Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 7

Section 1: (Continuation: G: Israeli Zionist Racism in their Own Words)

A: The case of Barbara Kay

In a recent email exchange, Barbara Kay asked one of us, Kim Petersen, to read an article by Bernard Lewis on “population exchanges.”1 The reply:

Kim Petersen: On 11-Dec-07, 9:18 PM, Kim wrote, “Hi Barbara, Edward Said already exposed the animus of Bernard Lewis years ago. Why should the existence of a Jewish state take presence over a Palestinian state? I am doing a series with BJ Sabri that will explore much of the nonsense Lewis has written here. It should start on Saturday. Kim”2

Barbara Kay: On Dec 12, 2007, 11:25 AM, Barbara Kay replied, “And at that time you will explain why all these other population exchanges are irrelevant and only Israel is wrong. The Palestinians had their own state and rejected it. why should Israel be destroyed for them? Are you saying Jews have no claim to their ancestral lands which they never stopped living in? If so, don’t bother replying.” [italics added]

Comment: This is how we read the exchange: because Kay could not keep up with the cogent questions posed by Petersen, she proposed to end the exchange on her terms, that is, to cease the discussion if Petersen does not agree to her terms and vision of history. In the ample sense, this means that the truth that Zionists seek is a truth tailored to their story. Meaning, if a story requires verification, for instance, the ultimate test for its acceptability is whether the Zionists approval of it. Otherwise, all discussions cease! How did Petersen reply to Kay?

Kim Petersen: on 11-Dec-07, at 9:36 PM, Kim wrote: “Dear Barbara, First, your premise that because a crime was carried out in one location and succeeded that crimes should be permitted to be carried out in other locales is dangerous. Second, the Palestinians never had a chance to state what they wanted. It was a take-it partition shoved down their throats by imperialists. Third, who is talking about destroying Israel for anyone? Supposedly, it was okay for Zionist Jews to destroy the millennial long life of indigenous Palestinians in their homeland, but that their destruction of another should be protected? Fourth, Let’s make a distinction here for accuracy: Mizrahi Jews (and some Sephardic Jews) who are indigenous or long resident in Palestine have the right of continued secure residency free from discrimination; Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to historical Palestine; their ancestral land is in Europe. Kind regards, Kim”

Barbara Kay: on Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM Kay wrote, “The Jews are a people and have been dispersed for many centuries, but we are a people made up of different cultural traditions and we all recognize Israel as our ancestral home. My ancestral home is not Europe, and it is not for you to tell me where my ancestral home is. I can see this is not a fruitful conversation.” [italics added]

Comment: Again, because Petersen challenged the historical validity of Kay’s Zionist theses, she decided to truncate the discussion because it is “not a fruitful conversation.”

Certainly, we do not presume to tell people how to describe themselves. If someone calls herself an Israeli, a Jew, a Canadian, or whatever that is her right. Generally, it is an inherent right that people confer to themselves any description regardless of place of birth or received indoctrination.

Thus, by Kay’s own argument, she must agree that Palestinians have the right to identify themselves as such and not as Arab Israelis as Jewish Israelis want them to do.

However, when we talk about the archaeological, anthropological, ethnic biological evidence, and verifiable historical facts, then the ancestry of the Ashkenazim (who are converts to Judaism) becomes, decidedly, removed from mythology.

However, if one wishes to go the reductio ad absurdum route, then we are all Africans. Is this fruitful conversation?

CONCLUSION: We do not need to generalize; but the replies of Kay are indicative of a mentality that is common to most, if not all, Zionists. That is, to be accepted, all quotations, tales, anecdotal stories, witnessed events, analyses, and history facts must conform to Zionist dogmas and promote Zionist issues. If this does not happen, then whatever negative things are said about Israeli Zionist racism are deemed false!

B: The Case of Raphael Patai

Patai is a Hungarian-Israeli-American lecturer and author. In his book The Arab Mind,3 Patai, animated by extreme anti-Arab racism and by intense prejudice against Islam and the social culture of the Arabs, improvised himself as an “authoritative Psychoanalyst” of the collective Arab mind, although he was targeting the Palestinians in particular.4 Interestingly, while he concentrated on Muslim Arabs, he spared the Christian Arabs for an obvious tactical reason intended to isolate Islam as the only source of discord between the West and Israel from one side and the Arabs on the other. Patai, the editor, or a re-viewer wrote the following on the book’s back cover:

… In the ‘Arab Mind’, Raphael Patai unravels [sic!] the complexities of Arab traditions and their effect on the Arabs’ social and political behavior in the twentieth century. …The ‘Arab Mind’ discusses the upbringing of a typical Arab boy or Arab girl, the intense concern with honor and courage derived from Bedouins, the Arab tendency toward extreme behavior and to substitute words for deeds, and their hostile attitude toward the West. … The ‘Arab mind’ provides additional conclusions about the Arab personality based on the effects in the Arab world in the past decade. … It shows how despite the wealth and power brought to the Arab world by their new weapon —oil— these rich nations maintain largely illiterate, at war with each other. [italics and exclamation added]

