Zionism: The Dead End of the Oppressor

Review of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

Zionism is the ideology that dispossessed the Palestinians of their traditional territory. It is the ideology that nuclearized the Middle East. It is the ideology whose lobby gained inordinate sway over the world superpower through manipulating the US electoral process (former BBC and ITN correspondent Alan Hart says Jewish Americans account for three percent or less of the US population but nearly 50 percent of campaign funds; result: Americans have a choice between two pro-Zionist parties). It is the ideology that foments instability and wars in the Middle East. Perhaps, most importantly, Zionism is an ideology that attacks the heart and soul of justice and humanity. It is an attack that, on some level, affects all people. That is why Zionism must be met head on: to institute genuine justice and restore the humanity of all peoples.

Hart has the credentials to tackle the subject of Zionism (specifically, political Zionism: that a certain collection of non-native people has a, purportedly, God-given right to a particular piece of real estate that overrides the rights of Indigenous Palestinians) having worked for over three decades covering history unfolding in the Middle East. Much of his experience is first hand. The False Messiah is volume one of, what is planned to be, a three or four volume series Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.

Hart-IcoverfinalZionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
Volume One: The False Messiah

By Alan Hart
Paperback: 337 pages
Publisher: Clarity Press (2009)
ISBN-10: 0932863647
ISBN-13: 9780932863645

Disseminating information that challenges the immensely influential Zionist bloc is difficult. Hart wrote, “… all in the UK were too frightened to publish this book out of fear of offending Zionism too much and being falsely accused of promoting anti-Semitism.” Here Hart exposes the absurd inversion of morality: Zionists accuse defenders of Palestinian human rights as being racist against the abuser of Palestinian human rights!

Hart identifies it as a smear tactic and a phony one since Arabs are Semites.

That the morality of Zionism is challengeable was keenly illustrated by an exchange between Hart and erstwhile Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. Hart queried Meir on-air: “You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”

Meir’s prompt response: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”

How do Zionists get away with crimes against humanity? Hart points to the suffering Zionists experienced in the WWII Holocaust. To this an obvious question arises: does victimization give the victims the right to victimize another people?

Paulo Freire in his opus Pedagogy of the Oppressed warned that oppression creates a recycling dynamic that dehumanizes not only the oppressed people but also the oppressor. Hart touches on this dynamic.

Zionism and Judaism

Hart has to cover a lot of ground.

He points out that Zionism is not Judaism. Hart describes Zionism as “brutal and cruel [behaviors], driven by self-righteousness of an extraordinary kind, without regard for international law and human rights conventions” which “makes a mockery of the moral values and ethical values of Judaism.”

Hart does not delve deeply into these moral and ethical values of Judaism, but he leaves this reader with the impression that Judaism is an principled faith. However, the laws and morality underlying many religions are often interpreted variously. The late Israel Shahak, a chemistry professor and social justice activist, in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years rued that classical Judaism had been subverted toward profit and Jewish supremacism. I submit that much as no people should be seen as a monolith neither should a religion be regarded as a monolith.

The Legitimacy of a Jewish Claim to the Holy Land

Hart reasons that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist.” Moreover, the Jewish claim to the Holy Land does not hold up under scrutiny.

The bloodlines of the majority of Israeli Jews do not tie them with the Holy Land. Ashkenazim stem from eastern and central Europe and are converts to Judaism. Hart cites the work of Joseph Reinach, Alfred Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Shlomo Sand in outlining this case. The refutation of Jewishness as an ethnicity is important because, quoting Sand, “…it encourages a segregation that separates Jews from non-Jews” that allows Zionists to claim Israel as a Jewish state.

Furthermore, writes Hart, the Mizrahim (Semitic Jews indigenous to the Middle East) were strongly opposed to Zionism.

Hart focuses on two different sets of Jews: Haskala Jews who sought to make the place they lived their home and Zionist Jews who strive to separate Jews and Gentiles. Haskala Jews see themselves threatened by a backlash to crimes committed by Zionist Jews.

Early Zionism

Hart paints a picture of early Zionist history and the roles of early Zionist figures such as Zionism’s “founding father,” Theodr Herzl, key lobbyist, Chaim Weizmann, and the financier of Zionism, Lionel de Rothschild.

Hart details the collaboration of Britain with the Zionists from Arthur Balfour whose letter provided a pretext to dispossess Arabs. The chicanery was such that Britain reneged on its promise to recognize the sovereignty of its WWI Arab allies. Britain, writes Hart, laid the foundations for a Zionist takeover: “Without the British presence Zionism could not have entrenched itself in Palestine. On their own the Palestinians could have pushed the Zionists out.”

Britain went so far as to declare war on the Palestinians and assassinate Palestinian leaders.

All along the way, Zionist Jews were opposed by Haskala Jews who, as history shows, always lost out. After WWII, the Holocaust card was effective at backing down Haskala Jews.

Yet, Zionism has also flourished among Jews living abroad. Citing humanist Lilienthal: the migrating Jews carried a “nation complex” within them. According to Hart, this “made many of them susceptible to Zionism’s nationalist propaganda.”

Later, Zionists such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Vladimir Jabotinsky would terrorize the British out of Mandate Palestine. Hart sources Ralph Schoenman on the Koening Memorandum that made transparent the Zionists’s plans for terrorism against Palestinians: “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

Israel today, Hart notes, defines legitimate Palestinian resistance as terrorism. The author holds, “… all peoples have the right to use all means including violence to resist occupation.”

