What came to be called the Battle of Baghdad Cover-Up (BOBCUP), was an illegal deception of the American people, as well as a desecration of the military men who had fought and died only to be pushed into the memory hole by Big Brother Bush. Captain Eric H. May, a former U.S. Army intelligence and public affairs officer, responded by investigating and confirming BOBCUP, which he reported to an Army Inspector General and to a corporate media that were both cowed and complicit. Realizing that the entire US establishment was dedicated to waging a criminal global war and erecting an oppressive homeland state, Capt. May honored his military oath “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He formed and assumed command of a cyber intelligence group, which he named Ghost Troop to honor the unacknowledged ghosts from the Battle of Baghdad. Before long the unit swelled to several hundred members, including veterans of all services, as well as a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a U.S. ambassador.

Initially, Ghost Troop’s mission was to penetrate the propaganda of the corporate media, government, and military; and to provide essential information being withheld to the American people. Shortly after the Madrid bombing of 3/11, 2004, Capt. May and his chief officers determined that Madrid had been a “false flag” terrorist act carried out by the pro-war Spanish government in an attempt to turn the war weary Spanish people into hawks. They reasoned that the 9/11 attacks, which achieved the same purpose in the USA, were also false flag terrorism. Finally, they agreed that the U.S. government was routinely telling the public that there “was going to be another 9/11″ because it meant to administer it. With grim humor, Ghost Troop began to refer to this future false flag as “9/11-2B.” Using their military and media savvy to frustrate the 9/11-2B false flag became their second mission, and consumed most of their efforts.

Those who know Capt. May well consider his unique mission of conscience to be the stuff of legend. The Lone Star Iconoclast in Central Texas has long demanded that Congress investigate his uncanny ability to warn the Internet about false flag dangers: he has forecast petrochemical refinery explosions in Southeast Texas, each of which may have been a foiled terror attack, six times. He exposed a US WMD team that had infiltrated the Texas City refinery area in February 2006. Publisher W. Leon Smith credits him with saving the Republic by his leadership of Ghost Troop to prevent 9/11-2B.¹

There is a growing movement in the 9/11 “truth” and patriot movements to press for Congress to award him the nation’s highest military honor. Shortly after the publication of the Iconoclast editorial, Dr. James H. Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a close collaborator and friend of the captain’s gave voice to many with his glowing accolade: “This is a completely brilliant and fully justified recommendation, which I wholeheartedly support. I have not admired anyone during my life as much as I have Captain May. He is a superb analyst and remarkable human being.”

Capt. May was a vibrant, fit man — a martial arts expert — when he began to lead Ghost Troop. He was constantly under threat from the military, the FBI and various national police and intelligence agencies. He was mysteriously stricken with ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease, subsequent to his dissidence. Despite the advanced condition of the disease, Capt. May, now a paralyzed disabled veteran, was good enough to partake in the following interview.²

Kim Petersen: I first became acquainted with you when you responded to Dissident Voice pulling an article on damning revelations about US military atrocities in Iraq made by a purported Army Ranger, Jesse Macbeth. However, Iraq Veterans Against the War disavowed backing Macbeth, and the veracity of Mr. Macbeth’s claims of service in the US Army were questioned. Lacking substantiation of Mr. Macbeth’s claims DV pulled the article. Other media outlets followed suit. You decried this as a “hideous failure of American journalism.” Do you still see Macbeth as a victim of “swiftboating”?

Captain May: In a word, yes. Jesse Macbeth is a perfect example of a crucial dissident voice who had both courage and a vital message. An Arab-American radio show host, Dr. Hesham Tillawi of Arab Voices asked me to review the Macbeth tape just before the swiftboat attacks began, and it seemed absolutely credible to me, a veteran of four decades of military service. Macbeth was specific in terminology, tactics and training. He was also specific about Middle East geography, lifestyle, habits and attitude. There had already been two local Arizona mainstream media stories about him — neither previously challenged — as a war veteran. He had already been drawing benefits from the Veterans Administration without difficulty, meaning that the military considered him much more than a training washout, the story with which they later attacked him.

When Iraq Veterans Against the War failed to support him, it was because an IVAW administrator, Amanda Braxton, a lifelong civilian, had been buffaloed by the best swiftboating attack since the presidential election of 2004. It was led by men whose records in special operations, propaganda and Republican war rallying made them seem more like mercenaries than media. When I interviewed Braxton, she admitted that she had been frightened into turning on Macbeth. Further, she mentioned that his IVAW cohorts had never doubted that he was a war veteran. This was the best evidence of all that he was on the level.

Given my familiarity with the military system, I made calls all the way to the top level of the Army requesting confirmation from the official record supporting swiftboater claims that Macbeth had never seen the war — and found that the Army was trying to dodge any comment about him. Yes, Macbeth was swiftboated because his message was that we were using SS-style tactics against Middle Eastern Muslims — something the Middle East is well aware of. The alternative media chickened out on a crucial story, allowing the mainstream media and political establishment to cover it up. I wrote an article about it before moving on to other critical stories:

“Updating a War Crime Witness: Jesse Macbeth,” Ghost Troop Archive, June 2006.