This is how the above “unraveling” of the “Arab Mind” relates to our discussion: to prove that the racist dissertations he made against Palestinians and other Arabs were right, Patai provided testimonials. In the Preface to the 1983 Edition, pages ix and x, Patai wrote the following: “The critical reception of the first edition was overwhelmingly favorable. The very few negative reviews that came to my attention were penned by writers uncritically committed to the radical-leftist point of view of the Palestine Liberation Organization and similar groups, and were more in the nature of personal attacks than dispassionate evaluation of my findings.” [italics added]

ANALYSIS

In analyzing the reviewer or Patai’s summary one cannot but notice a Zionist deception at work:

1. The most notable thing about The Arab Mind is the fact that the author adheres to the racist ideology of Zionism. As such, his vantage point is structurally adversarial to the Arabs; hence, thematically it is tendentious and worthless. In addition, a patently chauvinistic author such as Patai is neither qualified nor trustworthy to be an independent observer of the Arab mind (or any other mind) since deep-seated prejudice impedes a minimum level of objectivity. On the other hand, being an adversary of the Arab nation and, specifically of the Palestinians, Patai, as an emigrant Zionist to Palestine, is, unavoidably, in the business of denigrating his adversaries and victims alike. Lending credence to this point, we have never heard that Patai wrote a book about the minds of Japanese, Bolivians, Danes, or Canadians. He only abused and denigrated the Arabs. And that is targeted racism.

2. To further reveal Patai’s Israeli racism thus demonstrating how Zionists think, we would like the reader to know that in 1977, Scribner’s Son published another book of Patai entitled: The Jewish Mind. In contrast to The Arab Mind, where he reduced the Arabs to nothingness, The Jewish Mind exalts the “extraordinary character of the Jews”. Here is how a sycophant from “Wayne State University Press” with clear connections to Zionism comments on the butter-and-honey story told by racist Patai:5

The Jewish Mind is a sweeping intellectual history of the Jews. Raphael Patai takes readers on an insightful journey through three millennia; examines six great historical encounters between the Jews and other cultures; and analyzes the manner in which each of them left its mark on the Jewish mind. This historic venture is followed by another journey, perhaps even more fascinating: a journey into the depths of the contemporary Jewish mind, involving the exploration of Jewish intelligence giftedness, and genius; of the phenomenology of special Jewish talents; of Jewish personality and character; and of the physical and mental health of the Jews. Patai concludes with a note of optimism by emphasizing that basic Jewish values, which for two thousand years have been constants in the Jewish mind, contain the promise of the Jewish future.

3. In The Arab Mind, the reviewer (or Patai himself as own reviewer) tossed all Arabs (wherever they are) into one category, despite the fact that the author based his so-called study on “observing” the Arab Palestinian Bedouins, which, of course, are a fraction of the totality of Arab peoples. For starters, this cannot be true because the socio-economic and social behaviors of the Arab peoples vary from country to country; therefore, they are neither uniform nor inherently identical, although similarities may exist. Conclusion: the reviewer’s statement is false.

4. Patai then went on to extract a conclusion based on his Zionist vision of the Arabs and call them extremists since they “substitute words for deeds”. This conclusion, of course, is the core of crusade that the author wants to affirm. But Patai’s principle objective was also to give another conclusion based on his “observations” which decried notions such as “honor” and “courage” etc., thus explaining the Arabs’s “hostility to the West.” In other words, Patai claims that the Arabs (meaning the Palestinians) are not hostile because of Jewish Israeli-western colonialist imperialism and usurpation of land, cities, and the destruction of the Palestinian identity and social structures but because of their social notions of “courage” and “honor.”

Incidentally, the Zionist Indian-British novelist Salman Rushdie went as far as he could to state that the cause of Arab and Islamic extremism is due to a repressed sexuality and deformed sexual behavior.6 Once he rose from obscurity to fame with his anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stance, and despite his shattering political mediocrity and lack of imagination for the social problems that affect his native Bombay, Rushdie, who sided with Bush’s war in Iraq, became the darling of Zionism. As a reward, British racist colonialism knighted him, US imperialism gave him faculty tenure at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and Bill Gates’s MS Word spelling program corrected the misspelling in Rushdie’s last name as were typing it!

Once Rushdie wore the “sexo-psychoanalyst robes” and unleashed his anti-Islamic sexuality themes, Zionist websites were already behind him to for the next move. Rushdie, however, was not even original in his anti-Muslim sexuality charge, as he did not set the trend for tying so-called Arab-Islamic terrorism to the passions of troubled sexuality. It was Zionists who set that trend much earlier7 as appeared on FrontPageMag, the website of the hard-line Zionist David Horowitz.

5. Patai’s fanatic journey in racism is unparalleled. Aside from hatefully attacking the Islamic traditions, he went as far as to indict the Arabic language, its syntax, grammar, idioms, and figures of speech, and decreed that they are the sources of Arabs’s “exaggeration” and “extremism.”