The US and Zionism

As Imperial Britain headed into decline, Imperial USA was ascending. The US would have a greater role in the Middle East.

Hart lauds US president Woodrow Wilson, “a real, towering statesman, a true giant among men.” Woodrow was apparently hamstrung on Palestine by his lobbying for the League of Nations. Hart blames “Imperial Britain-and-Zionism and their allies in [the US] Congress and the media; with … France” for screwing Wilson on Palestine.

Hart presents many “what if” scenarios. For example, he quotes British official John Hope Simpson: “Had the Jewish authorities been content with the original object of settlement in Palestine – a Jewish life without oppression and persecution in accordance with Jewish customs – the national home would have presented no difficulty.”

Or what if president Franklin Roosevelt had not died when he did? Hart speculates that Roosevelt would have rejected a Jewish state in Palestine.

Hart identifies influential Zionist agents in the White House, among others, David K. Niles. Although Truman is depicted as a president who grappled with the Zionist lobby, he had a vulnerability exploitable by Zionists.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

Ends would justify the means for Zionists. Even though Britain had set the stage for Jewish immigration to Palestine, even though Britain was at war with Nazi Germany — Zionists sought out a possible collaboration with Britain’s wartime enemy and an enemy to Jews. Hart sources Marxist writer Lenni Brenner who disclosed the Zionist negotiations with Nazi Germany. Zionists were dedicated to thwarting Jewish immigration to elsewhere than Palestine and were even willing to sacrifice Jewish lives to realize the goal of a Jewish state in Palestine.

And it was Jewish terrorism that forced Britain out of Palestine.

Zionism and Terrorism

The Zionist plan was to drive the British out, then drive the Palestinians out. Hart relates the strategy of the man who would become Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, for keeping all the land: creating facts-on-the-ground. The problem with this strategy is that if old facts-on-the-ground can be erased to establish new ones, what is to stop new facts-on-the-ground from being created again?

The methods for creating these facts-on-the-ground were incredibly gruesome. The massacre at Deir Yassin is a historical testament to Zionist war crimes – “in its own tiny way it was another holocaust.” The village was a “soft and easy target”; “the butchers of Deir Yassin” killed 254 victims, mainly the elderly, women, and children. One-hundred-and-forty-five women were killed, 35 of them pregnant. Many were raped before being killed.

Hart quotes Mordechai Nisan of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: “Without terror it is unlikely that Jewish independence would have been achieved when it was.” [emphasis added by Hart]

Abdul Khader, portrayed as a respected Palestinian resistance leader, died the day after the Deir Yassin Massacre. Gloom set in on the Palestinian side. Deir Yassin had its intended effect, sowing fear in the hearts of Palestinians, and the expulsion was underway.

Arab and International Complicity with Zionism

The Palestinians did not just have to deal with British treachery, they “were at the mercy of the Arab League” who at British insistence kept the Palestinians unarmed, much as the illegal sealing of Gaza’s borders today and control of the West Bank borders keeps Palestinians unarmed under brutal occupation and creeping dispossession.

Hart wonders: what if the Arab regimes of the time had sought an alliance with Stalin to defeat Zionism? He speculates that Truman might have had to stand up to Zionism.

Hart points out that the United Nations General Assembly, in defiance of its own charter which calls for respect for the principle of self-determination, would, aided by Zionist manipulation (disinformation, bribery, threats), decree an illegal partition of Mandate Palestine. Not only was the partition illegal, he argues, it was also unfair. Jews would receive 56.4 percent of the land while being 33 percent of the population and owning only 5.67 percent of the land. The valuable coastal and fertile areas were in Jewish hands while mountainous, infertile areas were left to the Palestinians. Hart calls it “a proposal for injustice on a massive scale.”

In the end, Truman capitulated to Zionism and recognized the partition. Truman had been subjected to “a political hit-squad of 26 pro-Zionist U.S. Senators” beholden to Jewish votes and money.

Truman’s secretary of state George Marshall resisted Zionism, putting “America’s national interests first and, to the limit of the possible within that context, doing what was legally and morally right.” Joining Marshall in opposition was US secretary of defense James Vincent Forrestal who might have been the most steadfast opponent of the corrupting influence of Jewish money on the Democratic Party had he not, according to Hart, died under suspicious circumstances. Nonetheless, the Zionists had access to a more influential actor on Truman.

Hart takes a sympathetic slant toward Truman, noting he had kept the Zionist lobby at bay until it discovered his Achilles heel: his good friend Eddie Jacobson, a non-Zionist Jew. Through Jacobson, Zionists could reach Truman.

It appears that Truman, although much irked by the selfishness of the Zionist lobby, bore much of the responsibility for opening the door to the influence of money from lobbyists. Grant F. Smith in his book America’s Defense Line supports this view: “The historical record reveals how Truman’s policy on the Palestine question became heavily influenced by his need for campaign contributions…” Smith credits Truman with starting a “competition to see who was more ‘pro-Israel’” among US presidential candidates. Smith presents evidence that Truman was swayed by “massive funds” for his 1948 presidential campaign raised with the help of arch-Zionist Abraham J. Feinberg.

The Brazilian pedagogue Freire theoretically described — without referring to it –what underlies the Zionist-Palestinian dynamic: that of the oppressor and the oppressed. Freire argued that oppression and the struggle of liberation from oppression are both oppressing. Oppression, he contends, is necrophilic. “Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in ‘changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them.’”