KP: I had heard about the Battle of Baghdad at the airport from my colleague BJ Sabri, where reportedly US troops had suffered many losses, but you are the first person I know to have reported about it online. You wrote that it was kept from public consciousness, “hidden under the distraction story of Private Jessica Lynch.” The Battle of Baghdad still has not emerged into public consciousness. Why do you think this is so?

Capt.: In Ghost Troop, we never left the cover-up unchallenged. In early April of 2007, as the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Baghdad approached, The Lone Star Iconoclast published an interview with me updating my research on the cover-up. A few days later Al Jazeera published an interview with Iraqi General Al-Rawi, who had commanded Saddam’s forces at the airport. A few weeks later the U.S. Congress held hearings about media and military failure to report the truth from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the cases of Pvt. Jessica Lynch and Cpl. Pat Tillman. I believe that Ghost Troop and the Iconoclast gave Al Jazeera and Congress the encouragement they needed to do as much as they did. I believe that the continuing cover-up by the mainstream and alternative media goes far to demonstrate that they are in large part controlled by the same pro-war establishment that has orchestrated everything from 9/11 to the present to turn the American dream of security into the Muslim nightmare of invasion.

BJ Sabri: There were many published emails that you wrote where you defend the right for information and to find out the truth, at least about the Battle of Baghdad; now, if that is the case, and since you were a material witness to history, and since many accounts confirm that the United States used a neutron bomb to the end the battle that cost the US military dearly, I ask you a very precise question: Did the United States use such a neutron bomb in Iraq?

Capt.: When the Battle of Baghdad occurred, I was at home in Texas, my active duty military days behind me, watching events on CNN. At that point I knew that something catastrophic had happened in Saddam International Airport, but I had no idea that it was something nuclear. Over the next couple of years I received many reports from both Arab and Western witnesses that we had used a neutron warhead. It wasn’t until I reached the anti-war Camp Casey outside George W. Bush’s Texas headquarters in Crawford in 2005 that I spoke with numerous witnesses together. They included Army and Marine veterans of the Battle of Baghdad, Arab witnesses and journalists. All their accounts, taken together, convinced me that the neutron warhead was employed. Gen. Al-Rawi confirmed the nuke in his Al Jazeera interview:

“US accused of using neutron bombs,” Al Jazeera, 4/9/2007.

BJ: You say, “War is just homicide on a national scale.” Homicide against whom: U.S. military personnel, who are the aggressors or the Iraq nation — military, and civilians — who were attacked without casus belli? Still, homicide sounds ordinary in these circumstances, why not use a precise term such as premeditated mass murder, in which both aggressors and aggressed suffered unnecessary death? In addition, whether homicide or mass murder, it seems that the criminals who planned and carried it out will go unpunished. Does this mean the United States government and military are above the law?

Capt.: I realize that my phrase “war is just homicide on a national scale” is cold-blooded, but it is a professional military man’s first premise in understanding or discussing the phenomenon. I accept your objection that I don’t offer human judgments as to who is involved in self-defense and in aggression, with its implication that such judgments must be made. I’ve been forthright elsewhere in my moral evaluation of the “Global War on Terror,” admitting that we Americans have been duped into war crime, and calling for punishment of our leaders:

“Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld: Geneva Conventions now, Nuremberg Principles later,” Al Jazeerah, 7/3/2006.

BJ: In your email, you write, “I am pleased to see that the anti-war is joining the infowar …” You sound like an anti-war activist. Are you really an anti-war military man? If you are anti-war, why did you take part in such war that you may have been privy to as being based on pretexts?

Capt.: I was no longer a serving soldier at the time of 9/11 or the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the most part I accepted the official propaganda. It wasn’t until realizing the cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad that I became interested in analyzing the wars or the policies behind them. I was never an anti-war military man until after I examined the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East.

My comrade in the antiwar, former Marine Corps Major William B. Fox, wrote a well researched article about my intellectual and ethical awakening:

“Captain Courageous and the Quicksand War,” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 3/26/2008.

BJ: I read somewhere in the wealth of information you provided, how you imagined George W. Bush should articulate his message to the nation about the course of war. Because you put words in his mouth, you, nevertheless, injected your personal feelings about the imperialist wars “by American definition, patriotic.” What do you think now about the endless wars of what many experts contend is a Zionist-controlled United States government?

Capt.: You are referring to “Cavalrymen and Cowards,” which was a philippic I directed at Bush shortly after the Battle of Baghdad cover-up. At that point I still had no judgment about whether or not the war in Iraq was legal or illegal. I was chiding him for not having enough guts to admit facts. It’s likely that Bush himself read my words, since I interviewed with his team about becoming his speechwriter before he became president, when he was still the governor of Texas and we shared some acquaintances.