6. Patai speaks of the Arabs’s oil wealth. But, since he wrote his book in 1973, he alluded to the Arab oil-weapon consequent to the Israeli-Arab war in October of the same year. With this, he meant to instigate Western citizens against the “extremist” Arabs who caused the price of oil to soar consequent to Arab boycott of the countries that supported Israel in the war. However, the major point here is that Patai with direct racism depicted the Arabs as being illiterate despite wealth, then continued by generalizing the Arabs’s oil wealth, while indeed, not all Arab states have oil and most of them are resources-poor.

Aside from the explicit racism of Patai, his remarks about the reception of his book is relevant to our discussion about the Zionist way of debating historical truth and other matters that relate to Israel, Palestine, and the Arab states. Patai divided his critics in two groups: he characterized those who approved of his thesis as being “critically overwhelming” and those who disapproved as, “The very few who uncritically disapproved.” [italics added]

CONCLUSION: The above discussion is unequivocal: Zionists move in one direction only. Those who oppose their ideology and the state of Israel are dubbed “minority”, “uncritical” thinkers, and leftist-leaning pro-PLO. One more note: imagine an Arab writer using the Zionist tactics in writing a book with the title: The Israeli Mind. Now, imagine the frenetic Zionist reaction assuming that such an author could ever find a publisher…

Next: Part 8 of 12

Read also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.

  1. Bernard Lewis, “On the Jewish Question,” Washington Post, 26 November 2007. Available at the Wall Street Journal. []
  2. Edward Said, Orientalism (Vintage: 1979), 315-321. Said dissected Lewis’s work and compellingly revealed it to be “aggressively ideological,” in the sense that the purportedly “liberal objective scholarship” is “in reality very close to being propaganda against his subject material”: “the culmination of Orientalism as dogma that not only degrades its subject matter but also blinds its practitioners.” [italics in original] []
  3. Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (Charles Scribner’s Sons: 1983). []
  4. Edward Said, op. cit., illustrated a “particular sort of compression and reduction” in the writing of Patai (309). []
  5. Wayne States University Press, Review of The Jewish Mind, Column: about the book. []
  6. It’s all about sex: Rushdie’s ruling on Islamic fanatics,” Sunday Morning Herald, 20 January 2006. []
  7. Read Jamie Glazove’s article, “The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror,” 4 October 2001. []

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.

25 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. greybeard said on January 5th, 2008 at 9:51am #

    The question is not even if Palestine is the “ancestral home” of contemporary Jews, the question is whether such contemporary Jews had the right, or should have had the right, to dispossess the indigenous peoples. Clearly some Jews (primarily Sephardic) lived in Palestine for centuries. The Palestinian Arabs clearly recognized the implications of Zionist propaganda and the Balfour declaration: not the desire to live in Palestine, but the desire to dispossess the indigenous population. That was and remains a crime.

  2. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 10:02am #

    So here in section #7 of this triumphant series, Mr. Petersen at last lays out his thought processes and personal ethos on “The Jewish Problem.”

    It’s fairly simple. And consistent with, of course much of what we’ve already seen.

    Here it is.

    Among all the peoples of this earth, Jews alone are to be reviled, harassed, belittled, demonized, and cast out wherever they may be. And alone among all of the peoples of the world, they have no right to a national collectivity, or distinctive culture or history. And Israel, the political entity of the Jews has no right to exist.

    Barbara Kay really had his number early on.

    1) In Mr. Petersen’s world Jews have no claim to their ancestral lands which they never stopped living in.

    2) It is not for Mr. Petersen to judge where Jews’ (or anyone else’s) ancestral home is.

    As far as Mr. Petersen’s analysis of Mr. Patai’s writings. The quotes upon which he bases his comments are so truncated as to be virtually meaningless. It’s impossible to properly ascertain the original context of that author’s writings. It looks like Mr. Petersen has extracted only the few elements he wanted to fit a pre-determined hypothesis.

    —-
    copy kept in case of management censorship

  3. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 10:09am #

    Greybeard,

    Jews are indigenous to the Middle East, and local Arabs were not dispossessed of their lands until after their failed war of annihalation against the Jews in 1948, which came immediately upon the declaration of the modern State of Israel by a majority UN vote and the peaceful partitioning of two states Jewish and Arab, which the Arabs rejected.

  4. Dennis Brasky said on January 5th, 2008 at 1:01pm #

    Jaime wrote –

    Among all the peoples of this earth, Jews alone are to be reviled, harassed, belittled, demonized, and cast out wherever they may be. And alone among all of the peoples of the world, they have no right to a national collectivity, or distinctive culture or history. And Israel, the political entity of the Jews has no right to exist.

    reply –

    The Zionist founders never fought against Jews being reviled, harassed, belittled and demonized. On the contrary, they fed off it. When Jews were told, “get out!” the Zionists would agree and use that to recruit. See the writings of Chaim Weizmann and his noxious dealings with the Czarist anti-Semite/pogromist Phleve. Or read Lenni Brenner’s 51 Documents, about how the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis!

