The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.
The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:
“Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”
The fact that (pre-1967) Israel is a Zionist not a Jewish state – how could it be a Jewish state when a quarter of its citizens are Muslims (mainly) and Christians? – in no way diminishes Harkabi’s message.
He was, in fact, treading a quite well worn path. Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews, eminent American and British Jews especially, were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise in Palestine. They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.
Today, in my opinion, it can be said that Zionism wants and needs anti-Semitism in order to justify anything and everything its monster child does.
So what are the two things that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism (assuming as I do that the Zionist state is not going to change course in the direction of peace)?
One is that the mainly Gentile citizens of the Western world among whom most Jews live become aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism, and thus why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Israel. The difference can be simply stated. Like mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam, mainstream Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles. Zionism, which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by ethnic cleansing and terrorism, is without moral values and ethical principles. Its driving ideology, conditioned by Jewish experience of persecution on-and-off down the centuries, is that might is right. Mainstream Judaism and Zionism are, in fact, total opposites. (In April one of the anti-Zionist Jews I most admire, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer, is giving a talk in Luxembourg with the title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism).
In the paragraph above I insist on the term “few” in Israel being to blame because the truth is that most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by their leaders. (As the headline over an article by Gideon Levy for Ha-aretz put it on 5 February, Israelis should be afraid of their leaders, not Iran). Most Israeli Jews are, for example, totally unaware that the vast majority of Palestinians and most Arabs everywhere have been ready for many years for peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.
The other thing that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism stems from the fact, perhaps I should say overwhelming probability, that no American president is ever going to be free to use the leverage he has to oblige the Zionist state to be serious about peace because of the Zionist lobby’s control of policy for Israel-Palestine in Congress.
So as things are Israel is a nuclear-armed monster beyond control. (From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”)
On reflection it seems to me that whether or not anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism will depend not only on the Westerners among whom most Jews live understanding why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the few, but also on what the Jews of the world, European and American Jews especially (I mean the majority of them), do from here on.
In my view they have two options.
OPTION 1 is to stay silent which, at this moment in time, is still the preferred option of most European and American Jews.
That said it has to be acknowledged that recent years have seen an increase in the number of Jewish groups which are critical of Israel’s polices and, in some cases, have even endorsed the call of Palestinian civil society for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. But the voices these groups represent are those of only a minority of Jews.
On the debit side of this particular balance sheet is also the fact that by limiting their campaigns to calls for an end to Israel’s occupation to make the space for a two-state solution, most if not all of the “progressive” (critical of Israel) Jewish groups are demonstrating that they are out of touch with or don’t want to recognise the reality on the ground in Israel-Palestine. The reality is that Israel’s still on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank has made a two-solution impossible. It is not yet formally buried but it is dead.
My own understanding of why began with a private conversation I had with Shimon Peres in early 1980. At the time he was the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour party and seemed to be well placed to win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin and his Likud party a second term in office – an outcome for which President Carter was praying. After learning that Carter had said behind closed doors that institutional diplomacy could not solve the Palestine problem because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress and that what was needed was some informal and unofficial diplomacy, my purpose was to invite Peres to participate in a secret and exploratory dialogue with PLO chairman Arafat with me as the linkman. The idea was that if we could use the 18 months or so before Israel’s next election to get agreement in principle on the way to the two-state solution to which Arafat’s PLO was by then committed, Peres and Arafat could begin to do the business for real when Peres became prime minister. (I was aware that a two-state solution would not provide the Palestinians with full justice, but at the time I shared the hope of those, including Arafat, who believed it was not impossible that within a generation or two the peace of a two-state solution could open the door to One State for all by mutual agreement, thus allowing all Palestinians who wanted to return to do so).
Peres welcomed the idea of an exploratory dialogue with Arafat with me as the linkman, but at a point in our conversation before I went off to Beirut to secure Arafat’s agreement to participate, he, Peres, said, “I fear it is already too late.”
I asked him why.
