Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 12

Section 2: [Continuation: Deconstructed Contents]

Kay: If the Arabs had accepted the two-state solution proposed by the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have been living in their own state for 60 years in peace with Israel. Why do you blame Israel for Arab intransigence and stupidity?

Refutation: Interestingly, lacking a coherent theory of explanation, Kay undermines her argument (Part 10) about stopping population transfers by injecting the infeasible formula of “retroactive suppositions.” Now, she seemed to suggest that the transfer of targeted population should halt at a point in time favorable to the dispossessors. Not only that, but by dint of the same implication, she suggests that the Palestinians should have accepted the dispossession of more than half their territory.

Dialectically, this type of reasoning is both: flawed and worthless. In figurative terms: imagine that we rob you, then turn around and ask you to accept our robbery and its consequences upon you. Now, imagine that you vehemently reject and then resist our proposal and begin fighting back to recover your possession. A this point, imagine that because you refused to be subjugated to our bullying, we just go ahead and lay the blame on you for refusing our generous offer that, if accepted, will only consolidate our supremacy over you, your existence, and your destiny. Now, imagine that we are the Israelis and you are the Palestinian.

Additionally, one should never loose sight of a few facts: 1) western colonialist powers installed Israel, 2) hence, Israel could have never started by its own internal force, and 3) these same powers then imposed the two-state solution. Consequently, that solution was illegal under natural law. To illustrate this point, let us paint another scenario. Imagine that we rob you but that all Dick and Janes of the world approve of it. Now, would that make our robbery legal in your eyes, and would it be acceptable to you?

Logically therefore, Kay’s bogus conclusion: “they would have been living in their own state for 60 years in peace with Israel” is historically and ethically nil and void. This is especially true considering that the nature of the Zionist state (which is colonialist expansionism) and its role as the spear point for western imperialisms impedes any peaceful co-existence in its artificially created milieu. By analogy, if the Kay clan is dispossessed and the dispossessor of the Kay clan can get some legal authority to ratify a partitioning of the former Kay residence such that the Kay clan is granted permission to live in the basement, then the Kay clan would be, by her own argument, stupid to refuse.

Kay [to Kim]: You mention the expulsion of the European Jews. I notice you fail to mention the expulsion of the Jews in Arab lands, of which there were 600,000, the exact same number as the Palestinians.

Refutation: For starters, if an independent international committee with knowledge of history and the development of world societies would want to give a special trophy to the most outrageous liars of all time, it is probable that Zionists would win without trouble. Figuratively, lies are the cement that holds the Zionist falsifications of history together. But this cement is temporary in nature, brittle inside, and thus cannot withstand the simplest of verification tests.

Let us have a look at recent history:

First, historical facts do not support the claim that Germany or Italy expelled 600,000 European Jews out of Europe. Expulsion is not the term. Because of the conditions created by World War 2, there had been a huge efflux of European Jewish refugees and immigrants. However, we do not have exact data on their number, and if a number exists, then it is normally inflated.

Second, Zionist movements in Europe together with western colonialist powers rendered help to Jewish refugees and engineered their transfer — especially to Palestine — out of European is not supported by historical facts. Most important, if European powers persecuted their nationals of Jewish faith, we do not see any rational that the Palestinians must pay for it. This is extremely important considering that in the sixth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland of 1903, Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, discussed and then rejected a proposal to establish a Jewish state in Uganda. The meaning of this is paramount: The Zionist movement had no any historical claim over Palestine, since they were shopping to establish a Jewish state wherever the conditions were propitious. From a British colonialist viewpoint, establishing such a state in Palestine was a winning move owing to the discovery of oil in Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf region.

Third, the expulsion of Arabs of Jewish faith including a genuine minuscule minority of descendents from the ancient Hebrews (not to be mixed with European converts to Judaism), did not happen automatically, but was, again, engineered by Britain, France, and the United States. Notorious among these facts of social engineering was Operation Babylon where Britain, with the complicity of an “Iraqi government” under British neo-colonial rule (1921-1958), carried out the exodus of Iraqi Arabs of Jewish faith to Israel. According to Iraqi records, the number of those Iraqis transferred to Palestine could not have exceeded 80,000-110,000.

Fourth, the total number of Arabs of Jewish faith from Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. that Britain (again with the complicity of Arab rulers under its control) managed to send to OCCUPIED PALESTINE so the newly formed Zionist state would not collapse because of lack of population, could not have exceeded at best the 200,000. Any number beyond this is falsification.

DISCUSSION: Zionist literature about a so-called forced transfer of Arabs of Jewish faith to the newly established Zionist “state” of Israel is not only abundant but also of flooding nature. It is really beside the point to state that Zionists authored this literature not because of a debt to history but because of intense intent to deceit western readers. Opposing Arab literature also abounds, but the invariable fact that emerges from the Arab literature is that Britain and France which rule the Arab Middle East as colonial powers arranged those transfers with Arab governments that were neither independent not sovereign.