    If Jews were so eager to have their own nation, why did they wait 1900 years? Why was there not even a half-serious attempt to create a Jewish state in Palestine or anywhere else for all that time? “Next year in Jerusalem” was strictly a religious symbolic sentiment, similar to Christians wanting to go to heaven. It doesn’t mean that Christians can’t wait to die to get there.

    If having their own state was really so important, why didn’t European Jews demand as compensation after the Nazi Holocaust that a part of Germany be turned over to them? The Palestinians weren’t responsible for Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka and Bergen-Belsen, yet they were forced to pay – with their country.

    European Jews, victims of the Nazis, became dialectically transformed into accomplices of colonialism when they came to Palestine as cannon fodder for Zionism. The doors of the West were closed to them, and the Zionist movement NEVER FOUGHT TO OPEN THOSE DOORS. If they had a choice, the overwhelming mass of European Jewish refugees from Nazism would have come to the urbanized US, Canada and Britain where many had relatives, rather than to a Palestine that NONE of them knew or cared anything about. This is precisely why the Zionist movement never fought to allow the Jews that choice.

    These European Jews had as much right to create a Jewish state in ARAB Palestine as oppressed, victimized African-Americans would have if they came to the Amazon rain forest and ethnically cleansed it of its native population. Those Amazonians weren’t responsible for US slavery, lynchings and the KKK. In that situation, African Americans would have become transformed from victim in the US, to an oppressor in some other people’s land and the opposition to their colonial-settler state by the native Amazonians would thus be progressive and most definitely NOT racist.

    Jaime –

    In Mr. Petersen’s world Jews have no claim to their ancestral lands which they never stopped living in.

    reply –

    What about the Canaanite people who preceded the ancient Hebrews, the same Canaanites that were slaughtered by Joshua in an ancient version of ethnic cleansing, Zionist-style? The descendants of the Canaanites – today’s Palestinians.

    Jaime –

    Jews are indigenous to the Middle East,

    reply –

    NOT the European Ashkenazim founders of Zionism like Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Weizman, Jabotinsky, Meir, Rabin, Begin — ALL of whom, heavily influenced by the racism of European society looked down upon not only the Palestinian Arabs, but the Arab Mizrahi Jews as primitives, corrupted by their contact with “inferior” Arab society.

    Jaime –

    and local Arabs were not dispossessed of their lands until after their failed war of annihalation against the Jews in 1948,

    reply –

    even the leading Zionists admitted that AT NO TIME in 1948 did they ever fear annihilation from the clearly inferior, under-equipped and disorganized Arab armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. See Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine for citations from Zionist journals and diaries.

    Jaime –

    which came immediately upon the declaration of the modern State of Israel by a majority UN vote and the peaceful partitioning of two states Jewish and Arab, which the Arabs rejected.

    reply –

    What if there was a fire or toxic spill from a railroad accident in your neighborhood, and you and your neighbors had to be evacuated for a week? When you tried to return, you learn that in your absence, you have been declared an “Absentee Home Owner” and your property has been “partitioned” without your permission and against your will? You get to keep a bathroom and a closet, they get the rest of the house. Would you go along with that, and if not, do you deserve to be completely dispossessed? What would you say when the new owners of your home swore that you were somehow responsible for the train wreck or fire, and that furthermore, if you persisted in trying to get back your house, you would be declared a terrorist as well as a fanatic and a bigot against whatever nationality the new owner was.

    Israel today is the most dangerous place in the world for Jews, and this was inevitable because as even the Mussolini-worshipping Zionist Jabotinsky admitted in The Iron Wall, no people ever voluntarily surrenders its national birthright. If Israel had been established by outsiders as a Catholic, Buddhist, Confucian. or Sikh state, the opposition by the Palestinians would be not one bit less intense. Israel as a colonial-settler state has NO RIGHT TO EXIST. As distant a prospect as it seems today, Israel/Palestine as a non ethnic – supremacist, secular state of ALL of its people is the only formula for true peace and security. The supporters of apartheid in South Africa were forced to realize that. Perhaps the Jews of Israel can shake off enough of their anti Arab racism and come to see this as the only road open to them.

  5. Saad said on January 5th, 2008 at 2:40pm #

    jamie wrote:

    >>Among all the peoples of this earth, Jews alone are to be reviled, harassed, belittled, demonized, and cast out wherever they may be. And alone among all of the peoples of the world, they have no right to a national collectivity, or distinctive culture or history. And Israel, the political entity of the Jews has no right to exist.

    These are the typical Zionist crybaby tactics couple with fake crocodile tears!

    Yes, Jews, if they wish, have the right to a peaceful “national collectivity” fully accepted by their host lands, including Palestine, even though they do not constitute a nation but a religion. They did such collectivity in Brooklyn, New York, for example! Why didnt they declare an independent state and build up their army there, yet? Palestine and the whole Middle East is full with minorities. Many of them even older than the Jews. These minorities have the right to live there but not to create their tribal racist states and to displace others.

