Saturday, March 26, 2005

The Jews-Only State in Palestine: Part Three

Jews-Only Fantasies.
There are also what might be called jews-only fantasies which are shared by virtually all jews whether they live in the jews-only state or not. Perhaps the most well known is that prior to the second world war when jews were thinking about moving to palestine to establish a jews-only state they frequently argued that nobody was living there, "Israel Zangwill's 1901 assertion that "Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country". It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace." (Michael Neumann ‘What is Antisemitism?’ June 4, 2002).

Another jews-only fantasy is that the jews did not drive palestinians out of palestine - they left of their own accord, "Mr. Ben Gurion's first claim that the Arab exodus from Palestine was provoked by directives from the leaders of the surrounding Arab states has been shown by overwhelming historical research to be false." (William Martin ‘Who is Pushing Whom into the Sea?’ March 11, 2005); "But Wiesel cannot even bring himself to tell the truth about what caused their diaspora. He continues to spread one of the most insidious myths in Zionist discourse saying, "Incited by their leaders, 600,000 Palestinians left the country convinced that, once Israel was vanquished, they would be able to return home." Wiesel knows Arab leaders did not tell their people to leave; that lie was thoroughly disproved by historians years ago. Second, he knows that the best estimates are that 750,000 Palestinians fled in 1948. (Note the outrage by Wiesel and others whenever anyone dares to question the number of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.) And third, these original Palestinian refugees did not just leave; they were driven out, often by the very terrorists for whom Wiesel proudly worked. The massacre at Deir Yassin was emblematic of this." (Letter by Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered - February 26, 2005).

The third major jews-only fantasy is that despite being driven out of palestine, the palestinians threatened to drive the jews into the sea, "On 11 October 1961 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion declared in the Israeli Knesset: 'The Arabs' exit from Palestine...began immediately after the UN resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive'. The phrase "push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It is a highly emotive phrase invoking images of the Holocaust, though adapted to a Mediterranean setting. Mr Ben Gurion gives no attribution for this phrase, nor does he claim that it is a quote from an Arab source. It is expressed here as if it is his personal surmise as to the Arab army's intentions. The phrase has been variously attributed by Zionist supporters to Yasser Arafat, Gamel Abdul Nasser, or any other of Israel's enemies, but none whom I have challenged, including U S Congressman Henry Waxman who made the claim in a letter to me, attributing the phrase to Nasser, have been able to provide any documentation of support for their claim. The speech by Mr. Ben Gurion appears to be the origin of the phrase. The phrase, thus, has a Jewish origin and not an Arab origin. Mr Ben Gurion is the originator of the phrase, in all likelihood." (William Martin ‘Who is Pushing Whom into the Sea?’ March 11, 2005).

The Taboo against Criticisms of the Jews-only State.
It has to be wondered, how much further this trend will go in the future? In america, the zionists have created a political taboo against criticisms of the zionist state. "Although criticism of specific Israeli policies is permissible in the United States, it is more or less forbidden to express fundamental criticism of the Zionist state, of America's basic policy of support for Israel, or of the Jewish-Zionist grip on the US media or America's political and academic life. (Remarkably, this is in contrast to the situation in Israel itself, where Jews and even Arab citizens of the Zionist state have much greater freedom than Americans publicly to criticize Zionism and Israeli policies.) Prominent persons who dare to violate this prohibition are immediately castigated as "anti-Semitic" (that is, anti-Jewish), and pay a heavy price in damage to their reputations or careers. Politicians who publicly speak out against America's support for Zionism risk almost certain political ruin. Among the political or governmental figures whose careers were destroyed because they violated the powerful taboo have been US Senators William Fulbright, Adlai Stevenson III, and Charles Percy, Congressmen Paul McCloskey and Paul Findley, and Deputy Secretary of State George Ball." (Abdullah Mohammad Sindi ‘How the Jewish-Zionist Grip on American Film and Television Promotes Bias Against Arabs and Muslims’ Institute for Historical Review c1999).