In addition, whether in Operation Babylon (in Iraq) or the Lavon Affair (in Egypt), it was British Zionist agents who engineered acts of violence against the Jewish population to ease their transfer. In the specific case of Iraq, Shlomo Hillel (calling himself an Iraqi Jew) described his Operation Babylon in romantic overtones as if the story were a novel, and Iraqi annals of history do not corroborate his many details. The infamous Lavon Affair (Operation Susannah), where Zionist Jews engineered violence against Egyptian Jews to ease their transfer to Israel, is a patent example how the transfer of a part of the Arab Jewish population happened. This is the hideous face of Zionist disinformation; it ascribes its own crimes and western imperialist crimes (committed with a handful of collaborator Arabs) against Arab Jews to the otherwise innocent Arab population.

Since discussing this subject is not the purpose of this series, and regardless of all the preceding, we shall not loose sight of the only problem in the Middle East: Israeli existence in the Middle East was not a product of so-called Zionist nationalism but a product of colonial arrangements. Even if we were to acknowledge the existence of Israel as a “normal state” in the region, said acknowledgment does not resolve the Palestinian issue, nor will it lead Israel to de-nuclearize or cease its quest to control the Arab states or pervert their socio-political, religious, and cultural orders.

On the other hand, whatever the number of Jewish peoples transferred to Palestine, the fact remains that the installed Zionist “state” (a state without resources or proper state structures) managed to administer such enormous human waves of immigrants, proves that without an astronomical infusion of western money to prop up the exclusivist Jewish entity, Israel could not have survived long. The following links provide documentation on the size and scope of the US financial and military aid1 to sustain Israeli racism and occupation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese lands:

Kay: Except they were not left to rot by their brethren as the Arab refugees were; they were absorbed by Israel, just as the Arab refugees should have been absorbed by Jordan, since ethnically they are Jordanians.

Refutation: With this statement, Kay mixes obvious Zionist fallacies, stark manipulation, and macroscopic ignorance. Let us deconstruct Kay’s statement attentively.

One: It is the apogee of arrogance that Zionists created the Palestinian problem but want the Arabs to resolve its consequence. Specifically, why do Kay and Zionists create the problem and Kay wants Jordan or other Arabs to resolve it? Why make a space for people who came from every corner of the world just because they profess to practice Judaism although they have no ethnic affinity with each other? Again, a rhetorical question may clarify the situation: Would you accept that we rob you, take your home, orchid, furniture, and seize your bank accounts, but then ask your other family members to compensate you and offer you shelter in their homes, while we enjoy the home, the orchid, and the money we took from you?

Two: The division of the Arab world is part of divide-and-conquer tactics of imperialist powers. Kay’s discussion of Arab and Jewish “brethren” is fanciful and deceptive. For instance, Jews, unlike Arabs, are not brethren — tribes, maybe, but not brethren. While Jews may be connected among all tribes by religious affiliation (and even this does not hold universally), they are not ethnically related across all tribes. Arabs, however, constitute an ethnicity.

We stated that Kay has displayed macroscopic ignorance. This is why: she alluded to how Jordan could have absorbed the Palestinians “since ethnically they are Jordanians.” To apprise Kay, Jordan is a monarch-controlled political state and not an ethnic entity; it counts among its people groups of diverse ethnic origins including Arabs, Arameans, Greeks, and Turks, as well as a labor pool that includes many Egyptians and Iraqis. The point is: interchanging nationhood with ethnicity is either an ideological gizmo to prepare for an apartheid state or ignorance on semantic differences.

We merely note the discrimination faced by Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews from Ashkenazi Jews,2 and challenge the statement that “Jews were not left to rot by their brethren” with the statement by earlier Zionist leader David Ben Gurion:

Were I to know that all German Jewish children could be rescued by transferring them to England and only half by transfer to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people.3

Kay: So let me ask you: Was it wrong for the Arabs to expel Jews from their lands? And since I now assume you will say yes, why don’t we agree to call it a draw.

Refutation: Kay is posing a hollow rhetorical question with no merit or cogency — read all the arguments and facts we have reported thus far. Second, she assumes wrongly. First, we stake our position based in a simple morality, on principle. Hypothetically, accepting Kay’s allegation of Arab Jews being expelled from Arab lands (which we do not accept), we state unequivocally that Jews who are indigenous to the Middle East (Mizrahi and some Sephardic Jews) and who have maintained peaceful residence in the territory (or are refugees) have a right of secure residence free from discrimination. Arab Jews, and other Jews, are entitled to all their rights that any other humans have. We certainly do not argue for disenfranchisement of Jewish rights or any other groups’s human rights. We firmly uphold equality of rights for all humans. Our purpose is solidarity for the human rights of Palestinians since it is they who are suffering from their rights being violated.

As for the rest, it is axiomatic that people of Jewish faith have the rights of all humans to make residence. They have a right to make a fair living. But Jews do not have the right to invade and dispossess other people, just as Nazis and western colonialists did not have the right to invade, persecute, murder, and dispossess other peoples. We base our stand on an immutable humanistic principle that all people share the same rights equally. And deviation from this principle would constitute intentional supremacist racism.