He replied: “Every day sees new bricks on new settlements. Begin knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s stuffing the West Bank with settlers to create the conditions for a Jewish civil war because he knows that no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who gave the order to the Jewish army to shoot Jews (in order to end the occupation).” Pause. “I’m not.”
Question: If it was too late in 1980 when they were only about 70,000 illegal Jewish settlers on the West Bank, how much more too late is it today when the number of illegal Jewish settlers is in excess of 500,000 and rising, and the political influence of Israel’s religious fanatics and other bigots is growing?
In the words of an old English cliché, Jewish groups which are critical of Israeli policy but limit their effort to calling for an end to Israeli occupation are flogging a dead horse.
My considered Gentile take on why most Jews are silent on the matter of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and denial of their rights is in my book. For this post I’ll make only two brief points.
One is that deep down, if only in their sub-consciousness, most Jews fear (in large part because they are conditioned by Zionism to fear) that there will one day be another great turning against them. Holocaust II. So they perceive Israel as their refuge of last resort, and they tell themselves they must say nothing, do nothing, that could undermine Israel and put their insurance policy at risk.
The other, no doubt related, is that private discussion about publicly criticising Israel or not can and does tear Jewish families as well as communities apart. So for the sake of at least the appearance of Jewish unity it’s best not to discuss the matter.
The problem with Jewish silence is that it’s not the way to refute and demolish a charge or assertion of complicity in Zionism’s crimes. So continued silence by the majority of European and American Jews is most likely to assist the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.
OPTION 2 is for the Jews of the world to distance themselves from the Zionist state.
A most explicit statement of this as a possible option was made in October 2001 by Dr. David Goldberg, the prominent, widely respected, liberal London rabbi and author of a popular introduction to Judaism, The Jewish People, Their History and Their Religion. He dared to say, in public, “It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways.”
Eight years on the late Tony Judt, a professor of history at New York University and director of the Remarque Institute, put some flesh on that bone. British-born of a Jewish mother whose parents emigrated from Russia and a Belgian father who was descended from a line of Lithuanian rabbis, Judt started out as an enthusiastic Zionist. He helped to promote the migration of British Jews to Israel, and during the 1967 war he worked as a driver and translator for the IDF. But after that war, his belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. “I went with the idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work, but I started to see that this view was remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible.”
In an article for the Financial Times on 7 December 2009, Judt wrote this:
“If the Jews of Europe and North America took their distance from Israel, as many have begun to do, the assertion that Israel was ‘their’ state would take on an absurd air. Over time, even Washington might come to see the futility of attaching American foreign policy to the delusions of one small Middle Eastern state. This, I believe, is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel itself. It would be obliged to acknowledge its limits. It would have to make other friends, preferably among its neighbors.”
For the sake of discussion there’s a case for saying that an Israel that was obliged by European and America Jews to acknowledge its limits might also be an Israel in which many Israeli Jews were prepared to open their minds to the wise words of one of their own – Avraham Burg. Between 1999 and 2003 he was the speaker of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. By the end of his term in that office he was a leading advocate of the idea that Israel and a viable Palestinian state could coexist in peace. In August 2003 he wrote a most remarkable essay which was published in its original Hebrew by Yediot Aharonot and subsequently newspapers in Europe and America.
His lead point was that Israel had to “shed its illusions” and choose between “racist oppression and democracy.” The Jewish people, he wrote, “did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programmes or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto nations. In this we have failed.”
And the following is what Burg had to say about Israel’s need to change course and the choices:
Here is what the prime minister should say to his people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.
Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.
Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.
Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.
“Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. (Here, I note, Burg was being less than explicit about the consequences of Greater Israel giving full citizenship and voting rights to everyone. At the point not too far into the future when the Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Jews of Greater Israel, Zionism would be voted out of existence. Palestine would effectively be de-Zionized, opening the door to One State for all).
The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.
In my view Judt’s assumption that Israel “would” be obliged to acknowledge its limits if the Jews of Europe and America took their distance from it is questionable. Why? It’s rational, based on reason, and Israel’s deluded leaders are beyond reason. They are never going to shed their illusions and present the choices for Israel’s Jews in the terms outlined by Burg.