The Jews-only Global Anti-Discrimination Law.
However, this taboo is not enough for the zionists. They want to pass legislation which equates criticism of the jews-only state in palestine with anti-semitism and also outlaws anti-semitism - thereby making criticism of the jews-only state illegal. There is no other people around the world who insist that their government should be protected against all criticisms. What such zionist-induced legislation in america will do is to create the only state in the world which is beyond criticism even though it is the most racist society on Earth. "Coincidentally, a letter to the editor by the same rabbi appeared the following day. It was in the same vein, observing that the critical letters to the editor had taken away her sense of belonging to the Santa Fe community, and concluding that the Jews’ two millennia of persecution should be taken into account when considering Israel’s actions, that we do not have the right to talk about the conflict because we don’t live there, and that in the end "What makes most sense is not to offer an opinion about this complicated and painful conflict." The notion that no one who does not live there can criticize Israel is a common escape for people like this. These same people never have trouble criticizing the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza although they don’t live there either." (Kathleen Christison American Jewish sensitivities to criticism of Israel’ February 07, 2004).

The Jews-Only American Media and the Jews-only American Politics.
In america, the zionist domination of the media is so great it is almost on the verge of becoming a ‘jews-only’ industry. In american politics, the zionists are taking over more and more departments of state. "The neoconservatives are the greatest threat America has ever faced, and they control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ February 21, 2005). The chances of a moslem or arab person getting a job in an american administration are virtually zero. If current trends continue then we are headed for a ‘jews-only’ american state where the only non-jews permitted will be shabbat goys who support everything done by ariel sharon.

Isn’t the Phrase 'Jews-Only' Racist?
It might be argued that the above criticisms of the jews-only state, with its jews-only religion, jews-only political rights, jews-only legal rights, jews-only culture, jews-only borders, jews-only employment, jews-only land ownership, jews-only planning laws, jews-only roads running between jews-only settlements/villages/towns/cities, jews-only immigration, jews-only cemeteries, jews-only racists (openly racist jewish politicians), jews-only marriages, jews-only prerogatives in international law, the nazis’ jews-only slaughter, the jews-only holocaust, the jews-only holocaust compensation, jews-only fantasies, jews-only taboos, the criticism free jews-only state, etc. might have some merit but this merit is ruined by the use of the word ‘jew’ which suggests such criticisms are at the very least anti-semitic if not racist. Kathleen and bill christison avoid any charge of anti-semitism or racism by talking about "Israeli-only settlements, Israeli-only roads" (Kathleen and Bill Christison ‘On Israel/Palestine An Exchange with Bennie Morris’ October 2/3, 2004). But, as has been suggested above, this is not technically correct. Although palestinian-israelis are theoretically allowed to travel on these roads, in practice this is not possible because the roads link one jews-only settlement/town/city to another. It is much more accurate to say that they are jews-only roads running between jews-only settlements.

But surely, it might be argued, the use of the phrase "jews-only" is wrong since it implies a condemnation of jewish people around the world for what is being done in their name by the jews-only state in palestine. Aren’t these "jews-only" criticisms blatantly wrong because they have got nothing to do with jews outside the jews-only state? Two points need to be made. Firstly, some of the jews-only phenomena outlined above refers to jews outside the jews-only state. For example, the jews-only holocaust compensation, the jews-only fantasies, jews-only taboos, the criticism free jews-only state, the jews-only american media, the jews-only american political system, etc.

