outrageous notion that some group has a right to go back to its ancient homeland of 2000-5000 years ago, settle there at will, and even make a state there. Some of the radical Atzlanistas, similar to Zionists, also suggest throwing out the natives (in the case of the Aztlanistas the Whites, who came starting 400 years ago) since they are “invaders squatting on the true homeland”.

In this same nonsensical way, Zionists project their own invasion of Palestine and squatting on Palestinian land off onto the victim. The Arabs, who came 1450 years ago, are the “invaders”, who have been squatting on “Jewish land” since then. Never mind that the Jews left 2000 years ago. They owned Palestine in their hearts in the intervening 1900 years, and Zionism claims that that trumps a property deed!

Zionism’s proponents are Jews, the smartest folks on Earth, who ought to know better. But ultra-nationalism can easily make a fool of the finest man.

See Joachim Martillo’s site, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, for more. In particular, his superb Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism (90 pp.!), is a piece which deserves much wider reading. Martillo has some tendency towards fanaticism (but this also drives him to produce), can be an ideologue, and is sometimes guilty of trying to make facts fit theory as opposed to otherwise.

However, these (especially making the facts fit theory) are chronic problems with most all social scientists, as Kevin MacDonald has observed.

At the least, the brilliant Martillo should be more widely read, if only to subject his interesting theories to the critical light of peer review to separate wheat from chaff. And the 90 page link above is just sublime, in particular in the way that it takes apart the primordial nonsense of Zionism in the same way we attacked the similar primordialism of the Atzlanistas in this post.

*Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988) 38.


Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Anti-Zionism, Antiquity, Central America, Cultural, El Salvador, Europe, Europeans, Guatemala, Hispanics, History, Honduras, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Latin America, Left, Linguistics, Marxism, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Nationalism, North America, Palestine, Panama, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Reconquistas, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Revolution, Roman Empire, Traitors, Ultranationalism, Whites, Zionism

The Position of the Left on Western Culture, Whites, Judeo-Christianity and Islam

A little debate here. The first quote is me defending secularism, the second one is Abiezer Coppe defending the Western Left against my charges. I reiterate after the blockquote with evidence from around the world.

It is sickening the way that the Left is sucking up to Islam. Stop it right now! It’s all because Muslims are fighting European Judeo-Christian “colonizer-imperialist” types in Israel and now in Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Europe. To the Left, European Judeo-Christian civilization is evil, and hence so are all Whites. Jews are considered White. We are all racist colonizer/imperialist slavers.

The dark Muslim noble savages are fighting evil White Euros, and the Left cheers.

The Left hates:

1. Euro Whites
2. Euro Christians
3. Euro Jews
4. The West

The dark Third Worldist oppressed darkies are fighting a holy war against all four, the West can’t get enough of it. I’m not sure if the Zionists ever mention this, but I think they are right. The Left even dislikes the Jews because now they are the ultimate expression of the White Judeo-Christian Western Euro colonizer.

No Robert, stop spreading lies about the Left. The Left aren’t that racial. You’re just spouting.

A sane Left will support Christian values as highly progressive. See Slavoj Zizek on Christianity.

Support for Islamism. The Maoists and Trots do it, and that’s about it. It’s third Worldist Idiotism…if you convert to Islam YOU CANNOT LEAVE. The penalty for leaving the Islamic religion in Pakistan is six months in prison, according to a commentator on Radio 4. Is this true?

Of course it is true. That’s if they don’t kill you.

I am talking about the Western Left.

The real existing Left, the one that matters, is not anti-West or anti-Christian.

The Latin American Left is pro-West and pro-Christian. Many of them are Christians. Even the leadership of Sendero Luminoso were Christians, including Abimael Guzman, who is still a Catholic! The Filipino Left is pro-West and pro-Christian.

This is the Liberation Theology Left, and I love it. Jesus was a Commie! In those countries, priests pray alongside the rebels and in some cases even serve in rebel armies. The Sandinistas had priests in their cabinet. Hugo Chavez is very much a Liberation Theologian; this is the best way to describe him. There is a lot of good theory coming out of Cuba nowadays since believers can join the party. They are calling themselves Christian Marxists. Even Fidel says Christianity is compatible with socialism and Communism.

The Indian and Nepalese Maoists don’t mind the West or Christianity. If there is a beef with anything, it’s Hinduism.

The real existing Left in all Muslim states is not too wild about Islam! The Left in the rest of the world cares nothing at all about Western culture or Christianity.

This anti-West, anti-European, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-White shit is mostly just rebellion on the part of Western Leftists against their own eeeeeeevil religions and cultures.

Maoists in general are not too wild about Islam. The Iranian and Afghan Maoists are some of the most Islam-hostile groups in the Islamic world. They’ve basically had it up to here with Islam.

The Filipino Left has made alliance with Muslim separatists on a strategic basis and gets along with them well. The Indian Maoists support separatists in Kashmir.

Trots are always pro-Islam anymore, but they are irrelevant outside the West, which means they are irrelevant in the Real World.


Filed under Afghanistan, Americas, Anti-colonialism, Anti-Zionism, Asia, Caribbean, Catholicism, Christianity, Cuba, Economics, Europeans, Hinduism, India, Iran, Islam, Jews, Kashmir, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, South Asia, Trotskidiots, Useless Western Left, Venezuela, Whites, Zionism