As far as those experts who consider the United States to be Golem, mindlessly carrying out proxy wars for Zionists, at this stage of my development I would call myself one of them. Until we awaken as a nation to Israel’s machinations and manipulations against our own interests, we are in great danger ourselves, and represent a great danger to the rest of the world.

KP: Nine/11 provided a pretext for the so-called War on Terror, and Ghost Troop has been vigilant in defending against another 9/11. Does an Obama government affect the need for such vigilance?

Capt.: Not in the least. In his first year in office, Obama has demonstrated conclusively that he is a puppet for the war cabal. He needs another 9/11-style event to re-energize the dictatorial Homeland and the imperial Global War, which are nothing more than euphemisms for “Vaterland” and “World War.”

In Ghost Troop we use an operational codename for this required next 9/11: We call it “9/11-2B” — the 9/11 that the establishment assures us is going “to be.” Just this month Obama’s intelligence officials were projecting 9/11-2B in 3 to 6 months. The way we look at it, that means this puppet president wants to set up such an attack before the Congressional elections of next fall. His recent emphasis on beefing up our cyber security is an indicator that 9/11-2B will entail an attack on the Internet, the sole remaining free media, and the greatest impediment to totalitarian rule of the United States.

BJ: Going back to the issue of how you think George W. Bush should articulate his message to the nation. You stated in your article “Philippic contra George W. Bush” that he should say, “We will not rest until the mission for which they gave their lives is accomplished. We will not stop until we have vanquished tyranny and terror abroad, and brought our heroes home. That will be our tribute to the fallen. God Bless America, Garry Owen, and goodnight.” To me, you kept George Bush’s essence, but just embellished the rhetoric. Can you explain?

Now, you put words in his mouth (meaning that you, in turn, articulated your own political vision and projected it into Bush’s mind). Since you injected personal feelings about U.S. imperialist war in Iraq “by America’s definition: patriotic,” what do you think now about the endless wars?

Capt.: In the philippic against Bush I attacked him as a lying coward, and to drive the point home I wrote the words that I would have written for him had I been his speechwriter at the time of the Battle of Baghdad — which I nearly was. I was writing rhetoric, putting the best face on the facts as I then believed them to be. Please bear in mind that I was writing a historic document here by slamming the most powerful man on earth at a time when he had shown himself to be tyrannical and murderous. People who write philippics — which can only earn the name “philippic” when published to a murderous tyrant — have good reason to worry that the bold act will cost them their lives, and I believe it nearly cost me mine. A couple of days after I wrote it, political dissidents in the U.S. and UK began to be assassinated, which was the topic of a recently published article about them and me:

“Captain Courageous Witnessed: Dr. Kelly Assassinated!,” Al Jazeerah, 12/10/2009.

BJ: Do you really think that these wars are about tyranny and terror? In wider sense, do you think it is about time that the American people stop following what their rulers incite them to do in the names of causes that actually do not exist except on a propagandistic level?

Capt.: I do think that these wars are about tyranny and terror: the tyranny and terror emerging from the efforts of Western psychopaths who have taken over the reins of power. They intend to do far worse deeds than they have done. The only way we can stop them is by doing what you suggest: awakening the American people to the perils of being misled by perfidious leaders and an evil establishment. I am proud to be, like you, among the dissident voices engaged in this historic struggle, in which we have transformed the Internet into the printing press of the New American Revolution.

1. “Captain Eric H. May Deserves Congressional Medal of Honor,” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 2 February 2010.
2. Introduction with assistance of Capt. May.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us have a look at recent history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Washington Report for the Middle East: “U.S. Financial Aid To Israel.” The link offers facts on the magnitude of American aid to sustain the military supremacy of Israel in the Middle East.
• The Washington Report for the Middle East: “Unprecedented U.S. Aid to Israel.” More information on the same subject.
• MIFTAH, “US foreign aid to Israel.”
• Wikipedia, “Israel-United States relations.”
• Joel Bainerman, “End American Aid to Israel?” This is a sympathetic Zionist view of aid to Israel; the article contains important figures.
• Daniel Feith, “The Costs of U.S. Aid to Israel.” This is a detailed Zionist view of the relation between the United State and Israel based on imperialist relations and expectation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After we outlined a comprehensive account on the definition of Israeli Zionist racism as a premise to rebutting Kay’s comments on “Defining Racism”, we want to reaffirm the following: Zionist Israeli racism is different from many other forms of racism. This is mainly because it has an international cover, and it enjoys impunity, and benefits from prodigious supplies of armaments and money from the United States, Britain, Germany, France, and Zionist organizations.