To overcome the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, the oppressed must see themselves as agents of change. Revolution requires solidarity, and this, said Freire, is achieved through love — affirmation of one’s humanity. The act of rebellion by the oppressed is a gesture of love. The desire to be human saves oppressors from their own dehumanization caused by oppressing other humans.

“It is only the oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors,” wrote Freire.

Many Haskala Jews believe that liberation for all Jews will come from Palestinians achieving their liberation.

This looks like the direction Hart is heading with his Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews series. Volume One: The False Messiah is an important reference on what has transpired in the lead up to and formation of the Jewish State by Zionists. He brings valuable first-hand perspective, such as what lay behind Meir’s statement that there were no Palestinian people.

Hart gives a human face to some of the historical protagonists, portraying them not merely as actors but delving into the character of the persons. It is as if Hart seeks to humanize some of the persons who capitulated to Zionism.

However, there is no reason that evil should always appear in the guise of a demon. Humans come in all shades. Evil acts are evil despite the appearance of the evil-doer. Yes, it is probably much easier to perpetrate evil acts in cherubic rather that demonic guise, but why play to such stereotypes?

Hart’s book is a good act, a brave act for someone from British state media. He says he has to live with himself, and it is obvious this book comes from a place of integrity. Volume One: The False Messiah augurs well for the rest of the series.

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Kim.

37 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ismail Zayid said on October 13th, 2009 at 1:16pm #

    Kim Petersen, in his review of this book, illustrates how Alan Hart dots the i’s and crosses the t’s accurately in his analysis of the true dogma and practices of the Zionist ideology which brought about the tragedy of dispossession of the Palestinian people, from their homeland, and indirectly the turmoil and antagonism that Jews may encounter today.

    It has to be remembred that the Sephardic Jews lived in peace, with Arabs and Muslims, throughout the Middle East, until Zionism was brought about. Chaim Weizmann, first Israeli president, stated in his submission before the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, at King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in 1946:
    ” I would not like to do any injustice. The Muslim world has treated the Jews with considerable tolerance. The Ottoman Empire [of which the Arabs were a major part] received the Jews with open arms when they were driven out of Spain and Europe, and the Jews should never forget that.”

    Unfortunately many Jews have not taken Weizmann advice and forgotten that, because of their blind faith in Zioinism, which is, as alan Hart argues, the real enemy of the Jews.

  2. Joseph Conrad said on October 13th, 2009 at 11:42pm #

    Th 1,500 Wealthy Old White Men who’ve run America these last 100 years have had one focus – perpetual wealth and power. They’ve regularly used conservative surrogates to murder their opposition;
    and inflict genocide, pillage and wholesale looting of every resources-rich non-white nation on the planet.

    These old, evil men have used every socio-political philosophy to futher their ends – Racism, Capitalism, Facism, Socialism, Democracy and now Zionism. Over 60yrs. ago they saw fit to use Israel and its
    ‘Zionists’ in the Middle East to Rape, murder and pillage its Arab-Muslim nations to secure their Oil, Gas and mineral wealth.

    With the help of h Rothschilds of Europe, these Wealthy Old White Men continue to loot and pillage America and the nations of the world for their own personal aggrandizement. They continue to use whoever they must to achieve heir sole objective – perpetual wealth and power. They use Human weakness – Racism, Greed, Arrogance and Pride – to demolish ageless societies, economies and cultures and grasp Nature’s wealth. They are without Honor, Integrity, Ethics, or Morality. Hence their selection as a Middle East teammate – Israel.

    One day, Americans, Arabs and Muslims will wake up, unite and bring down these two merhcants of Death, Destruction & Corruption. But until they do, though, the World will walk a tightrope over HELL.

  3. john andrews said on October 14th, 2009 at 12:24am #

    It is important to keep on reinforcing the fact that Jews and Zionists are different species – that Zionists are possibly the most evil people on the face of the Earth, who survive solely by leaching on the goodness and humanity and history of ordinary Jews like the deadly parasites they are.

    I would like to see a more concerted attack on the Zionists’ key claim, because it is so utterly fatuous. The Zionists claim that Palestine belongs to them because God said so. Yet no one can prove that God exists, therefore the entire basis of the Zionist argument is worthless.

  4. Alan Hart said on October 14th, 2009 at 3:15am #

    Quick response to John Andrews.

    As they set about making a mockery of, and demonstrating contempt for, the moral values and ethical principles of Judaism, the ethnic-cleansing founding fathers and drivers of Zionism’s colonial enterprise didn’t give a damn about the God promise. For them might was right. Effectively they said, “Zionism is the Messiah”.

    Best wishes,

    Alan Hart

    PS to all: With the sub-title David Becomes Goliath, Volume Two of the American edition of ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS is to be published very soon.

  5. sid wright said on October 14th, 2009 at 3:23am #

    john,you cannot prove that god does NOT exist which makes your argument equally fatuous and worthless

  6. oPL said on October 14th, 2009 at 3:56am #

    Sid, you cannot prove a negative statement. Conversely, something that cannot be proved to exist is considered non-existent (eg., fairies, goblins, god, etc…).