Kay: The Arabs are now happily free of Jews, and Israel — while happily living with their 1 million Arab citizens — is also happily free of those Palestinians who wish them dead.

Refutation: With this, Kay reached the peak of insipid rhetorical garbage. Dissection is not required.

Conclusion

In a Marxian sense, being a manifestation of ideology, racism is a superstructure to a material base that determines its magnitude and direction. Many factors exert influence, including an inculcated sense of racial superiority, transmitted or acquired religious or non-religious forms of prejudice against nations or groups with different belief systems, and historically stratified anti-group indoctrinations.

Categorically though, racism emerges for three main purposes: 1) to achieve territorial conquest (in this case, racism justifies violence to achieve that conquest), 2) to maintain the post-conquest status quo, and 3) to keep a group of people or nations under protracted or permanent subaltern role to justify economic exploitation.

While racism implies intense or even virulent dislike of specific others and could eventually extend to include the physical application of institutionalized ideological hatred as in anti-group and anti-nation violence, as well as multifaceted discrimination against targeted victims, the term itself, as evolved now, no longer targets the victim of racism based on race, color, somatic, or anthropological traits. Rather, it is now a policy that targets the victims based on other attributes such as beliefs, place of origin, city of origin, region of origin, and national origin as in belonging to a specific political state.

A powerful expression of this type of encompassing geographical racism is the violence unleashed by Zionism and American imperialism against all nations extending from western Asia between the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean, excluding Israel, and to the western borders of India, and against all nations living in the southern Mediterranean shores extending to the Horn of Africa and Sudan. And that is regardless of all other attributes that distinguish the groups living in these regions.

Does this observation raise any specific question? Of course, Zionism, Israel, and the United States elevated anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments to an irrational level for the sole purpose to impose imperialism and a neo-colonialism. Likewise, all recent colonialist policies that allowed Europeans settlers to destroy the Original Peoples living in the places they invaded by eradicating their familial, societal, cultural, religious, and politico-economic structures. While the violent duopoly of expropriation-appropriation at the expense of weaker nations or groups is the fundamental factor promoting violence, racism assumes the role of an ideological motivator and facilitator to implement the conquest of others’ territory and wealth.

Having extracted a fundamental relation that ties racism to conquest, understanding Israeli Zionist racism should be that of a logical inference, since Israel could have never existed without ingrained racism to keeps its basic ideology of conquest alive. After the colonization of Palestine in the early 20th century, racism among the newly arrived Jewish colonists against the invaded people began to rise with each act of resistance by the indigenous population against the colonization as a process and finality.

Zionism is irrefutably racist. The proof is the dispossession of and slow-motion genocide that Israel is waging against the Palestinians in the Middle East. This is why a state based on Zionism is not only a severe moral issue, but also a focal point of rejection, tension, and war. A state cannot expect reward or claim the right to exist through the monstrous crime of murdering and dispossessing an Indigenous people (or people of long-established, continuous, peaceful residence).

The tentacles of Zionism have pervaded much of the western world, in large part aided by infiltration of foreign governments and control of the corporate media. The crimes of Zionism and any such crimes against an identifiable group must be abhorred. Zionism, the Zionist state, and the Zionist Power Configuration must be steadfastly opposed based on a rock solid moral foundation.

In the end, Israeli racism is a double-edge sword: while it is destroying the Palestinians and promoting endless wars against the Arabs via the United States and Western Europe, ultimately it is going to destroy the humanity of people of Jewish faith, as such racism cannot generate but counter-racism.

On a wider note, Israeli racism coupled with the global imperialist ambition of the United States is not going to disappear because of fear of counter-racism by others. On the contrary, in absence of an equitable world order where the United and Israel can no longer rule unopposed, and in absence of effective Arab and Palestinian resistance, the logic of brutal force and pervasive fascism seem to feed and perpetuate Israeli racism, which is now the dynamic core of Israel’s colonialist and imperialist expansionism.

Read also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11.

  1. Since aid is supposed to be for humanitarian or altruistic purposes, it is a phantasmagorical leap to qualify assistance provided to a racist entity, such as Zionist Israel, as aid; it is an ideologically driven investment — NOT aid. []
  2. See “Olmert decries anti-Ethiopian racism,” JTA Breaking News, 9 December 2007. []
  3. Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust (Harcourt Brace & Company, New York: 1996). Quoted by David S. Wyman, “Rescue Efforts,” New York Times, 6 July 1997. []

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. They can be reached at: Petersen_sabri@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Kim Petersen, or visit Kim Petersen's website.

40 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. jaime said on January 10th, 2008 at 9:56am #

    The howlers in this screed are actually too numerous to list all in one place.

    But This one’s the worst, inspired most assuredly directly from that vile old Tzarist antisemitic forgery, the Grandaddy of all conspiracy theories: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

    “The tentacles of Zionism have pervaded much of the western world, in large part aided by infiltration of foreign governments and control of the corporate media.”