  6. Michael Kenny said on January 5th, 2008 at 3:38pm #

    “Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to historical Palestine; their ancestral land is in Europe”. Historically inacurate. The Jews are a Middle Eastern people and their ancestral land is in Palestine. Ashkenazi Jews are not ethnic Europeans of the Jewish religion and there is very definitely no “land” in Europe to which they could lay claim. That, in fact, is the nub of the problem!

    Many Ashkenazi Jews, probably even the majority, integrated into European society over the centuries and their modern descendants are indistinguishable from other Europeans. But those people, most of whom don’t even know that they have Jewish ancestry, have no desire to live in Israel. Those Ashkanazi Jews who chose to keep their Jewish identity rejected Europe by so doing. Nothing is more likely to get you inot trouble in Europe than that! So the question arose as to where they should go. Herzl’s idea was that they should go back where they came from and that suited Europeans just fine.

    I would guess that the reason why Europe “pussyfoots” around Israel is that its collapse would not be well received in Europe. Many Israeli have a European nationality and if several million Israelis suddenly had to flee, I doubt if they’d be welcome in Europe, but they could not legally be stopped from coming. An attempt to re-colonise Poland with Jews has generated an anti-Jewish political party, for example. and all the “anti-foreigner” parties in Europe are as anti-Jewish as they are, for example, anti-Arab or anti-Black.

    Thus, the Ashkanazi Jews are back to square one, so to speak. The Zionist dream is unworkable, but they have nowhere else to go.

  7. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 4:08pm #

    Thanks to all for their responses…Michael Kenny’s is the most thoughtful and rational of the bunch so far.

    Dennis Brasky’s “Israel has no right to exist” response is, of course, the most honest and explicit and in line with DV’s prevailing philosophy which I’ve obviously hit on the head.

    And so we come at last again to the part where I say

    OK, there’s 7,000,000 people living in Israel. Most are Jews. About 1/5 Arabs, a good number of Christians, Bahai (this is their spititual homeland too) and others.

    You say Israel has no right to exist.

    You’re actually not alone. The nutcase President of Iran has expressed as much, as do the fanatics of Hamas and Hezbollah.

    So what’s next?

    MASS EXTERMINATION?

    OK. Is Kim going to leave his gig in South Korea to take up arms? Or maybe us his Cdn. passport to enter Israel, then strap a bomb to his ass and blow up a daycare center to be remembered as a martyr?

    Probably not.

    Most of those 7,000,000 people including Arabs won’t take to extermination too well, and even before an international intervention will likely kill many many many attackers before they themselves are done in, presuming that’s what you nice progressive people have in mind.

    So is this about killing Jews, or is this about freeing Palestine? Do you want to free a lot of dead people?

    We’re back to the part where you asll run away again. That’s right.

    Blood or Ink? What’ll it be folks?

    Hey where’d everybody go?

    (SILENCE)

  8. Mulga Mumblebrain said on January 5th, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    The Patai tract, worthy of a Streicher, has been used as a set text in US military establishments. We need not look far to see the seeds of the genocidal war being waged against Arabs and Moslems. This project has ‘Made in Israel’ written all over it. Here in Australia there is a steady cavalcade of Islamophobic hatemongers imported into the country, and the hosts are invariably local Zionists or their political allies and lap-dogs. The media is a swamp of disinformation and denigration. We had a perfect example the other day in The Age, part of the less Rightwing and smaller half of our local Rightist newspaper duopoly. The Age, however is thoroughly pro-Israel and one of its Jewish writers was given the space to comment on Israel’s attitude to the death penalty. Mr David Bernstein alluded, naturally, to Israel’s moral excellence, in abjuring the death penalty in the face of ‘terrorist’ attacks from the fiendish Palestinians. The vastly greater numbers of Palestinians slaughtered by Israeli tanks, Apaches, armoured bull-dozers and F-16s, were, as ever, unmentioned. This is of course standard Israeli practise. Only Jewish deaths count. One only has ‘blood on one’s hands’ if it is Jewish blood. Palestinian blood is cheap, in fact worthless. Typically Mr Bernstein did not mention the occupation, the dispossession, the humiliation, the imprisonment of thousands, the torture. All this depravity is simply accepted as it is the justified response of a superior people to the viciousness of untermenschen. It’s exactly the same attitude the other European colonial powers showed towards the ‘natives’ from the Americas to India. Racial supremacism mixed with utter cruelty. It is also, in a bitter irony, the exact same attitude the Nazis expressed to the Jews, the Roma and the Slavs. We are a Chosen People and you are two-legged animals. The great difference with the Israelis is the ferocity of their assertion of their divine right to be racists. This lies in their innate conception of themselves as superior to the entirety of the rest of humanity, which explains, in my opinion, their contempt for international law. Mr Bernstein did manage to get one thing correct in his little execise in hasbara. He actually mentioned the Israeli use of assassination as a tool of policy. Now just how one manages to extol Israeli virtue in abjuring capital punishment while actually admitting that Israel does operate death-squads throughout the Occupied Territories, and has killed hundreds of Palestinians, and not a few innocent bystanders and family members to boot, acting as judge, jury and executioner, is an interesting point. Logical consistency only exists when it reaches the pre-ordained conclusion-Israel is wonderful. This little tract in odious self-glorification came on the same day that Israeli tanks blew up an entire family in Gaza, in order to eliminate a so-called ‘terrorist’, using that term in exactly the same manner the Nazis did in Occupied Europe ie those amongst the occupied untermenschen who have forgotten their place as dogs and are resisting their racial superiors. Israel is a beacon for racists throughout the world. Its policies of disempowerment, exclusion and imprisonment behind walls of superfluous populations are a template for the policies to be imposed around the world as climate change and resource depletion harden their grip. Israel is an arrogant and aggressive racist state, supported by a world-wide apparatus of money-power and media influence. This apparatus has demonised and denigrated Arabs and Moslems for decades (one need only think of Hollywood, that Zionist Happy Hunting Ground, and its vile, racist caricatures of Arabs)while lying about Israel and exculpating its crimes. Although many Israelis and Diaspora Jews are critical of Israel’s policies, not only for moral and ethical reasons, but also because they are ultimately self-defeating, they have proved relatively powerless in the face of the racist juggernaut. And as jaime et al prove, the psychopathology of Zionist exceptionalism is deepening and taking on truly frightening characteristics. As resistance to the War of Terror against the Moslems, a war promoted by Rightwing Zionists ultras out of a truly fathomless race hatred, spreads and deepens, the two million or more civilian deaths suffered by the victims of US/Israeli aggression can only grow. That a virulently racist, aggressive and expansionist state like Israel is nuclear-armed and beset with an apocalyptic Masada complex is cause for real trepidation.