As for Zionist Israeli racism being diverse from other racism, let us discuss the matter briefly. For instance, Japanese acts of fascist racism in Korea and China, although belonging to the same racial matrix as Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese, stemmed from Japanese supremacist feelings, because, at that time, it had an advanced economy based on incipient western-style industrialization, aggressive militarization, and fanatic nationalism. Another example is the current American fascist racism, which is more advanced and complex than that of Japan for multiple reasons. Among these is the persistence of militarized racism in international relations, rampant cultural and economic discrimination against ethnic and religious groups making up the American nation, persistent economic disparities among social groups, the dominance of white British and Anglo-Saxon culture in a multi-ethnic society, rampant Zionization of the American culture and institutions, poverty among minorities, and so on.

Yet, while both American and Israeli racisms have many traits in common (since both societies derive their existence from colonialism and expropriation of land belonging to others), they, nevertheless, differ in one crucial respect: American racism is a product of self-styled and self-generated colonialism; Israeli colonialism is dependent, that is, Israel cannot sustain its colonialism from inside. In fact, without Western aid, Israel’s collapse is a distinct possibility notwithstanding its nuclear weapons and so-called military superiority over its adversaries. Paradoxically, Zionism itself (as a racist doctrine) is the causative factor in making Israel insecure psychologically.

This insecurity finds its justification in a paradox whereby Jews believe they are superior since a mythological deity chose them to be a “special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth,” (Deuteronomy 7:6). (For the record, fundamentalist Christian zealots back Jews’ (accepting that they are the successor of the Israelites) self-bestowed sense of superiority despite the fact that the Zionist state discriminates against Palestinian Christians under its occupation. In his book, Ballam’s Curse, Moshe Leshem, a former Israeli diplomat, summarized the essence of Israeli supremacist beliefs as follows:

… But in order to win support from the mass of European Jews, the early Zionists misappropriated the trappings of religious Judaism, portraying their hopes-for Jewish state as the fulfillment of the Jewish people’s theological destiny—their Biblically ordained role as the Chosen People that through whom God would redeem mankind.¹ [italics added]

Interestingly, and based on Leshem’s statement, the problem that makes Israel such a busy nest of racism is, then, twofold:

1. The dogma of the Judaic religion that makes its adherents believe in their uniqueness,

2. The Zionist belief that they can create a state exclusive for the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians while they can still control the entire globe with extensive networks of Jews having diverse nationalities.

The other reason for Israeli racism is a material-ideological sickness that tends to view the Arabs and Palestinians as necessarily wicked because they refuse subjugation to the Zionist order in the Middle East. Ultimately, a sense of Zionist superiority must be at play because no matter what atrocities they commit, western imperialist states are on their side but that, of course, is not because of tender mercies or love; it is because Israel is the right instrument to revamp colonialism.

Having said that, discussing Israeli Zionist racism should serve principally to uncover the propaganda terrain on which Zionist operatives conduct their ceaseless efforts to rewrite and falsify history, as well as to expose as baseless the rationales that lubricate the racist engine of the Jewish state and its illegal and illegitimate practices in Palestine and in the Arab world.

Consequently, we will treat Kay’s comments as being representative of operational Zionism and complete our rebuttal based on two levels: 1) general context, and 2) the deconstructed contents. We will demonstrate that, aside from ingrained racism, Israel and its western imperialist supporters are keen at falsifying events in the history of Palestine and the Middle East to suit Zionist Israel’s version of the same, while counting on controlled media and on the passage of time to lobotomize the memory of nations and its verifiable chronicled events.

Zionists maybe able to re-write history and believe in it too, but objective forces of history would always be able to erase the spurious chapters and re-write things differently. History is just the recordings of past events by humans; this matter, evidenced by rewritings and re-analysis of historical events illustrates the fluidity of history. This argues resolutely against any era of history that some try to depict sacrosanct and beyond reproach.

Then, the greatest challenge we face is, how can we verify historical facts and what source can we trust for historical truths in the age of mass manipulation? Opening history for scrutiny, refutation, affirmation, and confirmation is just a first step in the right direction, and that is if the word “right” can still make sense in a world dominated by imperialist ideologies, globalist corporations, and fascist institutions whose principle aim is repackaging information, distorting news, and detaching reality from real events.

However, despite what we call “mastodontic confusion by disinformation,” academic rigor, epistemological validity, and honest scholarship still demand untrammeled, unexpurgated disclosures of history — otherwise the “truth” is in danger of concealment, obfuscation, or even outright perversion. Yes, it is the job of historians to arrive at the truth, but also it is everyone else’s responsibility to apply open-minded skepticism to history as some quarters want to present it. On the specific issue of ideological Zionism, since disinformation, propaganda, and falsification of history are its hallmarks, it rejects the history of humanity. Yet, it is only a matter of time before the entire Zionist structure of deception will permanently collapse because, materially and pragmatically, Israeli society cannot and will not be able to sustain itself in its current form indefinitely.

General Context

In her rebuttal, Kay fallaciously attempts to legitimize Zionist Jews’ theft of land from the Indigenous Palestinians. She offers no justification for this usurpation other than the UN Partition Plan of 1947. Usually, Zionist Jews appeal to sympathy stemming from their victimization by Nazis. This is without basis in any elementary morality. Clearly, a group victimized by a second group does not earn some right to victimize a third group uninvolved in perpetration of the original act of victimization. If, indeed, such a morality-defying right did exist, then, consequently, the group that has forcibly transferred another group cannot later complain when it ends up suffering a similar fate.