But the main argument for European and American Jews distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its policies is self-interest. By demonstrating that they were not complicit in Zionism’s crimes, they would be playing their necessary part in preventing anti-Israelism from being transformed into anti-Semitism.
But even if self-interest (in the context above) is the direction in which most European and American Jews might move, events on the ground suggest to me that the time left for them to decide whether or not to actually distance themselves from Israel is running out. And here is my brief summary of why.
Given their determination to keep for all time much if not all of the occupied West Bank (despite what they sometimes say to the contrary for propaganda purposes), Israel’s leaders have got to find a way to defuse the ticking, demographic time-bomb of occupation (the coming of the day when the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews of Greater Israel).
The evidence of the past 44 years is that Israel’s leaders believed they could do it in one of two ways.
One was by making life hell for the occupied Palestinians in the hope that very many of them would either give up their struggle in despair and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table – a few disconnected Bantustans which they could call a state if they wished; or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek new lives elsewhere. Neither of those two things happened or are going to happen.
The other was having in place a compliant, puppet, Palestinian leadership which could be bullied and bribed, with American assistance, into forcing its people to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table. It might be that Israel’s leaders still hope they can make this scenario work with Palestinian “President” Abbas or his successor, but it won’t work.
And that will leave them, Israel’s leaders, with only one way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation – creating a pretext to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan, Syria or wherever. The final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
I think that will be Zionism’s final solution to its Palestine problem. I also think that such an event will guarantee that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism, meaning, as Harkabi warned, that Jews throughout the world will pay the price of Israel’s “misconduct”.
I’ll end by re-asking my headline question and giving it an explicit answer.
Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Yes unless the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
Alan - Historically, the "anti-Israelism" doesn't equate with "anti-Semitism". The World Zionist movement leaders who established a colonial entity over an Arab land - were atheists though born to Jewish mothers. The entire world Jewry has its roots in Asiatic Khazarian Turkish blood or North African Berber tribes. No Jew can prove to have ancestral links to the Hebrew speaking Semite tribes attributed to 12 sons of prophet Jacob (Ya'akub).
As far as Jewish Holocaust is concerned - Dr. Norman Finkelstein mother had said: “Jews or anyone else doesn’t has the monopoly over Holocaust.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/holocausts-too-many-to-remember/
I welcome this article for its candidness. Either a one state or a two state solution the jews stand a win win situation. Palestinians may prefer them to any arab state due to econ and cultural ties. Most jewish intellectuals must hv anticipated the gloomy scenario. but US lawmakers do not help the sitiation either. Lets hope for the best. Look how apartheid leaders pragmatically took the big risk. The right bet.
I think that one thing that may help is to stress that the Ultra Orthodox religious Jews have opposed Zionism from the very outset.
I have found their websites very helpful.
They are Jews and they are most emphatically not Zionists, therefore the two are demonstrably separate
Zionism may be likened to the children of Israel in the Bible hankering for a king of their own that they may be like the other nations (I Samuel chapter 8 - the whole chapter). The Zionists want a nation state for precisely the same reason
[...] latest article, entitled Is Holocaust II inevitable? is worth reading for both pro-Israelis and anti-Israelis. Alan Hart provides answer to his own [...]
@Steve Meikle, while the zionists are aware of the Ultra Orthodox stance, that position is entirely irrelevant. If you want to stop Holocaust 2, that dialogue must be directed towards the people of the world, not the zionists.
@Alan Hart; Alan I agree with much of what you have to say. I disagree with very little. Some of the difference of opinion I do have are that I don't believe that a two state solution was ever a possibility; and hence the reason that has been the focal point of the peace talks. Peace was never on option for the zionists. Point two, is that the zionists in my definition include the US government in general.
What I do agree with and what I have written about before, is that there will be another Holocaust and the only way to prevent it is for a well identified Jewish party on a global scale to reject isreal and zionism.
Under your article "israel on the path to self destruction": I wrote the following in reply to Jeffery; who identified himself as a Jew seeking to live his time out in peace.
