The Inner Meaning of the Zionists’ Anti-Iran Chorus
by Gary Zatzman
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 3, 2006



 

Since the Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke in late October about wiping the Zionist Entity off the map, the world has been bombarded with yet another flood of propaganda, led by Zionists and their faithful allies in all the citadels of world reaction, about resurgent “anti-Semitism.” This has placed not a few reasonably conscious activists on the defensive, seeking ways to apologize for, or distance themselves from, the Islamic Republic. Here lies a deep political question: during World War Two, why was it not going too far to wipe the Third Reich off the map? Contrary to Zionist claims of uniqueness and particularity for the sufferings of European Jews, the problem with the Third Reich was not only the Judeocide in particular but its fascism and racism in general. Allied with Japanese fascism and abetted by American racism towards the peoples of Asia, a global fascist and racist onslaught exterminated tens of millions and threatened to exterminate hundreds of millions more, throughout the planet. The world’s people took this problem up and solved it. During 2005, the 60th anniversary of this victory over fascism was commemorated around the globe.

As the whole world well knows, the Zionists have everything -- money, guns, spy networks, state machinery -- except conscience. Following the victory of the world’s people over the fascist onslaught of the Second World War, the Zionist Entity entrenched itself on land stolen from its original inhabitants. Operating as the hired gun of European-American imperial ambitions in the Arab world, it embarked on a program of slow-motion genocide aimed at converting their negation of the Palestinians’ Right to Be on their own land into a “fact on the ground.” In light of the consciousness and rejection of the fascist-racist danger aroused globally by the experiences of the war, however, the Zionists were compelled to disguise this genocidal aim and shield it from attack. Accordingly, they converted the European Judeocide into their private property. They arrogantly declared themselves the defenders and protectors of the memory of what they proclaim “The Holocaust (K).” Yes: “The Holocaust (K)” with a capital-T, a capital-H, and a Kosher (K) symbol to clarify that what is at stake is really a corporate interest to protect exclusive marketing rights to a brand. Work on this brand actually began in 1938, in Mandate Palestine, before the war -- before the Partition Resolution and declaration of the State of Israel -- when Zionist representatives held discussions with Adolph Eichmann. This continued at key points during the war, such as the spring of 1944 as the Nazis were preparing to deport 800,000 Hungarian Jews to death camps. In the latter circumstance, in exchange for not obstructing the Nazi deportations, the Zionist official Dr. Rudolph Kastner successfully negotiated preservation of the lives of a handful of Zionist Jewish youth to send to Palestine as the future leadership core of a Zionist state. 

There is a political reason why all those challenging the Zionist imposture and marketing campaign are routinely smeared as “anti-Semitic.” To grasp it requires examining something far less well known or understood, viz., what was also built into the internal logic of this position. The only way the Entity could sustain such injustice was by shattering, and/or conspiring to shatter, the social order of every country in the Arab world with a sizable Jewish presence. This actually split the world Zionist leadership for a certain period in the early 1960s. Some of this is documented in Yousuf Golan’s memoirs of his service as a diplomatic representative of the “World Jewish Congress,” recently published in Hebrew and reviewed by historian Tom Segev in Ha’aretz (“The Joe Golan Affair,” 30 December 2005). When Golan interceded independently of the Cabinet in Tel Aviv to explore with the Algerian government ways to avert Muslim-Jewish communal strife in the Maghreb following Algerian independence, The Entity stripped Golan of his passport. Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres preferred that communal strife explode in Algeria in particular (where prominent Jews had aided the French government’s “dirty war” against the independence movement) and throughout the Maghreb in general. This would serve their aim of focusing international diplomacy on “Arab anti-Semitism,” creating public opinion for “Israel riding to Arab Jews’ rescue” and diverting attention as far as possible away from Tel Aviv’s ongoing and increasing arrangements with Paris, the former colonial power in the Maghreb, as one of the main suppliers of the Entity’s military aircraft and backer of its atomic weapons program. 

The deliberateness with which the State of Israel proceeded in the Golan affair exposes once again the standard operating procedure of the Zionist junta to generate or use hysteria and confusion to cover their steps as they implement a calculated plan, the same as what happened in the Lavon Affair in the mid-1950s. The general idea is to sow uncertainties, hesitations and indecision enough to block and disable an opponent from zeroing in on the particular intention in time to prevent fulfillment of the aim. Zionism and Zionists everywhere attack the unity of the anti-imperialist united front. “The Holocaust (K)” and everything else they do serves this aim. 

Contrary to the illusions of invincibility widely purveyed concerning the Entity’s purportedly monolithic single-mindedness of purpose, however, the necessity for the Zionists’ expenditure of so much time and effort to split the unity of the anti-imperialist united front suggests its opposite. During the last two weeks of December, the Zionists have all but announced everywhere their plans to “avenge” the Iranian president’s remarks and bomb Iran before the Entity’s elections at the end of March. The last thing with which this has anything to do, however, is “anti-Semitism.” Rather, if chaos provides the cover for implementing a calculated plan, shouldn’t bald-faced declarations of a single unified aggressive intention provide an even better cover for murderous life-and-death splits sundering the Entity’s leadership? Within the polity of the Entity, certain serious fault-lines and fractures have surfaced recently that would more than qualify. Sharon’s new Kadimah “party” -- and especially the likelihood that it can produce a governing coalition with Labour and without the religious Zionist parties -- is posing an existential threat to those religious Zionist parties. These groups have diverted billions from the public treasury to maintain a thoroughly parasitic religious establishment. The mother’s milk for the grossest of these financial diversions, to expand entirely new “settlement” blocks, comes from those ten-year U.S. loan guarantees that are slated to run out in 2007. The social base of these “religious” parties, among the settler-colonizers’ movement in the West Bank, is one of the Entity’s known incubators for the politics of assassination: Rabin’s assassin was a “religious student” linked to one of them. These considerations suggest why all the Zionist political parties are outbidding one another in threatening the Islamic Republic. These open threats point to a strong likelihood that the next governing coalition of the Entity will govern and coalesce at home only by attacking someone abroad. As Iran is militarily the most capable of defending itself and responding to an attack, it seems for that very reason the least likely target. Given, however, both the huge potential under these conditions for things to fly apart within the Entity and the successes of the Iraqi Resistance in blocking or undoing the plans of the United States and the Entity to splinter their nation into a tri-communal “federation”, this upcoming period may be most propitious for the Palestinians to broaden and intensify their resistance to Zionist occupation. 

Gary Zatzman is co-editor of Dossier on Palestine. He can be reached at: noidrocca@yahoo.com.  

Other Articles by Gary Zatzman

* The Notion of the “Jewish State” as an “Apartheid Regime” is a Liberal-Zionist One
 

HOME