  9. Reader said on January 5th, 2008 at 7:41pm #

    Bravo to Mulga Mumblebrain!

  10. Ralph Ray said on January 5th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    Here is what Jaime should have written since this is the actual existential situation:

    Among all the people of the earth, Palestinian Arabs alone are to be reviled, harassed, belittled, demonized, brutally treated, killed, dispossessed and cast out wherever thay may be. And alone among all the people of the world, they have no right to a national collectivity, or a distinctive culture or history. And Palestine, the political entity of the Palestinian people has no right to exist.

    Now the statement is descriptive of current reality. Jaime’s version was delusion.

  11. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 10:25pm #

    Not so.

    Palestinian Arabs have had all kinds of money thrown at them to build and assert their nationality and it all got pissed against a wall.

    Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005, gifting the Palestinian people zillions of $$$ worth of modern and functioning and profitable greenhouse operations and what happened?

    Hey remember Arafat’s wife? She got a cool $30,000,000 kiss off when her hubby died of AIDS. Much of the money originated as foreign relief investment funds….Did she ever lift a finger to help her poor reviled, harassed, belittled, demonized, brutally treated, killed, dispossessed and cast out countrymen?

    Uh no. She fucked off back to Paris. She’s not going to live THERE!

    These are the kinds of people who Truly victimize the Palestinians…THEIR OWN!

    The Gazan Pals were more interested in attempting to destroy their neighbors than make a life for themselves. They attacked the freight terminals, which then had to be shut down, and continue to bombard Israel with crappy rockets and bombs. Figuring if they can harass the Jews long enough, they’ll get “all of Palestine” back.

    Well that hasn’t worked out so well. And the greenhouses?

    They’ve been looted to be salvaged for scrap.

    There remains the possibility that the West Bank Palestinians will maybe work something out with Israel and the rest of the world, and when and or if it ever comes to pass, the West Bank could become a prosperous and happy place. But much has to be done first.

    Statehood is waiting for the Palestinians to take it up. But it won’t happen at the end of a kassam missile. It’s got to be negotiated. And the Roadmap Plan has to be adhered to step by step – and by alll sides for this to work.

    There’s never been a shortage of brain dead no-account yahoos hollering for Jewish blood.

    DV is living proof of that.

  12. Rosenfeld said on January 5th, 2008 at 11:09pm #

    The Ashkenazi Jews are the decendents of European pagans, the Khazars, who were converted in 700 A.D. They are in no way a “Middle Eastern people” than the European pagans who became Christians.

    That being said, anyone of any geographical origin should be able to live in Palestine for religious reasons if they so choose, but not by ethnically cleansing others.

  13. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 11:11pm #

    Here you bums…see if you can figure out what this means.

    PSALM 121
    I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains; From whence shall my help come?
    My help cometh from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth.
    He will not suffer thy foot to be moved; He that keepeth thee will not slumber.
    Behold, He that keepeth Israel Doth neither slumber nor sleep.
    The Lord is thy keeper; The Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand.
    The sun shall not smite thee by day, Nor the moon by night.
    The Lord shall keep thee from all evil; He shall keep thy soul.
    The Lord shall guard thy going out and thy coming in, From this time forth and forever.

  14. Neal said on January 5th, 2008 at 11:44pm #

    Kim,

    Come now, Kim. Let us assume that what you write were factually so – just for argument’s sake, of course.