    Nice going , Kim.

    see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

  2. Michael Kenny said on January 10th, 2008 at 10:37am #

    What was the point of this long discourse? All nationalisms are, by definition, racist, so proving that Zionism is racist amounts to proving that blackbirds are black! All nationalisms rely on the singularity, the uniqueness, of the people who conceived them. All nationalisms postulate a territory which belongs solely to that people, who are defined by their ethnicity (language, religion, history etc.). So nothing special about Zionism there either.

    The big difference between Zionism and the European nationalisms to which it was a Jewish reaction is that the land that the Zionists claimed was occupied by someone else whereas European nationalisms claimed the territory which that people actually occupied. There were fights where several ethnic groups were mixed in the same area, and some of those fights are still going on today, but the European argument was not “God gave this land to us”, but “this land is ours because we live here”. By very definition, that criterion left the Jews high and dry because there was no land in Europe to which they could lay claim. They were permanent foreigners in someone else’s country. And worse, those “someone elses” didn’t like foreigners on their land!

    By failing to understand that, the authors have failed to understand why modern Israelis are so receptive to the sirens of political extremism. They see themselves as having nowhere else to go and thus having nothing to lose by fighting to the bitter end where they now stand.

    By engaging in hysterical ranting (and I can find no more polite form of words to describe the contents of these articles), the authors have, as can be seen from many of the comments, played into the hands of the Zionists and have done a disservice to those who are, quite rightly, in my opinion, critical of that ideology.

  3. Saad said on January 10th, 2008 at 11:24am #

    jamie wrote:

    >>Nice going , Kim.

    Nice going Kim AND B.J. Sabri, indeed!

    May I add one more point: Another example of how hopelessly racist are Zionists, is the fact that jamie had insisted in all his comments on addressing Kim and or other non-Arabs ONLY. He consistently ignored my comments and questions and refused to address B.J. Sabri the co-author of this great article series and an active author, may be because we carry Arabic names!

  4. Ralph Ray said on January 10th, 2008 at 12:27pm #

    Michael Kenney says: “The authors have, as can be seen from many of the comments, played into the hands of the Zionists . . .” What a curious comment! Mr. Kenney needs to provide some specific examples of what he is talking about. Unsupported assertions carry no weight, whether they are made by Zionists or by their opponents. The comments here from Zionists that I have read, however, have been so logically flawed and/or uninformed as to almost serve as their own rebuttal. I wonder which Zionist’s hands Mr. Kenney thinks the authors played into?

  5. Hue Longer said on January 10th, 2008 at 3:47pm #

    I am a Zionist and the authors have played into my hands…ha haha ha
    we will win now with your unknowing help…we are clever…ha haha ha

  6. jaime said on January 10th, 2008 at 4:39pm #

    Well Michael, see what happens when you don’t run with the herd?
    You made some good points, Lad.

    Saad, we haven’t seen any responses from BJ Sabri, and that’s fine.

    Meanwhile you really don’t HAVE to be an Arab to a racist and post stupid things online.

  7. dan elliott said on January 10th, 2008 at 5:00pm #

    Michael Kenney apparently believes that the Irish are racists because they have insisted that they are a Nation separate from the British Empah.

    Nations do exist; nations have the right of self-determination, if they truly possess all the attributes necessary to be called a nation. Peoples are not necessarily nations and do not necessarily possess the rights of nations, but have certain rights as peoples.

    Nations which have been conquered and colonized by other nations or empires have the right to resist being abused. Anti-Colonialist nationalism is by definition progressive, since it aims at liberation from oppression.

  8. Hatuxka said on January 10th, 2008 at 7:03pm #

    Now I am expecting you will go ahead and stitch this into a book. It puts the debate where it should be: should a state entity based on racism be allowed to continue to exist. This preempts and negates the relevance of arguments about Oslo, the roadmap, the two versus one state debate (how morally credible is a racist state alongside a bantustan? and thus there is really no two sides to that debate) and other diversionary, ultimately pro-Zionist themes.

  9. Deadbeat said on January 10th, 2008 at 7:03pm #

    Excellent series and thanks for providing a Marxist explanation of racism. Perhaps more Marxists should read DV and to educate themselves and learn to really confront racism. Unfortunately, there has been too many self-described “leftist” and “Marxists” that have spent more times and words obscuring racism as imperialism or something else in order to quash moral outrage and mobilization.

    Thanks Kim & B.J. for having the courage to confront this issue and to awaken the public about why Zionism is a racist ideology that must be confronted.

    Thanks too, for highlighting its influence on upon culture and the political economy. The clear and honest analysis that you’ve provided builds trust and solidarity. This series will certainly be referenced by activists heading into the future.

    Bravo!

  10. Ralph Ray said on January 10th, 2008 at 8:57pm #

    I agree with Saad, Dan, Hatuxka and Deadbeat. This is an excellent and informative series. Thank you Kim and BJ.

  11. Yitzchak Goodman said on January 10th, 2008 at 11:28pm #

    Third, the expulsion of Arabs of Jewish faith including a genuine minuscule minority of descendents from the ancient Hebrews (not to be mixed with European converts to Judaism)

    The article is nearly unreadable, but do I understand it correctly to be saying that European Jews are “converts”? Where did you get this information? Arthur Koestler? What are the sources for the statements in this article about the numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab countries?