The pattern of persecution you point to is valid. It is occurring at this very minute. Alan's book Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews highlights the cause of this persecution. If you are Jewish, and you do seek peace, then your path is clear. You must stand in public against zionism and against the continued existence of israel. You must be a voice to rally all Jews to a call, not of peace but of war against zionism. This is the only way you and the Jewish community will find peace and stop this cyclic persecution for yourselves and future generations. If you don't; you will surely die out.
That should have read; that a two state solution was NEVER a possibility.
@ Mr King, my intention was to make it clear that Zionism and Judaism are different things. That being so, what better way to tell **the people of the world** that they were different things than by stressing the reality of the difference **to the people of the world**?
Was this not clear in my post?
As for the Zionist leadership, if they are as bad as we hold they are they are complete degenerates who will heed no one and will only stop their criminal and , I might add, Godless (being in open defiance of the Law of Moses) actions, if forced.
And the world may only be keen to force them if realpolitik requires it and if they believe that Zionism and Judaism are different things.
So I ask you, are Zionism and Judaism different things?
If you think not then Mr Hart posted in vain, for all Jews are responsible for the deeds of Israel **if Zionism and Judaism are not different**
Should the world be informed more clearly that this is so?
I never suggested telling the Zionist leadership something they already are keen to ignore, and ask you, Mr King, where did you get the warrant to infer that I did?
You all must watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCKWDarNdGw&feature=youtu.be
It was about 30 min and very uplifting. I really gave me a sense of hope for the future.
I hope this man becomes the inspirational impetus for many young and old Jews to take action and to become a force for good in this world.
Sorry Steve Meikle. In truth I am finding it difficult to understand your post. So let me just apologies if my post treated you unfairly. That was not my intention but instead I just sort to direct Jewish people to the main point: that the work load is their responsibility in it's entirety. If they don't dig in, Holocaust 2 will be what is awaiting them.
I would like to add, that if I was a Jew, I would be ashamed to see people of so many various nations stepping in to assist the Palestinian people and carrying the very high ideals that the Jewish religion ALONE was supposed to confer.
As Mr Hart points out, the Jewish religion was supposed to be a light unto the nations. israel today is more like a black hole and the various Jewish religious communities inept in their responsibilities and both dishonest and immoral in their representation. No better can be said of of Jewish individuals.
This is the most rational statement I have seen from either side of the conflict. I have written and spoken against Zionism. But my criticisms-- and those of many others-- are being expanded to include those Jewish-Americans who fail to speak out against Zionism. If justice is to be realized, we must speak loudly to demonstrate to Jews who remain mute that their silence leads to eventual destruction for Israel. - George Beres
I just read Gilad Atzmon's wonderful book, "The Wandering Who?" Now I am sure we have been in error in separating Zionism from Judaism. Without even reading too much of your piece yet, Alan, I will give you an answer to your title: Yes. And they deserve it because they brought it on themselves.
Most of my family is Jewish but I totally abstain from any religious involvement, any religion. I most certainly do not condone how Palestinians are being treated - then and now, so what I do is, I boycott israel wherever I can. Too many people don't distinguish between Jews and israelis and herein lies danger too. There is a certain arrogance and 'chip on the shoulder' that Jews have and this is irritating. What is happening now is self-inflicted pain...you reap as you sow. Stop whining!
What a unholy waste of energies of the children [or child] of Shem. And now a mortal threat to all, In a Nuclear Age.
Shalom
Does anyone ever wonder who really is behind this dangerous conflict ? I don't believe the Jewish people anywhere in the world count any more than the rest of us. We are all expendable except for those at the very top of the pyramid.
Who benefits the most from this situation ? It certainly isn't Jewish people. Look to the international bankers, including the Rothschilds as well as the world's most elite. A true peace in the Middle East certainly would not suit them for one moment. Imagine how economically powerful the Middle East would become if there was peace. Perhaps they would even take control of their own resources.