    So what? How is it worse that Palestinian Arabs were displaced to make way for Israeli Jews than that 10 million Hindu from what it now Pakistan were displaced (with one million people dying) to make way for Pakistan? How is it worse that Palestinians were displaced to make way for Israeli Jews than that Sudeten Germans were displaced to make way for modern Poland – with Poles moving into the homes of the displaced? Where is the distinction? And, if there is, why is it so important to you ?

    Or, let us take a far more egregious example, Greece. Millions and millions of people were displaced. Turks claim that tens of millions of Muslims were killed but that may be an exaggeration. And, there was more than one episode of displacement. Almost all of those displaced, not including the 1921 event, were Muslim. At the same time, large numbers of “Greeks,” basically all Christians, living in Europe for centuries poured into what became Greece and became instant Greeks. The Muslim refugees ended up in places all along Asia Minor and, in fact, a very large number of those who now call themselves Palestinian Arabs (and they ended up largely in what is now Northern Israel) were Muslim refugees from Greece and the Balkans, resettled by the Ottoman Empire due to all of the turmoil. In the 1920’s there was one last event involving Greece – a population exchange of sorts, all based on religion, with Christians forced out of modern Turkey and Muslims forced out of modern Greece.

    What about all of this? Why does Israel bother you but not Greece – a country born in blood with millions displaced and untold numbers of people killed and a large outside population moving, taking the place of the Muslim population?

    It seems to me, Kim, that your views are born of ignorance or hatred or both.

  15. jaime said on January 5th, 2008 at 11:59pm #

    Thanks Neal,

    Are the Jews responsible for this too, Kim?

    —————
    Racial killings in Borneo: a symptom of deep-seated social tensions
    By Peter Symonds
    27 February 2001

    Gangs of indigenous Dayaks have butchered hundreds of people over the last week in the Indonesian province of Central Kalimantan in a racially-motivated killing spree aimed at driving settlers from the island of Madura out of the Borneo region.

    The violence erupted in Sampit on February 18 when a mob attacked a transmigrant settlement at Pelalangan on the outskirts of the river town. Five Madurese were killed, provoking retaliation the following day, which in turn rapidly escalated into systematic attacks on settlers in Sampit and surrounding villages.

    Local officials have confirmed that 270 have died but Indonesia’s official news agency Antara, based on its own sources, has put the toll at around 400. A Dayak leader Christopel Hutte was cited in an Associated Press report as saying that his men had killed more than 1,000 Madurese and would continue until all of the settlers had been driven from the province.

    Such has been the ferocity of the attacks by Dayak thugs armed with machetes, guns and homemade weapons that few people survived. At present, the number of injured is put at only a few dozen. In some cases the heads of the victims were severed and either carted off as trophies or paraded around the streets on sticks. Thousands of houses belonging to the transmigrants have been burnt down.

    Reports indicate that between 15,000 and 30,000 people have fled for their lives and are living in makeshift conditions near army camps and police stations. Two Indonesian navy ships picked up an estimated 4,000 refugees on February 25 after local ferry operators cancelled services. A number of settlers are also hiding out in the jungle.

    According to a TV report, four refugees including two children have already died of sickness and hunger and supplies of food and water for the refugees were running out fast. Yesterday, more than a week after the killings broke out, the first relief aid—14 tonnes of food, medicine and blankets—was flown into the province. Coordinating security and political affairs minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was on hand to meet the single Hercules transport plane, announced that more supplies would arrive by ship.

    Last weekend the violence spread to the provincial capital of Palangkaraya, 220km east of Sampit. Gangs of armed Dayaks roamed the streets, establishing roadblocks and looting the homes and shops of Madurese before setting them on fire. Many of the settlers had already fled.

  16. Ralph Ray said on January 6th, 2008 at 6:40am #

    Actually, Jaime, there seems to be no shortage of Zionist yahoos, such as yourself, hollering for Palestinian blood. In 2006 the Israeli Defense Force killed 660 Palestinians, up from 197 in 2005, a 300% increase. Half of the Palestinians killed were civilians and non-combatants. 22 of those killed were targets of assassinations. 141 of those killed were children. In other words, 20% of all those killed were children.And fully half were either civilians or non-combatants. Do these statistics make you proud of the IDF, Jaime?

    40% of the Palestinians killed were killed in the Gaza Strip alone, 88 of which were children and 205 were non-combatants.

    Palestinians killed 23 Israelis in 2006, less than half of the 50 Israelis they killed in 2005.

    If you want to add up the score, the IDF killed 30 times more Palestinians than the latter killed Israelis in 2006. Who are the real terrorists?

    The source of these statistics is B’Tselem’s 2006 Annual Report of IDF carnage. Read more at http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2006/12/29/btselem-three-fold-2006-increase...

  17. Dissident Voice : Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 8 said on January 6th, 2008 at 9:04am #

    […] also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. “Israeli quotes about Palestinians” at IsraelForum.com. # # # # #Ricki Hollander, […]

  18. Neal said on January 6th, 2008 at 9:34am #

    Ralph Ray,

    Consider, Ray, the strategy of those engaged in killing. You noted that the Israelis killed quite a number of Palestinian Arab non-combatants. You did not, however, mention how many Israeli non-combatants were killed by Palestinian Arabs.