  12. Hue Longer said on January 11th, 2008 at 12:34am #

    You think he had some good points did you jaime? Which of Michael’s points did you like? That he doesn’t dig Zionists ?

    Oh yes, Very good read and I echo Deadbeat’s thoughts on the conclusion

  13. Jo said on January 11th, 2008 at 11:39am #

    Hue Longer……what can be said about patriarchal, hierarchies of any country. Have you ever given any independent thought to anything? I don’t believe your name is Hue Longer either!

  14. sk said on January 11th, 2008 at 3:27pm #

    btw, a clip from a fascinating documentary that needs support for completion. Also, the stories of two of the persons interviewed, Ella Shohat and Naeim Giladi.

  15. Hue Longer said on January 11th, 2008 at 3:36pm #

    Jo,

    Either I’m not understanding you or you didn’t catch my humor

    I’m not a Zionist, I don’t agree with Michael Kenny and was pointing out that that doesn’t mean he agrees with our benighted friend jaime

    (And my name is not Huey Long or Hue Longer)

    peace

  16. jaime said on January 11th, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    “… European Jews are “converts”? Where did you get this information? Arthur Koestler? What are the sources for the statements in this article about the numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab countries?”

    Yitz, it case you didn’t notice, Kim makes much of his hysterical drivel up as he goes along.

    OK sometimes he borrows from the Protocols or whatever’s handy.

    Sources? You want sources?
    We don’t need no steenking sources!!!

    (With apologies to Humphry Bogart and the movie : Treasure of the Sierra Madre)

  17. Hue Longer said on January 11th, 2008 at 5:45pm #

    wiki anyone? I can make pigs fly over there, jaime

  18. Ralph Ray said on January 11th, 2008 at 8:15pm #

    “Yitz, in case you didn’t notice, Kim makes much of his hysterical drivel up as he goes along.”

    “OK sometimes he borrows from the Protocols or whatever’s handy.”

    Who besides Putz a would say “Yitz.” Or hysterically accuse someone else of being hysterical while hysterically referencing the Protocols as part of an attempted smear campaign. Jaime, what a Putz you are!!

  19. jaime said on January 11th, 2008 at 11:05pm #

    Stick around, Kid…soon we’ll be serving bagels and lox.

    Per above:

    “The tentacles of Zionism have pervaded much of the western world, in large part aided by infiltration of foreign governments and control of the corporate media.”

    This is a very basic premise of the Protocols.

    If it was good enough for the Tsar and Hitler, and good enough for Hezbollah and The Hamas, it’s certainly good enough for Petersen, Sabri, and apparently Ralphie, Hughie and you other nice village people.

    This one’s for you sweetie! Take it away Borat!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLF2d4_uRM

  20. Hue Longer said on January 12th, 2008 at 1:50am #

    Borat’s a classic example, jaime

    A zionist (he vacations in Israel) makes an ignorant racist character who’s ancestors threw Jews down wells…It’s soooooo fun laughing at him and all those dirty terrorists he “represents”, right?

  21. Deadbeat said on January 12th, 2008 at 12:20pm #

    Hue,

    I’ve never seen Borat but your synopsis is an excellent example of Zionism effect on culture. Culture influence perception and ultimately policies that the people support or persuaded to support. This yet another example of a problem being ignored by the “left” and why this series by Kim and BJ is extremely important.

  22. heike said on January 12th, 2008 at 1:06pm #

    ‘Before Sunset’ est l’archétype du film romantique. J’ai préféré cette fois m’ancrer davantage dans le réel. Dans le présent. C’est là qu’est, je pense, le vrai romantisme. Le vrai plaisir du couple. Si vivre avec quelqu’un peut être douloureux, il est encore plus douloureux de se séparer. Il est tellement rare de se sentir parfaitement connecté que, quels que soient les défauts ou les problèmes inhérents à tout couple, je crois qu’il est essentiel d’essayer à un moment donné de rester avec cette personne. C’est aussi une façon de mûrir. Et cela se passe souvent autour de la trentaine. J’ai 37 ans et je ne suis pas en avance pour fonder une famille. (rires) Je n’ai jamais vraiment eu le temps de relever la tête. J’ai pas mal galéré dans mes tentatives pour monter mes projets. Je me suis mise dans des situations qui repoussaient à chaque fois le “bon” moment. C’est juste très chiant d’être une femme. Quand je me présente avec mes scénarios de thriller, on me regarde avec de gros yeux. Je ne veux pas tomber dans la caricature de la féministe acharnée mais c’est une réalité que j’ai vécue. J’envoyais des scénarios avec des noms masculins. On me donnait le feu vert. Et lorsqu’on réalisait que le scénario provenait d’une femme, on me faisait comprendre de façon subtile que le projet n’irait pas plus loin. Tout ça pour dire que si j’avais pu être un homme, ça m’aurait facilité pas mal de choses. Le personnage de Marion dans le film a d’ailleurs des traits de caractère très masculins. C’est elle qui se bat dans les bars. C’est elle qui agresse les chauffeurs de taxis. C’est elle qui se montre protectrice à l’égard de son amoureux. Avec le recul, j’ai réalisé combien ce film révélait énormément de choses sur ce que je voudrais être et sur ce que je suis vraiment. C’est très freudien comme expérience et, par définition, totalement inconscient.