There are a handful of people becoming obscenely RICHER from this mess. If Israel was wiped off the map these people would not care. In the end these people would very happily cause WW 111 and they would not shed a tear. No more than they did by funding both sides in WW 11 and aiding and abetting the holocaust. It sickening and time the world woke up to how we are all manipulated into hating one another.
"Any people who have been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong."
Kissinger, Henry (1923- ), Jewish-American politician
Any person who believes in a Supreme Being, a One Creator, knows this Creator has absolute power and absolute will over all things. As such, no human machination can bring about the second coming of anybody unless it is also what God wants. This is just plain screwed up thinking on the part of a significant group of people.
The mindset we're seeing here is less about religious confrontation than about money and political power, in an age where the entire world is sliding towards the abyss. The US is a failing empire desperately trying to hang on to its "Superpower" status against China - and will probably fail. But that doesn't stop its worldwide rampage for oil and military control. As a proxy of the US, and as its monster child, Israel aids and abets, but more than that, it is sometimes a very naughty child stirring up more problems, such as that with Iran. It also very stubbornly refuses to relinquish its own little empire, i.e, Palestine, and hopes to expand it to the Nile River.
As such, these two countries are going to kill us all. It's right around the corner - a massive scale war that we can call World War III. Israel will start it but will discover what the rest of us already know - Israel doesn't know how to fight a war, it only knows how to bomb unarmed civilians into oblivion. Israel won't know how to deal with a country like Iran, which will fight back.
Hart felt...On the mark again Alan!
I believe one of the crucial elements that was not discussed in this article is that both the Israeli leadership as well as many right-winged elements in the United States are promoting the idea that criticism of Israel and\or its policies is in fact the new form of antisemitism. This is obviously being done to blunt further criticism of Israel but in of itself will most likely backfire in the long term ushering in real antisemitism.
I think the Israeli leadership is far more than simply delusional but instead criminally insane. They have created a situation that they cannot get out of. By promoting the idea of criticism of Israel as antisemitism they also have to act upon the results since this is what they want to believe.
The International Jewish Community has lost control over the situation due to their own loyalties towards the Israeli state as Alan's article indicates. This leaves then only one final possibility, which will be forced upon the world if and when Israel decides to take action on a situation that will knowingly to all the world's nations plunge the entire globe into conflict.
Either the world will see its need to survive and react against the Israeli state as it should have long ago, or go down with it.
The efforts to equate anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are meant to quash dissent among Jews and to silence criticism of Israeli policies by non-Jews. There is tremendous pressure on the Jewish community to toe the pro-Israel line, especially from Israel itself. Israeli ambassadors and politicians claim to speak for all the world's Jews, and they do so in the sanctified post-holocaust tone of voice that evokes, or is meant to evoke, sympathy and thereby a free pass to continue to run roughshod over Palestinian rights.
One thing I must point out - this is not a "conflict" and the Israelis and Palestinians are not "sides" in this conflict. This is a belligerent and illegal occupation. The Israelis are the occupier, and the Palestinians are the occupied. "Sides" are equal in war - there is no equality here. "Sides" implies that Israel has some legitimate reason to be doing what it does every day to the Palestinians, as a sort of warfare. It is nothing of the kind; it is ethnic cleansing and slow genocide. So please think carefully about the power of the words you use, especially in describing this occupation to others. By saying "sides" and "conflict" you are not portraying the situation accurately at all.
maryam - 'The Wandering Who?' Gilad Atzmon has united the great majority of Jews against him - which probably is the biblical prophecy of the 'Promised Jewish Messiah'.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/gilad-atzmon-the-jewish-messiah/
@Steve Naidamast: I agree completely.
@maryam; you make a very good point. In every commentary I read on the situation, I don't think I have ever read anyone say that the israelis are 100% wrong and should leave the area. I often wonder why that is. These "balanced" authors believe that either the israelis have some rights; or that it is too hard to punish every single one of them. I honestly cannot understand this point of view. My own perspective is if someone invaded your home; beat you up, starved you and locked you in a room; no court would decide that the invader had some rights. If the invaded showed the court that they had no home of there own, would it be appropriate that the home owner provide a room or rooms to them? How about if someone stole your car. If the thief showed the court that they didn't own a car and needed it; would the court order a sharing agreement, where you had to provide the use of the car to the thief several days per week? It sounds ridiculous; yet these "balanced" viewpoints on the israeli issue would have you believe that the israelis had some rights.