    That is an important omission because it relates to the strategy of each side. Which is to say, your statement of facts descends into propaganda when you make such a comparison but leave out important data.

    In fact, almost all Israelis killed were non-combatants. That, after all, is a central component of the strategy of Palestinian Arabs, which focuses on terrorizing Israelis away from what, in a normal fight, would be called the front lines. In short, the Palestinian Arab strategy consists in substantial measure in killing civilians – as the targets of intended choice.

    So, you may properly note that the Israelis killed quite a number of non-combatants but it is not an appropriate comparison to leave out the far more ruthless tactics of the Palestinian Arabs, who have adopted a strategy directed primarily at civilians.

  19. Shabnam said on January 6th, 2008 at 10:26am #

    According to Norman Finkelstein in 2006 457 palestinians have died by the Israeli comparison to 10 Israelis. Almost 46 times more.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/bruinsma01052008.html

  20. Ralph Ray said on January 6th, 2008 at 10:58am #

    Neal,

    I did not mention how many of the 23 Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2006 were non-combatants because the B’Tselem report I got the statistics from does not say how many were noncombatants. However, I regret and deplore and mourn the deaths of all 23 persons, whether or not they were combatants or noncombatants. I also regret and deplore and mourn the deaths of the 660 Palestinians killed by theIDF (over half of them innocent civilians), regardless of whether or not they were combatants or civilians. I regret and mourn all loss of human life. I note, however, that you did not express regret or mourning for any of the Palestinian deaths, whether combatants or innocent civilians. Instead, you seem to be trying to find ways to excuse the IDF and to blame the victims. Do you, like Israel’s former Sephardic chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu, believe that the Palestinian people are collectively guilty and that, under Jewish war ethics, there is absolutely no prohibition against indiscriminate killing of civilians during a military offensive? (See the May 30, 2007 online of the Jerusalem Post to verify that this is indeed the former chief rabbis position). And if you do agree with rabbi Eliyahu, would you also quote the Bible, as he does, to justify your position. He quotes Psalms: “I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them.” Sounds like a call to genocide to me. Can even a hardcore Zionist apologist like you disagree?

  21. Ralph Ray said on January 6th, 2008 at 11:15am #

    Neal,

    You assert that compared to the IDF, the Palestinian Arabs are using a strategy “far more ruthless” and one that is directed primarily at civilians. Yet, despite their “ruthless” strategy, the Palestinians only managed to kill 23 Israelis in 2006. The IDF, with its allegedly “less ruthless” strategy, however, managed to kill 660 Palestians, half of which were civilians (141 of them children) in 2006. Your assertion doesn’t seem to hold up very well. Just because you assert that the Palestinians are “more ruthless” doesn’t necessarily make it so. What could be more ruthless than the IDF’s dropping of millions of cluster bombs into southern Lebanon during the last few days of the 2006 war and, as a result, causing the deaths or injuries of untold numbers of Lebanese civilians for years to come? Did you regard the IDF’s slaughter of over 1,000 innocent Lebanese civilians in 2006 to be “ruthless.” Does your negative attitude toward Palestinians (and presumably Arabs in general) reveal deep-seated racism on your part? Does your post exhibit the very Zionist racism that this series is exploring?

  22. Ekosmo said on January 6th, 2008 at 12:41pm #

    … from the May 30, 2007 online of the Jerusalem Post

    “All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.”

    …and, for all you “bums” from “round here”, busily figurin out the relevance of Psalm 121 in all this, there’s even more “choice cuts” to follow from Zionism’s theocratic psycho-wing — or, as I’ve described them elsewhere,

    — the Israeli Hamas [i.e. hardcore settler-expansionists like those who assassinated Rabin]

    “…Eliyahu’s son, Shmuel Eliyahu, who is chief rabbi of Safed, said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life.

    “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” said Shmuel Eliyahu. “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”

    In the letter, Eliyahu quoted from Psalms. “I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them.”

    Eliyahu wrote that “This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses.” [message ends]

    Just another US-media-silenced example of what’s goin down in the “Light Unto the Nations”…

    Ralph — here’s the link to this — dont lose it dude…

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  23. Dissident Voice : Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 10 said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:29am #

    […] also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, 9. Yitzhak Levy, “Arabs are to blame,” ynetnews, 8 December 2007. #“Zionist […]

  24. Dissident Voice : Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 12 said on January 10th, 2008 at 9:08am #

    […] also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11. Since aid is supposed to be for humanitarian or altruistic purposes, it is a […]

  25. Ana said on April 15th, 2009 at 5:43am #

    Sorry. All the world’s a cage. Help me! Can not find sites on the: kitchen islands. I found only this – Kitchen islands plan. We offer cheap airline tickets, discounted and negotiated rates, consolidator airfares, last minute travel, student and youth fares, discounted hotels. Cheap airline tickets to montreal, quebec on air canada last minute airline tickets online cheap air flights jorhat buy cheap airline tickets. Best regards :eek:, Ana from Vatican.