  7. sid wright said on October 14th, 2009 at 7:28am #

    to opl
    there is no negative
    god created the earth etc
    god allows 1 sperm to unite with 1 egg to produce 1 human being
    god sends the rain down to earth,the sea waves,volcanoes etc
    if you don’t believe that where do you think everything came from
    if your answer is nature,then who created nature
    i reckon it was god but lets hear your views

  8. kalidas said on October 14th, 2009 at 7:37am #

    Gosh, golly gee, and just who was it that Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Aquinas, Luther, Webster, Voltaire, Belloc, Cicero, etc., etc., etc., on and on and on for century upon century were speaking of before these horrible “Zionists” showed up? And horrible demons they certainly are.

    The Zionists didn’t conjur the Talmud, among other anti-human “scriptures.”
    The Zionists didn’t finance Columbus or dominate the slave trade.

    Lately it seems like EVERY talk of so-called “Jews” merits a disclaimer,,
    (“there may or may not be some nice jews”)

    Before you pull out, to me, the meaningless anti-semite pistol, I suggest you take it up with Tolstoy or Dostoevsky and a thousand others. You sure ain’t them.

    When you have usury, who needs alchemy?

  9. Michael Kenny said on October 14th, 2009 at 8:26am #

    A weakness in Mr Hart’s arguments is his acceptance of the odd theory that Ashkenazi Jews are converts to Judaism. Odd because it flies in the face of European history, where every state had an official religion and other religions were persecuted.

    Freedom of religion in Europe dates only from the 19th century, at which point, public records were sufficiently good to have documented such conversions. Karl Marx’s father converted to Lutheranism because he could not practice law as a Jew. It was a crime(!) to be a Catholic in Britain until the 1790s and they were banned form voting or holding public office until 1829. Even today, Tony Blair waited until he left office to convert. In the Pale of Settlement, where most of Europe’s Jews lived before 1933, Jews suffered restrictions right down to 1917. We are therefore being asked to believe that literally millions of people gave up their privileged status as members of the dominant ethnic group and joined a pariah people who were subject to massive restrictions on where they could live, what professions they could exercise, their access to education, their political rights and their right to be civil servants or military officers, to name but the restrictions which spring to mind. To say nothing of pogroms! And all that without any documentary evidence to support it and notwithstanding the fact that there is plenty of documentary evidence of conversions in the other direction! Equally, why, when restrictions were lifted in the 19th centuries, did conversions to Judaism suddenly dry up? If people are willing to do it when it was massively disadvantageous, why did they stop when it became easy? That doesn’t make sense!

  10. oPL said on October 14th, 2009 at 8:46am #

    Hey Sid,

    A great majority of human beings make sense of the world by appeal to an unproven overseer. This is what is called faith, and it’s not fully understood as a phenomenon.

    Whilst such beliefs, as long as they are kept in the domain of faith, can be respected, attempts to prove, in an empirical sense, the existence of god, have so far been unsuccessful.

    My previous comment had to do with the fact that your rebuttal of John Andrews is actually a logical phallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). A bold claim like “there is a god”, or “the earth orbits the sun” (both are bold claims, as they contradict factual experience) needs to be proven if it is to become as a factual truth.

    Until I’m given real evidence that “the earth orbits the sun”, I can safely follow common sense and believe that the earth is still, and the sun travels from East to West everyday. I don’t need to prove what everyone can see is true.

    Likewise, until I’m given real evidence that “there is a god”, I don’t need to prove that there isn’t a god: it’s in plain sight.

    As of 2009, the earth has successfully been proven to orbit the sun, but the same cannot be said about god’s existence.

    I will be happy to believe in god when her existence is successfully proven. In the meantime, I’m also happy for you to believe in her, if it makes you happy, and you don’t use faulty logical arguments :)

  11. missvi said on October 14th, 2009 at 9:06am #

    Sem⋅ite
      /ˈsɛmaɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsimaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Show IPA
    Use semite in a Sentence
    See web results for semite
    See images of semite
    –noun
    1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

  12. mary said on October 14th, 2009 at 9:18am #

    The Zionist trolls are creationists too!

  13. bornmorn said on October 14th, 2009 at 9:36am #

    Look at the millions of Muslims killed, and evicted by Hindus, when the British split India/Pakistan. Pakistan abosrbed them. The ethnic Germans killed ,evicted from Eastern Europe AFTer WW. 2. The millions Stalin forced to move and die in The Soviet Union/Caucasus.
    The Civil warS in Lebanon. Refugees from war in Yemen. NOT TO MENTION Tibet,. Refugees, killings, oppression. Obama did not meet with the Lama because the Lma is not, he is not a terrorist.
    Your preocupation with a fraction of a fraction of the World’s land, and a fraction of a fraction of the world’s people is not valid. It is
    definitely hatred, or at best a sick obsession.

  14. kalidas said on October 14th, 2009 at 10:11am #

    Freedom of religion! Ha Ha!
    Is that what they’re calling it these days?
    I thought it was called Holocaustianity?
    Who needs the rest of em when everyone has THAT one? (or else)
    It’s bigger than mere religion.
    It’s mandatory! Coming soon to a town, (your town) near you. (or else)

    But then again, you have to give credit where credit is due..
    In this modern age, after only sixty plus years of murder and mayhem, trickery, usury, thievery, etc., a handful of the (American?) chosen ones think maybe, possibly, perhaps, Israel may be, might be, may possibly be, perhaps a little bitty teeny weeny bit bad and (gasp!) even possibly maybe perhaps wrong. (double gasp) Maybe…
    But but but… oh, never mind, just keep your mouth shut. (or else)

    Of course when the curtains are drawn it’s really something like .0001%. Not quite that mythical handful but hey, once again, shut up. (or else)

  15. sid wright said on October 14th, 2009 at 10:48am #

    kalidas,you forgot to mention usury in your posting like you always do
    please be more careful next time

  16. kalidas said on October 14th, 2009 at 10:53am #

    Brilliant Sid.
    You almost got it right.
    You may be, perhaps might be, could be, one of that mythical handful.
    No?