Yes, David, this is how the zionist media has captured and controlled the narrative in this occupation - they control the language, thus they control the public's perception of events. Your analogies are spot on - by portraying the occupation as a "conflict," it implies that Israel has a legitimate claim to the territories it occupies, and that it has justification for its maltreatment of the Palestinians, including the siege on the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have been put in the absurd position of having to bargain and "negotiate" for the return of land that belongs to them in the first place, and the Gazans are forced to appeal over the internet to beg the world's help in helping them to rescue them from living in the world's largest open air prison. The narrative has given the Israeli "side" so much legitimacy that it was even able to get away with murdering human rights activists. Israel does not have a "side" - what it is doing is morally and legally wrong, and there can be no justification for it.
@ maryam; I agree 100% with your comment: "The Palestinians have been put in the absurd position of having to bargain and "negotiate" for the return of land that belongs to them in the first place,..."
As Norman Finkelstein said, and myself before him; the path is clear; a system has already been constructed to bring about peace and justice. That system is international law. just follow the law. What could be more simple? Alas the US will not allow it.
@Rehmat; in regards to your post on 'The Wandering Who?' you state Gilad Atzmon sees both the zionists and anti-zionists as two faces of the same coin. I have seen the same thing but I do not call them anti-zionists. I am an anti-zionist. I think they must be what I jokingly call, humanitarian zionists. These are the people who abhor the bloodshed and strenuously object to the zionist methods. On the surface one might come to believe that they could be labelled as pro Palestinian. However when you read a little deeper; you come to see they too covert the creation of ersatz israel. It is not the theft and ethnic cleansing that bothers them; just the method the israeli government uses.
Atzmon's book is interesting first of all because only a Jew could ever get away with writing it. He points out that the Jews' history, as perceived by them, has created a collective consciousness that transcends the "Zionist" and "anti-Zionist" memes. He illustrates that the existential fear of annihilation is the driving force - he calls it Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. It is this fear that prevents any real anti-Zionist movement from forming among the world's Jews. This is why we saw, for example, 94 percent of Israelis supporting the horrific attack on Gaza in 2008-2009. He also discusses the disproportionate use of force and sheer cruelty of the Israeli forces, and the depersonalization of Arabs.
Indeed, there is a deep fealty of Jews to the cause of keeping the tribe alive. Even the anti-zionist Jews who protest in Bilin or work actively to drive the BDS movement will only go so far; and look at Finkelstein's recent faux pas where he trashed the BDS movement, calling it a "cult" and claiming it "is trying to destroy Israel."
Maryam; I saw that video you mention. Looking beyond the obvious, I was trying to read the cause of this outburst. It seemed to me, that Finkelstein had some kind of personal issue with the leadership of BDS. Even though he says otherwise, i don't think he has a problem with the effort at all. I think it was all personal. As someone who works with senior citizens; I also feel that he may be suffering from the beginning stages of age dependent mental issues.
Norman has done a great job and I thank him for that. I think though, that now might be a good time for him to retire; before he does real damage to his reputation.
Dear Alan,
I am convinced there will be no "second Holocaust" nor just "another great turning against the Jews", BUT a Third World War started by Israel and followed suit by their closest satellite state, the USA, with lots of used atomic weapons and hundred or more millions of killed people including Israeli and other Jews.
And the predictions of Kissinger and Golda Meir will become terrible reality!
@David King, unfortunately Finkelstein has long objected to BDS but in the video, he goes too far. His insufferable arrogance (or a case of indigestion) resulted in his infamous remarks calling it a "cult," as well as a bashing and belittling of the entire solidarity movement. Thus, he has bitten the hand that has fed him since the time Alan Dershowitz caused him to be denied tenure at DePaul University. It was rumored that Finks tried to get the video "pulled" in a fit of remorse, but it was too late; zionist groups had already copied it and made it go viral.