In addition, a societal entity cannot claim a right to existence based on its extinguishment of the same right for a previously existing societal entity. For arguments sake, if a state has a right to exist (which we do not agree with), then in the case of the state of Israel, its right to exist would be no greater than the right of a Palestinian state to exist.

Dialectically, despite its illegal origins, but under the existing reality of Israel as a society and as “state”, the Palestinian rights to exist as a state and as a society are equal in every respect to that of Israel. However, another natural principle comes into play: the preeminent right owing to primordial existence. Since if a state has a right to exist, then no other entity has a right to extinguish this state’s right to exist. It is illegitimate by the principles of the natural law to argue for the right of Israel to exist over and above the right of Palestine to exist and to continue to exist. Rights, for the greater part, owe their existence to universally recognized concepts of human respect for others to exist and continue in toward endless time. This is what the Universal Declaration of Human posits: a universality of human rights. While the UDHR is legally non-binding, no UN member state opposed the ratification of the UDHR, and it has the compelling force of morality behind it.

Furthermore, hypothetically, if there is such a beast as the right of a state to exist, then that right to exist must be retroactive universally. An asserted right of one group cannot exist on the extinguishment of a right for another group — to do so would be reductio ad absurdum. Arguably, therefore, if the existence of a state to exist is to be a universally recognized right, then this universality must be equally applicable to all. Racism and dispossession of the Palestinians violate their human rights. Palestinian human rights activist Omar Barghouti recently stated: “No state has the right to exist as a racist state.” Israeli rejectionism of this reality is a rejection of peace since wars, including future wars would be, by default, the method to resolve the history of dispossession and occupation.

Also, referring to a widespread acceptance of a grotesque violation of law does not legitimize that violation of law. That the UN sanctions the violation of the human rights of a group, that the UN violates its very own charter that recognizes the right of a people to self-determination does not wrap the dispossession of the indigenous Palestinian people in any legitimate legality and certainly not in any morality. The fact is that European Jews were invaders and colonizers. They had the right to immigrate legally, they had the right to buy land legally, but they did not have the right to dispossess the Palestinians. Few people are ready to unequivocally agree that theft is a right. But that is, in effect, the unethical nonsense supporters of Zionism are arguing.

People create laws for many reasons. Presumably, the guiding reason is to prevent crimes and keep society ordered equitably for the good and security of all citizens. Whatever laws humans may devise, there are guiding principles that have some basis in morality, and these principles should supersede and underlie law. Legal positions without a basis in morality are, arguably, of dubious legitimacy. We stand by a principle: Forcible transfer of a targeted people — especially an indigenous people — is not only a quintessential crime but also an act of war that only resistance can reverse.

We also agree with the principle enshrined in international law: People have a right to resist their occupation and oppression.

In the wider discussion on Israeli Zionist racism, however, brazen deception, premeditated historical fallacies, straightforward disinformation, unmitigated, bogus analogies, and artificial, lopsided conclusions cannot add up to a critical study or propagandistically elevated to substitute material realities or dissection of it. We are determined to avoid Byzantine discussions on the subject of Israel and Zionism, since the value of a debate is not about upholding one’s own position dogmatically, but rather to re-discover alternative realities based on factual events. Consequently, simple analysis is all that is required to refute the entirety of the National Post columnist’s propaganda.

Deconstructed Contents

The following are measured refutations to Kay’s statements:

Kay: They [Palestinians] were transferred for two reasons: i) because their own leaders told them to leave so they would not be in the path of war, which the Arab countries initiated in 1948 and fully expected to win, after which the people would return and take back all the land and homes of the Jews;

Refutation: The statement does not address the primordial question: did European of Jewish faith and other converts to Judaism have right to colonize Palestine? The answer is a resolute no, and the reason for such resoluteness resides in one fact: their ancestors never inhabited the land they colonized. In addition, Zionist colonists have been basing their colonization on either blatant historical falsification that their ancestors once inhabited the land or on the theological mythology that “God” gave it to them. This latest claim requires, dialectically, two proofs: 1) God’s existence beyond ontological sensations, and 2) at least some credible witness hearing (including specification of spoken language) God promising a land called Palestine to European, Iraqi, Yemeni, Ethiopian, Arab, Persian, and other groups adhering to Judaism.

Pointedly, and contrary to Kay’s claim, Palestinians did not leave voluntarily or by insinuation — Jewish immigrants expelled them through well-documented acts of terrorism.² Second, even if they left because their leaders told them to do so, as she claims, that still does not eliminate their inalienable right to the land they inherited through millennia of continuous existence as a people.