  23. Yitzchak Goodman said on January 12th, 2008 at 7:12pm #

    Who besides Putz a would say “Yitz.”

    I use the nickname myself. May I assume the questions I asked about sources are going to be answered?

    Yitz

  24. heike said on January 13th, 2008 at 10:11am #

    please remove my last post. it was sent by mistake and i tried to stop it before it went but unsuccessfully. it has nothing to do with the topic.

  25. jaime said on January 13th, 2008 at 11:06am #

    Pity, Heike’s cinema review makes more sense than Kim’s masterpiece.

  26. heike said on January 13th, 2008 at 1:09pm #

    Well Jaime, all I can say is that in a world of so much hate and tension, it’s nice to see that Mme. Delpy can appeal to the higher instincts of people in this world, and that she is universa

  27. heike said on January 13th, 2008 at 1:13pm #

    illy admired by people of the world’s great religions, including Islam. She can also poke fun at herself and others.

    (sorry, this went before I finished it or pressed anything!)

  28. Mike McNiven said on January 14th, 2008 at 2:18pm #

    In today’s world, zionism has “multinational” sponsors! The sponsors happen to be the imperialist countries! A partial list of those nations include:
    US, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria! An international regime of economic sanctions against all of them is more than urgent!

  29. sheldon g said on January 16th, 2008 at 10:24am #

    I support palestine, end zionist occupation!!!

  30. Angie Tibbs said on January 17th, 2008 at 1:43am #

    When Kim Petersen writes an article, be it alone or in corroboration with B.J. Sabri, a learned and respected writer in his own right, readers are guaranteed a factual, well written, well researched essay, complete with irrefutable logic. This twelve part series is a perfect example of the importance of Kim’s and B.J.’s contribution to the cause of social justice and truth. People purporting to be “writers” (i.e., in this case the hitherto little known Barbara Kay) constantly toss out unproven and outrageous claims as if they were gospel, but how quickly, easily, and completely the assertions of Kay were demolished by Mr. Petersen and Mr. Sabri! Ms. Kay, with her tiresome prattle, which can be found on any open forum, was left floundering wildly in her own revisionist propaganda.

    What can be more racist than the concept of a jews only state? Or a whites only state? Or a blacks only state? The mere suggestion reeks of an arrogance and bigotry that causes us to draw back in disgust. It’s even more nauseous when that racism is denied and/or foolish attempts made to defend same. The racism so deeply entrenched in zionism cannot be defended.

    When people of good conscience ignore racism, wherever its ugliness appears, we are failing in our mission to identify it and eradicate it. In the case of zionism and its odious entity, Israel, we cannot remain silent, and we cannot allow the truth to be pushed aside by supporters of this terrorist regime and its inherent racist policies and practices, while it and its supporters world wide pretend such racism is non-existent. The belligerent nationalism and racism of Israel, coupled with its arrogant, unsubstantiated belief that its people are superior to all others, represents zionism in all its indefensibility.

    When supporters of Israeli terrorism make loathsome, racist comments that reach the public domain, immediately we are treated to the familiar and wearisome “the remark has been taken out of context”. God forbid that the sick, distorted, hate-filled mindset of Israeli politicians and rabbis be repeated, discussed, condemned by a listening world. Which is why the minute such diatribes are published in some media outlet, be it print or television, the Israeli propaganda machine leaps into action.

    Israeli politicians and rabbis, however, are not the only ones who let their barely concealed civility slip to reveal their racist tendencies. I recall a spiel by Israeli writer, A.B. Yehoshua, (which appeared in Ha’aretz on March 19, 2004) wherein he urged in part: “After we take out the settlements, we would use force against an entire population, use force in a total manner. We would cut off the electricity in Gaza. We would cut off communications in Gaza. We would stop fuel supply to Gaza. It won’t be a desirable war, but definitely a purifying one.”

    Certainly the Israeli government and military, as we see today, paid attention to this warmongering individual purporting to be, as writer, Ran HaCohen, described him as “an old peacenik”. (Who knew, then, that he had been secretly harbouring a passion for the extermination of Gaza and its people?)

    Not to be outdone, Israeli poet, Ilan Shenfeld, in an overwrought impassioned plea to the war criminals in the Israeli government and military in the July 30, 2006 edition of Ynet, begged them (in part) to: “March on Lebanon and also on Gaza with ploughs and salt. Destroy them to the last inhabitant”.

    This sort of thing, thanks to the zionist controlled media, rarely gets beyond the initial outburst before it’s pushed under the proverbial rug, denied outright, or was “taken out of context”. All one has to do, however, is pay attention to Israeli newspapers, periodicals from zionist groups around the globe, statements made by Israeli “spokespersons”, etc. to realize how rampant these racist statements are.