Secondly, with some notable exceptions on what is regarded as the political extremes, no mainstream jewish organization anywhere around the world has demanded an end to the jews-only state, or criticized the jews-only state’s jews-only policies, or opposed jews-only racists from entering the jews-only government, or insisted that the jews-only state abides by un resolutions, or asked that the jews-only state gives up its weapons of mass destruction in the same way as these organizations demanded such things of saddam, "Leading pro-Israeli organizations in the United States have pointedly refused to condemn Ariel Sharon's inclusion in his new government of the National Union alliance parties whose members ran for election on a platform openly advocating the "transfer" or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The National Union is made up of three parties, Moledet, Tekuma and Israel Beitenu and won seven seats in the recent Israeli election. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which boasts of "90 years fighting anti-Semitism, bigotry and extremism," also remained publicly silent. The very high tolerance for racist and potentially genocidal ideas that Foxman evinces when they come from Israelis is not evident in other, lesser cases. For example, when the far-right Freedom Party made gains in Austria's elections in 2000 on an anti-immigrant platform, Foxman issued a statement saying, "It is astonishing that a significant portion of the [Austrian] population is ready to embrace a party and leadership that espouse xenophobic and nativist positions and statements." (ADL press release, 1 February 2000)." (Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 3.3.2003). In addition, very few jews outside the jews-only state have criticized the state’s jews-only policies. In other words, virtually all jews around the world support the jews-only nature of the zionist state in palestine and the jews-only state’s flouting of international law.

Kathleen christison paints an accurate picture of the nature of jewish support for the jews-only state in palestine. She starts off by talking about the views of the jewish historian benny morris. "This was a day or two after this paragon of dispassionate Israeli scholarship had expostulated in an interview published in Ha’aretz on the benefits (if you’re Jewish) of ethnic cleansing, the critical miscalculation of David Ben-Gurion in not having completed the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River in 1948 when he had a chance, and the barbarity of Arab and Muslim culture. "The Arab world as it is today is barbarian," Morris declared. Islamic and Arab culture is "a world in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West," in which freedom and democracy are alien, in which there are "no moral inhibitions." He was speaking in sweeping terms, of entire cultures, of the mass of individuals in the Arab and the Muslim worlds, not merely of governments that are oppressive or undemocratic. Palestinians in particular, Morris believes, are barbaric, "a very sick society," and should be treated "the way we treat individuals who are serial killers. . . . Something like a cage has to be built for them." (Kathleen Christison ‘American Jewish sensitivities to criticism of Israel’ February 07, 2004).

Morris’s comments are blatantly anti-palestinian and racist, and yet he regards himself as still being a leftist. If leftist jews hold such views then just imagine the views of those on the right of the political spectrum. Christison concludes, "Benny Morris - who still considers himself a leftist, still favors establishment of a Palestinian state in part of Palestine, still exposes Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians in his examination of early Israeli history - is one of those people Meir Kahane was describing, and he speaks for large numbers of his fellow Israelis and his fellow Jews throughout the world. Morris’s blunt soul-bearing has lifted the last barrier of propriety to the open expression of raw Arab hatred. One longs for some gigantic outcry of opposition or disgust over this confession of deep bigotry, but there has been none. Except for a few letters to the editor of Ha’aretz from American Jews, the interview has aroused little attention in the Jewish-American community: no denunciation, no shock, little or no discussion on any but the most progressive Jewish e-mail lists. You have to assume that, however awkward Morris’s blunt language may be, he is speaking for a large segment of American Jews who say they oppose the occupation, say they hate Sharon, say they hate Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, but who do nothing about any of these things and who in the end would not grieve, either for the Palestinians or for the Jewish soul, if Israel wiped the Palestinians off the map." (Kathleen Christison ‘American Jewish sensitivities to criticism of Israel’ February 07, 2004).

Michael neumann reaches similar conclusions to christison but from a philosophical standpoint, "Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or - as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you - for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here. Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that's just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic. In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn't, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all?" (Michael Neumann ‘What is Antisemitism?’ June 4, 2002).

The jews-only policies outlined above are the manifestations of the perennial jewish belief in their choseness, their superiority over all other races on Earth. Even secular jews seem to believe that as people of the book they should abide only by laws handed down to them by their jews-only god. As hannah arendt once argued, "If you do not dissent then you consent."