Moreover, as she falsifies history and engages in naked lies, Kay moves to make puerile hypotheses such this one: “after which the people would return and take back all the land and homes of the Jews.” This is why we think it is puerile: If you take something from someone with violence, your act will not: 1) make you automatically the owner of the thing you take by violence, and 2) confer legal ownership of what you take by violence. Arguably, therefore, if the Palestinians struggle to retake their homes and recover their lands, this is their right. Another analogy on ownership by violence: If a thief robs a bank, and the bank tries to recover its money, would the thief then proclaim that the bank is trying to rob him or her illegally?

Kay: because you cannot have hostile people in your own state if they will not agree to live as citizens.

Refutation: This is nonsense. Kay cast labels around freely and in a discriminatory fashion. She labels the dispossessed as a “hostile people.” The Jewish Zionist dispossessors who violently perpetrated the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic referring to the takeover of Palestine by Zionists) are presumably non-hostile. By Kay’s logic, if she and her family were invaded in their residence, stripped of the residence, and cast out, then if she opposed being dispossessed, she would be a “hostile person”!

Simply, colonists of all colors cannot take the land of others, make a state, and ask the land-stripped people to leave because they refuse to be a part of the new state formed by colonists. However, there never was an intention that Zionists would share the stolen land with the Palestinians; it was to be a Jewish state with land reserved for Jews. This does not work in modern times. Yes, it worked on Turtle Island (Canada and the US), Aotearoa (New Zealand), Australia, and elsewhere in the western hemisphere. This took a few centuries to accomplish, and happened in a historical period where universal mass communication or modern illuminating principles were not widespread in acceptance among states. The dispossession of the Original Peoples, however, is a moral outrage that still demands official apology, rectification, return of land title (a western capitalist concept), and reparations. A principled approach recognizes this and demands expiation.

Kay: Transfers of populations go on all the time.

Refutation: That is not true in any context, except that by colonialist authorities. Regardless of socio-economic conditions, an established society would never transfer a population unless such transfer is deemed necessary to protect the population from impending natural calamities such earthquakes, flooding, etc. Any transfer of a large number of a certain population by another ethnic group under any guise including enforcement by violence, induction by intimidation, or propitiation with selective bribes is pure “ethnic cleansing,” especially if coupled with appropriation of lands, homes, or cities belonging to the transferred population. Examples of this type of transfer include the entire experience sustained by the in Indigenous populations of the western hemisphere, Australia, Aotearoa, South Africa, and, of course, Palestine.

But logical thinking is also a victim in Kay’s Zionist game of explanation. Is she stating that just because something has been occurring for a long time, then it is acceptable that it continues to occur, whether it be legal, illegal, moral, immoral? If that was not her inferred conclusion, then why make such a statement, unless she was attempting to induct by false analogy? Yet, if what she is proposing is permissible, then a transfer of Jews from historical Palestine must also be also be feasible as directed by the vicissitudes of power and streams of time. This is nonsense as it implies a never-ending cycle of transfers depending on which group is most powerful at a given moment in time.

Next: Part 12 of 12

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

1. Moshe Leshem, Ballam’s Curse (Simon and Shuster: 1989, inside jacket).
2. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Israel (Oneworld Publications, 2006). Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris,” Haaretz, 16 January 2004. Available at CounterPunch. The big difference between Pappe and Morris is that Morris thinks the “ethnic cleansing” was proper and that it should have been complete.
   

H: When Zionists Defends Zionism

One of the most risible things about Zionists, supremacist, racists, imperialists, and colonialists is when they rise to their own defense. One such example is of President George W. Bush who declared the United States is not a “torturer nation,” while his occupation force has been actively engaging in torturing and killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis since the first day it invaded Iraq; the other, when Condoleezza Rice compared the imperialist takeover of Iraq to the American Civil War.

In her sheer shallowness, Rice overlooked that Americans fought the Civil War among themselves. In Iraq, American imperialists invaded it not to liberate it from “dictatorship” or to take part in an Iraqi civil war that did not exist but to conquer its oil wealth, partition it, elevate Israel to absolute military power in the Middle East, and use Iraq as a territorial springboard for further American expansion in Asia.

Similarly, Zionists deny that Israel is structurally violent, racist, and supremacist. Or, when Zionists do admit their racism, they blame the victim: “it is the fault of the people that they despise!” For example, at ynetnews: “The Association for Civil Rights’ poll, which showed a high incidence of racism within Israeli society, accurately reflects the attitude of the majority of the public to Israel’s Arabs. However, the reason for it does not stem from a racist attitude on the part of the Jews, but rather, it stems from security-based hostility and political disagreements. When Arabs convey the message that they do not accept us here as a majority in a Jewish state and in control of the Land of Israel, this is the result.”¹

An example of propaganda put forward in defense of Zionism is by the Zionist website: Zionism and Israel Information Center. After stating that Zionism is not racist, the website proceeds to declare that everything negative written against Zionism is untrue, and that quotations attributed to Zionist politicians and theoreticians are either false or taken out of context. The website then continues by giving universally banal examples of “falsifications against Zionism.”