  17. kalidas said on October 14th, 2009 at 10:56am #

    Understandable though.
    Perhaps, maybe, you might have mistook usury for usurping.
    You all are very superior when it comes to them there U words.
    This I know.

  18. dan e said on October 14th, 2009 at 2:53pm #

    Hart’s book sounds like a good intro to the subject, but he is wildly wrong if he thinks KKK-sympathizer Woodrow Wilson was some kind of a “statesman”.

  19. jim said on October 14th, 2009 at 4:00pm #

    Zionist ideology is PURE EVIL, it matters not if you are a Christian Zionist or a Zionist from Israel, it is all EVIL
    they were traitors during WW2 , zionists help the Nazi Germans to liquidate the Jewish people, it is not a religion but a political idealogy, nothing more and it will kill most innocent jews because of it’s actions

    some websites that explain how evil Zionist are…..

    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

    http://www.nkusa.org/

  20. tsk_tsk said on October 14th, 2009 at 4:39pm #

    A much needed book, no doubt! I shall try and find it in Moscow where I live. I hope many people buy it. When it says, ‘One million copies sold’ at the back of the Nth edition, then it might come easier to break free from the circle of corruption, fear, and violence which Zionism and the manipulation of Zionism have amplified and amplified during the last one hundred years.

  21. Bruce Mullen said on October 14th, 2009 at 5:02pm #

    Christians and Jews have been fighting and killing one another for 2000 years, and Christians and Jews have been killing Christians and Jews for about that length of time too. The Jews killed Christ and of course he was a Jew at the time. And Christian France and Christian England fought each other for centuries and when that was over, Christian England destroyed Christian Germany twice with a huge help from the largely very much Jewish influenced USA under Wilson and again under the equally Jewish influenced FDR, with the help of the equally Jewish influenced Russia of WW2. And as you know, the Zionist State of Israel is about as Jewish the American leaders are Christian.

    What’s the point? That mankind is a vicious, greedy cold blooded, lying, killer and will kill anything or anybody to get what he wants regardless of any religions that may exist at the time.

  22. Eric said on October 14th, 2009 at 5:53pm #

    Zionism,the real enemy of the jews

    The perfect to put the difference between Zionism and the Jews.

    It plays out perfectly like the scene from the movie:The Godfather 2

    But

    This time it’ll be Fredo saying:
    I know it was you,Don.You broke my heart,You broke my heart

  23. John said on October 14th, 2009 at 11:29pm #

    Attempting to make a distinction between Judaism and Zionism is just plain ridiculous.

    Go read the Torah. The central theme is a struggle to create a nation of Zion on stolen land.

    Zionism is nothing more than the political expression of Judaism.

  24. john andrews said on October 15th, 2009 at 1:24am #

    Alan Hart,

    Congratulations on publishing your book. I hope it sells well.

    I do realise that Zionist leaders have about as much personal belief in the view that God gave them Palestine as previous popes have had personal belief in chastity. My earlier point was not aimed at them. Such people cannot be reached with rational argument, they can only be crushed. My point was aimed at the masses.

    ‘Leaders’ have always used religion to provide the moral justification for their excesses in order to enforce the support of otherwise usually reluctant populations. The God-gave-us-Palestine myth being well and truly in that category. By trying to expose the ridiculousness of that position the hope is to destroy the PR value of the myth. Obviously it is a wasted exercise on the leaders themselves.

    I think maybe the real reason that religious myths are not directly confronted and exposed more often is because of that fact – that most ‘leaders’ like to be able to resort to the priests for moral support when their crimes risk public exposure; so it’s never in their interests to attack the God-myth.

    sid wright,

    As an agnostic rather than an atheist I’m perfectly prepared to accept the existence of some sort of God – if it can be rationally proven. My position is not that God does not exist, merely that the existence of God has not been proven. They’re two very different views.

    But what I am pretty sure about is that no particular religion has any better insight on the subject than any other; and therefore that they should all be kept at arm’s length.

  25. Steve Pallister said on October 15th, 2009 at 1:57am #

    oPL

    It is NOT a theory that Ashkenazi Jews are converts, it is a well established fact. you are just missing the facts. It didn;t happen inside the time frame you describe, but around 700 years ago. It is the subject of Athur Koestler’s “The 13th Tribe” and of Shlomo Sand’s recent work, yet to be trasnlated to English but which is a best seller in Israel and France, “When and How were the Jewish People Invented?”

    The original Israelites, wo were not called Jews at any time actually, remained in Palestine after the short lived and failed state of Israel was ended by the Romans and the Pharisees cast out. Those descendents of the original Israelites still lived in Palestine when the European converts started arriving in the 1920s, with their supremacist ideas and general nasty habits. Indeed most of them had converted to the Druze faith or Christianity or Islam in the intervening years, but they do own the most likely genetic heritage of the original Israelites, who were themselves just an addition to the existing much older peoples living there at the time.