    Which is why, of course, there are the Jamies of open forums (the names change, but the content never does) whose job it is to disrupt learned discussion by whatever means possible. We know the diversionist tactics by heart, and Jamie covered them all. There is a plea for honesty, implying dishonesty where none exists except in his own spiels; the ever present ridiculous reference to anti semitism and its derivatives, culminating with claims that readers want Israel destroyed. This is followed by a reference to another conflict occurring (or having had occurred) elsewhere in the world in an effort to draw our attention away from Israeli atrocities. Then there is a list of questions with an explicit or implied demand to reply to same, always with the constant irritating accusation “you didn’t answer my question”.

    To the Jamies who hang around open forums such as DV and elsewhere waiting to attack writers and equally the posters who defend them, take note. I do not respond to questions put to me by individuals supporting the terrorist state of Israel and its racism — period. This is a well known tactic destined to waste people’s time. It’s a game I refuse to play.

    We don’t need to look very far to be disgusted by Israeli racism — its racist marriage laws and jews-only roads are but a small part of it. The very essence of the state of Israel is racist, and one should always be cognizant of this fact.

    It’s a place built by force, and maintained by force, in someone else’s homeland, whose brutal history has been rewritten by zionist revisionists; a place where sadistic war criminals continue to escape punishment for their terrorist activities; a place where jews have their own laws, their own rights; a place where killing Palestinian and Lebanese people is applauded, and, in fact, encouraged; where torture is legal; where no one ever stands trial for the continual murder of Palestinian people, the destruction of their homes and lands, the curtailment of their freedoms and rights. In fact, the rights of the Palestinian people in their own homeland have been eradicated by a cruel, vicious, lying occupier caught up in its self-absorbed, whining victim persona which is quite laughable, really, in light of its murderous army and its cache of every weapon known to man including its nuclear capabilities. And there are fools out there who actually believe this blather.

    Which is why this excellent series by Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri is so hugely important. It dispels much of the misinformation and outright lies fed to the public on a continual basis by supporters of Israeli brutality and Israeli racism.

    My hope is that this series, showing the courage and determination of its authors in fighting zionist racism and its revisionist disinformation, will become a guiding light for all progressives as the fight against evil continues.

    As for the Jamies of this world, all is not lost. He and his ilk can always serve as a bad example.

  31. Shabnam said on January 17th, 2008 at 4:47am #

    Mike McNiven like Noam Chomsky, the Zionist, wants to have economic sanction against other imperialist countries but not against Israel since Chomsky and people like him support first and most the interest of the “Jewish state” Israel. Do you see Israel be part of McNiven’s list for economic sanction? Chomsky’s nonsense is repeated again that the imperialist is responsible for the crimes of Zionism and international community is responsible for “greater Israel” project which has fueled so many wars leading to nothing but death and destruction in the Middle East and beyond.

  32. Mike McNiven said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:53am #

    Addendum:

    Please expand and accelerate the divestment campaigns against Israel!
    Please implement all the UN Security Council resolutions against Israel!
    Viva Palestine!

    p.s. Capitalists are anti-Jew; Socialists are not anti-Jew, they are
    anti-zionism!

  33. Andre said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:27pm #

    I can’t thank Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri enough for this most excellent, well researched series of articles. You both have my deepest respect and I promise I will refer as many people as I can to read this publication to educate themselves on this subject. Once again, cheers!

  34. jaime said on January 18th, 2008 at 2:49pm #

    Hi Angie!
    Nice to see you back after you ran away from my “blood or ink” challenge.

    Angie wrote: “hitherto little known Barbara Kay…”

    Little known to you maybe, but she’s has a regular column with a real newspaper that has an audience of literally millions of people in Canada.

    What will it be?

    Ongoing warfare until either the Palestinians or the Israelis become extinct? (Blood)
    Or a negotiated homeland for the Palestinian Arabs, side by side with the majority Jewish state of Israel? (ink)

    Hint: Israel already exists.

  35. Angie Tibbs said on January 19th, 2008 at 2:28am #

    Jamie, he of the fictional claptrap passing for informed comment, accused me of “running away” before in DV. See http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/operating-beyond-the-law-israeli-agents-in-the-us/

    He wasn’t interested enough to ascertain whether I had replied to his hilariously asinine allegation, nor did he read my comments above. If he had, he’d not have me laughing uproariously by repeating his “question” here. Did I not state clearly I do not respond to questions put to me by supporters of Israeli terrorism? Learn to read, Jamie. That would be a welcome beginning. Then, perhaps, you could study history not attempt to rewrite it.

    The National Post is a zionist cheering excuse for a newspaper, hardly a shining example of unbiased and objective journalism.

    The infamous Barbara Kay (who foolishly and tellingly dragged Bernard Lewis, an Armenian holocaust denier, into the mix) may some day cease floundering about in zioinist disinformation and attempting to pass it off as truth; however, after reading her totally ineffectual and meaningless replies to Mr. Petersen learned comments, I doubt that will ever happen.