To prove its contention, the website reports benign quotes by Israeli politicians and founders. In essence, the site editors try to substitute the objective reality of Zionism as the world witnessed it with rhetorical statements without merit. It is only conceivable but also eminently believable that everything said or analyzed about the criminal nature of Zionism is true except that the Israelis eat the livers of Arab babies at Yom Kippur. Said the editors of the website:

Scattered around the Web are numerous pages of “Zionist Quotes” that show Zionism as an evil, racist conspiracy. Many of the quotes are forgeries and inventions. There was never any Ariel Sharon interview with a “General Ouze Merham,” and there was never any General Ouze Merham either. Amos Oz did not interview Ariel Sharon in 1982 or at any other time and denies that he interviewed Ariel Sharon. If you see any of those quotes, you can know the “information” on that page is a fake, and the people who present them are careless or liars. The intent of the doctored quotes is to “prove” that “Zionism is Racism.” and that ‘Zionists’ planned the transfer of Arabs from Palestine from the start. This false thesis is advanced by fabricating quotes in interviews that never took place, or by altering real quotes and taking them out of context.²

Refutation: We are willing to consider such a statement by Zionists, if they agree to consider that anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish quotations attributed to Nazi leaders were just false Nazi quotes.

However, even in the absence of quotations and despite Zionists protestation to the contrary, facts on the ground and the history of the Zionist entity in the past fifty-nine years (since statehood in 1948) speak powerfully and irrefutably about the racism of the state of Israel. While Zionist quotations help to focus the attention on the guiding mentality of Zionists, the history of racism and violence by Zionist Israelis, on the other hand, is universal by its unique barbarity and pathological intensity. A limited sampling include:

• The Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Stern’s (headed by Itzhak Shamir) massacre of villagers at Deir Yassin, 1948.³
• The massacre of Palestinians refugees at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by rightwing Lebanese Christian militia under the order of Ariel Sharon.⁴
• The Apartheid Wall in the occupied West bank (see photo⁵)
• The occupation and frequent bombardment of refugee camps in all of the occupied West Bank and Gaza,
• The Jenin Massacre (read a debate on the issue by David Edwards of Media Lens⁶)
• The destruction of Lebanon and the U.S. proxy wars against the Arab and Muslim states, and so on.

Special Note

Certain websites vigorously pursue denunciation of false quotations attributed to Zionists. That some websites would publish loosely researched or unverified quotations of Zionists is sloppy and stupid. It undermines social activism on behalf of Palestinians and ultimately helps Zionist aims. Establishing the veracity of information is important, but to engage in denying racist quotations without denouncing the instances of verifiable racist comments presents an inescapable conclusion: the websites are not interested in fighting racism. These websites have another agenda, and that agenda is acting as cover for Zionist racism. These websites are, therefore, guilty of perpetuating racism.

Readers must be vigilant and consider information with sufficient skepticism. Readers should be skeptical of unsupported claims. Readers should demand that writers make known the sources upon which they made their claims.

Next: Part 11 of 12

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

1. Yitzhak Levy, “Arabs are to blame,” ynetnews, 8 December 2007.
2. “Zionist Quotes,” Zionism and Israel Information Center.
3. Deir Yassin Website, Deir Yassin remembered.
4. “What happened at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982? ” Palestine Facts.
5. “Israel’s Wall in the West Bank,” Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel.
6. David Edwards, “How To Fool The Whole World, Machiavelli,” ZNet, 10 May 2002.

Having previously discussed certain aspects of the Zionist practice that routinely rejects or tries to prove false the veracity of racist quotations (verbal or written) attributed to Israeli figures, we are going to give you a review some of these quotations.

Brief Review of Racist Zionist Quotations

• “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” [Golda Meir, March 8, 1969]¹

• “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” [Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Haaretz, 19 March 1972]¹

• “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” [David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p. 121]¹

• “We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return.” [David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet (Prentice-Hall: 1967), p. 157]¹

• “We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” [David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, (Delacorte, New York: 1978)]¹

• “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.” [Yitzak Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From The Arabs in Israel by Sabri Jiryas]¹

• “There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:…the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish…with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.” [Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5]¹

• “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” [Theodor Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, Complete Diaries, 12 June 1895 entry]¹

• “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” [Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, 27 February 1994 Source: New York Times, 28 February 1994, p. 1]¹

• “May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them.” He added: “It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.” — Haaretz, 12 April 2001. The influential Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef exclaimed during a sermon preceding the 2001 Passover holiday”²

• “The Intifada is the Palestinian’s people’s war of national liberation. We [Israel] enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the Occupied Territories, engaging in theft and funding justification for all these activities … we established an apartheid regime.” — Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996.³

• “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” — Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Ahronot, 14 July 1972.⁴

• “The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point … We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe.” Joseph Weitz, Director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency charged with acquiring Palestinian land. — Machover Israca, 5 January 1973, p.2.⁵

• “Jewish blood and a goy’s blood are not the same.” — Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn’t murder if the victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, 19 June 1989.⁶

• “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, 15 November 1998.⁷

There is a plethora of quotations emanating from Zionist figures, and anyone interested can easily find a number of websites offering Zionist quotations. But readers must be wary and read with a skeptical mind. Important, as well, is the context within which a quotation is made. To be certain of a quotation’s authenticity, some research is required. We did check out a huge number of quotations, and we rejected many quotations. Still, some of the quotations we cite might be inauthentic, and this would be unsurprising. Given the myriad racist quotations, there is no need for people who support social justice for Palestinians to create false quotations.