    Ironically if this is applied to the Bible and Torah, then the whole prophecy is coming true, but the Israelites suffering are not the ones meting it out after all, they are then the ones called Palestinians today. The Zionists are the marauders who were still making life hard for their neighbors as brutal dangerous mercenaries to the west back then and they had no religion, save greed and brutality. The Khazars had an interesting history if an unpopular one which eventially had a forced conversion of Judaism, by their King or Khan who decreed it. They embraced the possibilities for their natural tendency to seek profit from others’ efforts and to play the money lender, middle man, trading facilitator, which essentially amounted to protection money paid to avoid being robbed by Khazar raiders who of course raided anyone who didn;t pay protection. They could do this due to a geographic situation which put them at the crossroads of the major trading routes in the area. Eventually their ancestors became the modern Georgians and contributed large parts of the population to other Eastern European nations over time with migration and still more conversions. The Pharisees in their turn, carry their Talmudic guidestone and keep on moving forward with their many thousands of years old plan of domination. Having watched them these many years, life after life I am concerned. They do not diminish anytime, they remain like a serpent at the bottom of the human garden, generation after generation.

  26. oPL said on October 15th, 2009 at 2:20am #

    Dear Steve Pallister,

    Please make sure you read who enters which commentary, before addressing your own.

    I have no opinion on the origins of the Ashkenazi jews, but let me just say that one is a convert only if he makes that decision himself, not his great great great great great grandparents.

    The core of the problem is that someone can claim a piece of real estate by virtue of their religion.

    I’m gonna convert and give my alliance to the god of cheek, and then will demand from my bank to condone my mortgage, thus is the word of my god. That would be cool!

  27. Concrete man said on October 15th, 2009 at 3:05am #

    Good job Kim, and important book. That said (that said!), the idea that Zionism is not Judaism and Judaism is not Zionism is sheer poppycock, hair splitting (splitting headache) rubbish. Rense constantly chants this refrain as well. Please read Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon; Michael A. Hoffman, Judaism Discovered. There is alot of disinfo out there that wants us to believe that the Jews are innocent while the Zionists are not, because we don’t want to hurt Jewish feelings. Bullocks, let’s hurt their feelings and the feelings of the dumb Christian Zionists all together. Their insensitivity is DESTROYING what’s left of the world.

  28. Kim Petersen said on October 15th, 2009 at 7:36am #

    Trying to steer the discussion to Judaism = Zionism is wrong and serves no good purpose. The exact same argument could easily be asserted that Christianity = Zionism. The entirety of Jews must not be stereotyped. Jews may have some basic tribalism, but they are not a monolith. For evidence, one needs only point to Neturei Karta who reject Zionism.

    Another point: we non-Indigenous peoples who live on Turtle Island must not assume that we are better than Zionists since we colonists/settlers/immigrants live on a land acquired through genocide and dispossession of the Original Peoples. That is something we had best bear in mind when criticizing Zionists and something we should rectify first.

    The point is to end the dispossession, the oppression, the dehumanization. Understanding what fuels the dispossession, oppression, and dehumanization is important insofar as putting and end to it all and beginning the rehumanization of everyone.

  29. john andrews said on October 15th, 2009 at 8:22am #

    Kim,

    You’re absolutely right. Anyone who thinks zioinism and Judaism are the same thing really ought to keep quiet as all they’re doing is displaying an incredible level of ignorance – or they must have some direct personal interest in the zionist theft of Palestine.

    Your point that we’re all immigrants from somewhere is fair enough, but I think it’s a mistake to claim that that needs rectifying before criticising zionists. If we waited until all civilisation rectified their origins before condemning zionism the zionists would never hear another word of complaint for as long as they live. They should wish.

    I think the essential difference between colonial zionism and the modern history of the rest of the ‘new’ world is the recent creation of the notion of intenational law. When the colonies of the ‘new’ world were established there was no law to suggest the colonists were doing anything wrong; which is why they recruited the priests: to provide the moral justification for their crimes.

    (There’s quite an interesting bit in Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith makes this very point. Describing Columbus’ efforts to finance his adventures Smith writes:
    “…the council of Castile determined to take possession of countries of which the inhabitants were plainly incapable of defending themselves. The pious purpose of converting them to Christianity sanctified the injustice of the project.”)

    International law vaguely recognises that the zionist colonisation of Palestine is wrong – in other words we recognise it as a crime now, while it’s happening. This crime hasn’t needed the passage of a few hundred years to identify it as a crime – a period of time when both the criminals and their victims are long past any hope of justice.

    The zionist colonial project must be identified and internationally recognised as a crime against humanity now, while it is happening, so that the Palestinian right to return to their land is never lost, and that the colonist settlers are never under any illusions that their crimes are accepted for anything other than exactly that – crimes.

  30. b99 said on October 15th, 2009 at 11:22am #

    No, Zionism should not be conflated with Judaism – the first is a political ideology, the second a religion. The problem is that so many Jews (likely the vast majority) , observent or not, subscribe to zionism – or its real world manifestation, Israel – to varying degrees. (Having to point to Naturei Karta for the exception only serves to make this point). Thus we can often speak of Jews just as we would speak of Palestinians – without feeling we need to caveat those Jews who are not zionists (or those Palestinian ultra-nationalists who would like to see all Jews expelled from the region).
    Now, of course, we could refer to Israelis, but requires overlooking the fact that so much of the support for Israel comes from America’s Israel-Firsters, and also requires overlooking the fact that one-fifth of Israel’s population is not Jewish.
    So I would say we should refer to Jews in the instances where if we were to substitute another group in a similar situation it would make sense. It is when we are referring to zionists, as opposed to non-zionists or anti-zionists that we are obliged to use this expression instead.