    Run along, Jamie. You are more to be pitied than blamed, continually regurgitating, as you do, the same brainwashed rhetoric we see wherever zionists gather. There is not an original thought in anything you’ve written.

    Foolish, unproven allegations, interspersed with flippant nothing comments, do not a contribution to a discussion make.

  36. jaime said on January 20th, 2008 at 3:13pm #

    “The National Post is a zionist cheering excuse for a newspaper…”

    Maybe, but it has a circulation of over 1.5 million a week.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Canadian_newspapers_by_circulation

    And the default choice for those who haven’t selected “ink” (negotiations) as an option…is blood.

    So spare us the crocodile tears, Angie. You’ve made your choice, now live with it. But spare us the pretensions of being a “peace” activist.

  37. Kim Petersen said on February 5th, 2008 at 7:57pm #

    Note for readers who are interested in studying European Jewish emigration to Arab Palestine or requested sources:

    Numerous scholarly sources treated this subject including publications by the British government, the Arab League, the United Nations, and other sources. When professing impartiality toward the subject, Zionist literature and propaganda are the worst source of information. A reliable source of figures on Jewish Emigration to Palestine is the Encyclopedia Britannica EDITION 1929. Although, its entry to Zionism has been written by Zionists or their sympathizers (for instance, it treated Palestine as if it were uninhabited as there has been no mention whatsoever, of the Palestinians!) that edition, because it was written much long before the foundation of Israel (where Zionism was not an international force), provides somewhat early figures on the size of the early emigration to Palestine. Also, we call on readers to carry out their own research by visiting the archives of the British Library to draw their own conclusions.

    However, in searching and writing this series and enumerating the magnitude of European Jewish emigration to Palestine, we depended on a source whose detailed documentation are immune from the infantile vilification and banal fanfare raised by some Zionist agitators without clue on history or the dialectics of discussion. Further, to inform the readers, when we wrote the series, we did not consider discussing the statistics on Jewish emigration to Palestine such an important topic because the MAIN AND ONLY issue was defining Israeli Zionist racism in its objective context as it is practiced today by the Israeli state.

    SOURCE

    =======

    Website: MidEast Web GateWay

    URL: http://www.mideastweb.org/

    Document: Population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine Statistical and Demographic Considerations, the Population of Palestine Prior to 1948

    URL: http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

    This is an extensive study that we recommend reading.

    Extract: In table 1: the population of Jewish faith that lived in Palestine in 1878 was 3.2% of the population or 15,001 individuals. BUT People of Jewish faith who were foreign-born were 2.1% or an estimated 10,000 individuals and most probably they moved to Palestine for religious motives rather to form a state. Otherwise, the Ottomans who rules Arab lands at that time under the “aegis” of the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate would have never allowed it. But this number is significant: it means, in that specific year there were about 5000 native people Jewish faith who lived in Palestine. Those 5000 people and their descendants are natural to the land thus have full rights to Palestine.

    B.J. and kim

  38. AEAZ said on January 13th, 2009 at 6:53am #

    Jaime – you provide a prime example of how your fascist doctrine has split every group, creed, religion and good people of the world for the last millennia as you conduct your peddling here. Please continue as by this you sow the seeds of your own destruction. It is becoming refreshing to see your transparent actions and hear your divisive spin on the current ethnic cleansing – ultimately you are simply trying to justify the corrupt state’s actions. How good does it feel to take it up the ass from your masters for the filth you spread?

  39. AEAZ - A. Myers said on January 14th, 2009 at 5:09am #

    Logically you can almost guarantee that all atrocities, war and manipulations come from a power / financial motivation covered in a religious overtone. The big banking dynasties of this millennium are behind all of them it seems. We find the evidence of this in the outcomes of each manipulation; the general populous are lambs to the slaughter in this. We are a blood sacrifice for an ultimate aim of total control. The more hate sown between Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Christians the better. The more one nation rises against another the closer we get to worldwide conflict, the bankers and arms peddlers win again because they supply all sides. The more the worldwide economy collapses the better a single currency will sound. These truths are leaving the arena of theory and entering the realms of fact.

    Using any terms around zionist ideologies, people falsely equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism (more spin). What I mean when I mention zionist ideologies is not Jews (as many Hassidic Jews are abhorrent of these ideologies) but every strata of society, neo-cons, mormons, jehovahs witnesses, christians, muslims, hindus, freemasons – ALL the upper echelons of religions, finance and politics are infested with racist, zionistic idealogies.

    To decide that all Jews are Zionists is to do exactly what they want you to do – they are laughing at you because you are now exactly the same as them, a racists thug! Many Jews are against Zionist ideologies, I am a gentile researcher who has seen much evidence of this.

    anti elitist / anti zionist

  40. Laser said on April 21st, 2009 at 10:32am #

    Have you noticed?

    The use of “Palestine” has been so insidiously introduced that it can be found in Christian books about the life of Jesus. The word had not even been coined in his time!

    Judea was renamed Palestine by the Romans in AD 70 after they had crushed the Jews. Jesus lived in Judea, Galilee and Samaria.