@Maryam
"It was rumored that Finks tried to get the video "pulled" in a fit of remorse, but it was too late; zionist groups had already copied it and made it go viral."
I hope that this is true. If so perhaps it will weigh sufficiently on his mind to cause a conscious redirection in his attitude. If not, it won't concern me. The free Palestine movement does not depend on one man. It's power is that it is a mass movement without borders.
In regards to zionists, they can make it go viral for ever and a day. They have no currency among the international community.
I would like to also add; that while watching one video earlier today, I came across the "anti-zionist" tag. Apparently an anti-zionist is a zionist that disagrees with the israeli governments methods. If that is the accepted definition - and I don't know if it is - then without doubt it is a sham. I consider myself an anti-zionist; and the definition I attach to that, is someone who wishes to see the end of the zionist movement.
The video I was watching was of Jeff Halper. It was almost painful to watch; as he participated in mental gymnastics for the camera. He was desperate to come up with a perspective that would salve his conscious, assist the Palestinian people, and divine the path for peace in the region; ignoring the whole of his fumbling way, the white elephant in the room. That the only way peace and justice will be achieved, is when international law is allowed to operate. That will result in the dismantling of ersatz israel and the deportation of the European population.
I also watched another video of Noam Chomsky. He is a very educated man. Very well spoken and very knowledgeable. I enjoy listening to him and have learnt many things. However, the last part of the presentation concerned answering questions. Some of what he had to say here was a real eye opener. He in my opinion mixed in some obvious zionist propaganda to the detriment of the free Palestinian movement. You may know that Chompsky is a zionist.
What not one of these "humanitarian zionists" will make eye contact with, or give voice to, is that the lack of will by the US to force a position on both parties; only allows the domino pieces to keep falling. The inevitable conclusion: a single Palestinian state devoid of a zionist population. Consider the growing demographic bomb. I think that brings us back neatly to Alan's article.
Yes, I consider Chomsky, Finkelstein and Halper Zionists. To specifically mention Harper - his only objective is to stop house demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem simply because he believes they go against Israel's best interests.
The demographic "bomb" scares the hell out of Israelis, but it is because they are afraid eventually they will be outnumbered by Arabs, who will "drive them into the sea." Existential fear rules every attitude. Existential fear also drives their need to completely obliterate and erase Palestinians from the pages of time. To deny they exist in the first place (another tenet of hardcore Zionism) is part and parcel of the machinery in place that assuages guilt. After all, if there are no Palestinians, there are no people who are suffering at zionist hands.
The anti-Semitism (or Jew hate) we're seeing these days is a direct by-product of zionism, and is in fact intentional because it reinforces the perceived "need" for a "safe haven" for the world's Jews.
[...] is giving a talk in Luxembourg with the title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism).http://www.alanhart.net/is-holocaust-ii-shorthand-for-another-great-turning-against-the-jews-inevita...ZIONISM IS JUST MODERN NAZISM.THEY BOTH NEEDED AND FED OFF EACH OTHER. ZIONISM IS JUST INEFFICIENT [...]
The concern is valid. In Venezuela, where I live, the articles written by Venezuelan Jews conform to an awful "Israel is always right". It is specially upsetting because we could expect that living far away from Israel, they could keep their heads cold and see the obvious criminal behaviour of Israel. But they cannot separate themselves from the Zionists. So, it is difficult for the rest of us not see the Jews in general but as accomplices of Zionists criminals. Even Venezuelan Moises Naim, who was Director of Foreign Policy, seems to follow the Zionist agenda, singling out Islamic extremists as danger to world peace without mentioning the blatant despisement of Israel for International Law.
I hope that Venezuelan Jews, and Jews around the world, will establish movements like "Not in Our Name" (in Argentina "En nuestro nombre no")
@Maryam
As you mentioned previously; the dialogue is controlled by the zionists. I would like to hear from Chompsky; Finkelstein, Halper and alike; how it is; that they have studied the situation to the point, that they know such details of wrongdoings by zion but they have never considered that the most appropriate option is just to reverse it all and deport the zionists?