  31. b99 said on October 15th, 2009 at 1:19pm #

    Kim Said-

    “Another point: we non-Indigenous peoples who live on Turtle Island must not assume that we are better than Zionists since we colonists/settlers/immigrants live on a land acquired through genocide and dispossession of the Original Peoples. That is something we had best bear in mind when criticizing Zionists and something we should rectify first.”

    That we live on a stolen continent does not mean that Jews/Zionists can rightfully do same – nor does it mean that Israel (and the US relationship to Israel) are outside of criticism. Perhaps more importantly, we non-indigenous have to consider the political aspirations of native populations and work to (or at least support) achieving it. I suggest that the situation of Native-Americans and Palestinians are not comparable vis a vis their ‘occupiers’ as the goals of the native movements are different.

    Which is to say we should support Native-American goals just as we should support Native-Palestinian goals, but we should not try to pretend they have the same goals.

  32. deceschi said on October 15th, 2009 at 3:34pm #

    “I suggest that the situation of Native-Americans and Palestinians are not comparable vis a vis their ‘occupiers’ as the goals of the native movements are different.

    Which is to say we should support Native-American goals just as we should support Native-Palestinian goals, but we should not try to pretend they have the same goals.”

    Exactly: the native-Americans don’t aim to destroy the immigrants from all around the world, since as minority they have no power and no chance against the overwhelming majority of the ‘occupiers’. Their goal is to keep alive their mistreated traditions and a minimum of human dignity in front of the enormous catastrophe occurred to their people.
    The goal of the Palestinians is different, indeed. They belong still to the majority of their people, the Arabs, who look at the tiny Jewish country as a foreign element in its body. So the Palestinians are victims and at the same time executioners: victims because they are, despite the “great” Arab nation behind, the weak link in the struggle between the antagonist parties, falling between a rock and a hard place; executioners because they identify with and totally embody the Arab and Islamic goals towards Israel, that still means the defeat and disintegration of the jewish state.
    As a matter of fact, the Palestinian desire for self-determination will only and only then succeed when it will be completely freed from the yoke of the Arab world, which uses its Palestinian brothers as a hostage and spearhead against the sworn enemy. But since this is quite unlikely as well as a change of attitude of the Arab big brothers, the struggle will continue until the bitter end. This also differs from the Native Americans, definitely the true losers of history.

  33. AquaTarkus said on October 15th, 2009 at 7:58pm #

    Greetings everyone. Just minor explanations concerning several comments made here. First the are only three ethnic branches that stemmed from the former Khazar Kingdom: the Ahskenazim, the Sephardim and the Mizrahi. Haskalah was a middle to late 18th century movement by western ashkenazim labeled as enlightenment. Simply wanting to integrate into Western Europe eliminating the Russian discourse. It is not a branch. Secondly Semitic is a semantic linguistic concept only. Refers to the group of Afro-Asiatic languages. Read older dictionaries. The new ones are Zionist published. You can clearly see it does not include genetics or bloodlines. Nobody is that within the Human Species. Just used for standard Zionist propaganda. As for the ethnic misnomer that sounds very much like the second person singular in English, the first time that it ever, saw the light of writing, was in Richard Brinsley Sheridan comedy “The Rivals” . You may check Ben Freedman’s article Facts are Facts. He discusses there how it appeared in the play in 1775. Also besides the misnomer it produced the new word Malapropism. The real ethnic title of the people living there until Emperor Hadrian and his main General Julius Severus made their DNA disappear in 135 CE were called JUDEANS. Yes you are reading correctly JUDEANS. They were locals from Canaan and Arab looking dark skin. No white people inhibited Judea back then. Since Arthur Koestler’s book was mentioned here read it, in case you have not. By the way he was never contested. Of course he was murdered. The Z mafia said it was suicide. Yeah right. All three branches are white people that never had any ancestors in the land of Canaan. Don’t worry I’m a half-sephardic(mother side)so I know full well what I’m talking about. Take care everyone. After all the Zionist vermin days are almost over. Yes they are.

  34. mary said on October 16th, 2009 at 6:09am #

    The UN Council has accepted the Goldstone Report.

    The US voted against and the mealy mouthed UK ‘decided not to participate’ which is apparently different from abstaining. No surprise there then from those Zionist supporting governments.

    UN votes to endorse Gaza report

    The UN human rights body has endorsed a report into Israel’s offensive in Gaza which accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes.

    The report by Richard Goldstone calls for credible investigations by Israel and Hamas, and international war crimes prosecutions if they fail to do that.

    Both Israel and the US opposed endorsement of the report, saying it would set back Middle East peace hopes.

    The vote was 25 to six for the resolution. Eleven countries abstained.

    The Palestinian Authority initially backed deferring a vote, but changed its position after domestic criticism.

    The US has dubbed the report “flawed”, but has still urged – along with the UK and France – both sides to launch independent investigations.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have urged UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to vote against the report in a 30-minute telephone conversation on Thursday night.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/8310754.stm

  35. deceschi said on October 16th, 2009 at 1:30pm #

    “The UN Council has accepted the Goldstone Report.”

    The morally “upright” supporters of the resolution: in the first place Russia with its atrocities against Georgia, Cecenia and Afghanistan; China with its brutal aggression and colonization of Tibet and its support of dictatorships of the kind of Burma, Iran a.o. plus its repression of domestic minorities; India with its orchestrated violence against Muslims (example Gujarat 2002); Jordan with its “Black September” in 1970 and its “practices of torture and ill-treatment, as well as the link between torture, unfair trials, and the death penalty” (Amnesty International); Egypt with its corrupted dictatorial and dynastic “democracy”, and so on and so forth …
    But Israel, which before responding to the terror has appealed repeatedly but in vain to the UN Council to stop those indiscriminate rocket attacks, Israel, which has finally defended herself in order to ensure a normal life to its citizens – Israel must now pay the moral bill instead of all the worst criminal states in recent history. The world is hypocritically upside down and this Council can not be taken seriously anymore.

  36. B99 said on October 18th, 2009 at 2:13pm #

    dizzy – the rocket attacks complaint is a charade. It’s point is to cloak the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians by Israel while it steals their land. Israel earns those pitiful fireworks. Outside of Tel Aviv and Washington, this is pretty much understood. The throw-weight of all Palestinian rocket attacks does not likely equal that of one Israeli missile or tank – never mind the mega-tonnage Israel has dropped on Palestine over the decades in its quest to rid the region of gentiles.

    Atrocities abound in this world. None are so long-lasting as that of Israel, none so systematized, none are race-based as that of Israel, nowhere has anyone installed an Apartheid regime as has Israel, and no country is illegally occupied as is the West Bank illegally occupied by Israel – and none receives the full support of the United States both thru the pocket book and thru diplomatic cover – as does Israel. So this is our obligation – the moral obligation of all who support human justice – that Israel be stopped by any mans necessary.

    (note to Jim) – Lebanon defeated Israel a scant three and a half years ago. And as the Jews have taken out on the Palestinians their losses in Nazi occupied Europe, the Jews also took out on the Gazans their loss to Hazballa.

  37. B99 said on October 18th, 2009 at 2:20pm #

    How the Jews won Palestine:

    Haifa, Palestine – 12/47. The day after UN RES 181 (11/47), the 75,000 Palestinians of Haifa underwent a joint Hagana/Etzel terror campaign. The Palestinians were shelled from the hills. Jews rolled barrels full of explosives down the streets. They poured fuel down & ignited it – when alarmed Palestinians ran out of their homes they were machine-gunned by Jews. Also, Hagana brought cars to Arab repair shops – filled with explosives. These attacks were led by DANI AGMON of the Zionist unit HASHAHAR (‘Dawn’).

    Throwing bombs into groups of Arabs was an old Hagana specialty. In Haifa, ’47, they threw a bomb into an Arab/Jewish integrated refinery. Arabs who could leave town, did so – and were so advised by British commander Gen. Stockwell – he would not protect them. Operation Scissors (MISPARAYIM) gave away to operation ‘Cleansing the Leven’ (BI’UR HAMETZ), perhaps humanity’s first ethnic cleansing reference, the term ironically taken from the Passover ritual.

    The CARMELI BRIGADE of Euro-Jews (led by MORDECHAI MAKLEF) carried out most of the terror. Mizrahi Jews – ‘of lesser human quality’ – were given lesser jobs. Maklef’s orders were to ‘kill any Arabs you encounter’ – burn their homes down. Pals fled to the harbor – Zionist troops looted their homes. Then the Jews shelled the harbor. All this, long before the Arab states ‘invaded.’

    GOLDA MEIER visited the terrorized – now empty homes. Food was still on the table. It reminded her of pogroms in Russia. She got over it – this time it was for a ‘good cause.’ The shelling of the harbor commenced as the Jews blocked Stanton Road and Jews on loudspeakers told them to flee. People fled to boats – overloaded, many sank, killing scores. The Ottoman era architectural gem that was the marketplace was destroyed – today it is Rothschild Hospital.

    So a concerted effort to kill the Arabs of Haifa (3″ mortars will do the trick) or have them flee the country, worked almost perfectly. Operation ‘Cleanse the Leven’ was a success. Haifa, a major port since the 1600s, and at this time, a center of Arab/Jewish cooperation, was made into a Jewish city overnight. All this BEFORE the Jews declared a state. And to think it started the day after Res.181.

    Haifa had been the principal garrison of the Brits – and from which port they soon left forever. So they could have stopped the Zionist massacre campaign. General Stockwell, the top Brit – chose not to – and in this was later defended by Field Marshall Montgomery.

    In a plea by the Pals to British General Stockwell, their letter said: We feel distressed and profoundly aggrieved by the lack of sympathy on the part of the British authorities to render aid to the wounded although they have been requested to do so.” How poignant and unassuming this request is. Little did they know the British would aid and abet the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Palestine by the Zionists until the Arabs were dead or gone.

    So what we have is a cold-blooded pre-meditated terror campaign by the Zionists on the integrated city of Haifa – all this beginning in 1947(!) and ending with the Palestinians being bombed, burned and shelled out of their city, many others drowning in overcrowded boats. The Jewish Carmeli Brigade led by Mordechai Maklef carried out these ‘cleansing (their word) operations, while the Brits gave them a wink and a nod. Maklef went on to become the Israeli Army Chief of Staff.