In regards to your comments on zionist need to erase Palestinians: this is the best reason to have them charged under international law for war crime and crimes against humanity. They must be treated as the Nazis were. When they go to bed at night, they can reflect on the similarities.
I mentioned previously that I jokingly refer to these people as humanitarian zionists. I say jokingly; because there is no such thing as degree. You are a zionist or you are not a zionist; in the same way as you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. If you believe in zionism, you believe in ethnic cleansing.
@cuthulansnewshit regarding: title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism
My constant question to the zionists is this: How is it; that a god would give his people something (Palestine), the taking of which, would break all of his laws?
I'm sick to death of Chomsky, Finkelstein, et al. One thing Alan doesn't mention, but always goes through my head, is that Jews control the Palestine Solidarity's narrative just as much as they control the Zionist narrative as well.
The Palestinian voice must be heard, and heeded. We hear from Jews - Akiva Eldar, Amira Hass, Uri Avnery, Max Ajl, Stephen Lendman, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Phil Weiss, Richard Silverstein and others - but only a handful of Palestinians - Ali Abunimah, Huwaida Arraf, Ramzy Baroud and a few others. There must be a louder Palestine voice. The Palestinians will liberate themselves but they need to do the work.
Jews control the Palestine Solidarity's narrative just as much as they control the Zionist narrative as well.
You know Maryam; I have never really considered that. Thank you for pointing it out. I will have to put some thought into it.
Chompsky was in Sydney a few weeks back. I only saw the poster a few days after his talk. I will have loved to go and asked him a few question on this topic.
Thank you Maryam.
Steve Naidamast - It's not only in the US that criticism of Zionist regime's policies are considered anti-Semitism. The same applies to Britain, France, Germany, Australia and Canada. Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, is on record saying in 2010: "Critcism of Israel is just old-fashion anti-Semitism".
Current, in Britain - Barroness Jenny Tong is being hounded down for saying her peace on Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/baroness-tonge-israel-will-not-go-on-for-ever/
The entity of zionism is a mixed stew of heritage (many times false - how many Jews are actually Semitics, and how many are converts or the descendants of converts), culture, religion, political imagination, and Christianity (the evangelical movement in the US is overwhelmingly Christian Zionist).
It's most unfortunate about Baronness Tong, who should dump the elitist "title" and keep herself away from phony "activists" such as Ken O'Keefe. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Perhaps she would not have had a problem if O'Keefe hadn't been one of the speakers at that evening's festivities.
@ Jack: Some people might think that the zionists are just misunderstood; others just that they have something to gain and so are the opposition; others look a little deeper and see their crimes and believe that they are bad people; but you and me Jack, we know, that they are none of these things. We know that they are evil, in the true sense of the word.
@ Maryam: Agree again. I saw the article about Baroness Tong. Baroness sounds utterly ridiculous. Also one of my favourite lines is Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I have used it many times.
I have no problem with Baroness Tonge or what she said; I have a big problem that she appeared with the odious lunatic (and probable criminal) Ken O'Keefe. No better way to lose credibility than to appear publicly with that Jew-hating, rabble-rousing egomaniac.
@ Maryam, I have never heard of either of these two. Just that the appellation of Baroness, sounds pompous to my ears. Then I am Australian: and bow to no man.
The Baroness should dump the title, it's elitist and silly. She is a member of Parliament in the UK. Ken O'Keefe, on the other hand, is an extremist windbag with delusions of megalomania with a following consisting in large part of Jew haters and cultists. He is also under investigation in the UK for financial fraud pertaining to the mishandling of donations to his "Palestine projects" and I have been a target of personal attacks by himself and his followers because I have asked him to disclose how he spends financial contributions. For example, he has yet to tell the world what he and his friends did with a $55,000 donation from the now-defunct Qaddafi Foundation which was ostensibly to charter a boat to Gaza. The man has almost no credibility left.