The existence of false quotations best serves Zionist interests by providing a means to discredit media that publish false Zionist quotations. Nonetheless, the existence of some false purported Zionist racist quotations should not detract from the genuine quotations that adduce racism.

In the next installment, we will analyze if the Zionist media’s method in proving that racist Israeli quotations are false holds water.

Next: Part 10 of 12

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

1. Israeli quotes about Palestinians by IsraelForum.com
2. “A Page of Quotations,” What Really Happened.com.
3. Michael Ben-Yair, “The war’s seventh day,” Haaretz, 3 March 2002.
4. “Sourcing Quotes the Pilger Way,” HonestReportingUK, 23 August 2006. John Pilger was rebuked for use of allegedly inaccurate quotations. In this case, Pilger attributed the quotation-in-question (which, itself, was unchallenged) to Ariel Sharon in “The real threat we face is Blair,” New Statesman, 21 August 2006.
5. Wikiquote (Israel): Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (quoted in his article: “A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority,” Davar, 29 September 1967.
6. Quoted in Scott McConnell, “A Real Plan,” New York Press, 29 May 2001. The New York Press is a free alternative weekly in New York City that competes with Village Voice.
7. We located this also at Samantha M. Shapiro, “The Unsettlers,” New York Times, 16 February 2003.

Analysis: Zionist media vs. Israeli Racist Quotations

It is normal that people reject negative accusations — especially in ordinary life. However, in the broad subject of imperialism and colonialism, the problem is quite different since the ideology of expropriation and domination requires constant propping up so the material enterprise could continue. Historically, it is dubious that British colonialism in Turtle Island, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), or the openly racist state of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) would have managed to destroy and expropriate lands owned by its Original Peoples without racism as a cry of battle.

Likewise, expropriating Palestinian lands to install a “state for Jews” required racism. But how can Israel implement its “state” with constant exhortation and declarations of racism to harness that state and turn normal people into racist individuals so they can prop up its existence? Finally, as this state solidifies its existence, militarizes its social structures, and achieves a greater colonialist expansion, denying the racist nature that gives it life, becomes a public relations necessity. Let us see how the American Zionist media does this task on behalf of Israel in the following examples:

SAMPLE QUOTATION # 1: “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies? Not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” [Israeli president Moshe Katsav, Jerusalem Post, 10 May 2001]¹

STATUS: The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) contends this quotation was “taken out of context.”

INVESTIGATION: First, as a Zionist media, CAMERA is not interested in accuracy for all Middle Eastern issues. It is solely and exclusively at the service of one party: Israel. Therefore, it is predictable that that CAMERA will try inevitably to manipulate information adversarial to Israel. Says CAMERA:

While nothing was found in the source given, there was an account in the following day’s edition of the Jerusalem Post. This remark is completely removed from its context to make it sound racist. In fact, Katsav was specifically talking about the brutal murders by Palestinian terrorists of two young schoolboys. The remains of Kobi Mandel and Yossi Ish-Ran, who had played hooky from school to explore a cave, were found on May 9, 2001. The Jerusalem Post clearly placed Katsav’s words in that context:

President Moshe Katsav said yesterday that Israel would never stoop to the brutality the Palestinians displayed in the stoning to death of two Tekoa teenagers this week.
“There is a huge gap between us and our enemies – not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience,” Katsav told reporters at Beit Hanassi.
“We would never stoop to the kind of brutality inflicted on the victims in Tekoa and Ofra,” he added. “They’re our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who don’t belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.”

Katsav said Israel must change its approach to the Palestinians, but stopped short of voicing exactly what that new approach should be — although he appeared to imply that retaliation is at times necessary.

“Force is no solution to anything,” he said, “but sometimes it’s essential.”

Referring to the brutal murders of two young boys from Tekoa, Katsav said he is sure there are Palestinians and other Moslems who oppose terrorism, but it was terrifying to realize how much cruelty and hatred the Palestinians harbor against Israelis. (Jerusalem Post, 11 May 2001)

Summary: Misrepresentation of comments by removal of context.² [Emphasis in original]

EXAMINATION: CAMERA claims, on its website, that it is “devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”³

Hiding behind non-partisanship when morally reprehensible crimes are occurring is itself morally reprehensible. Would CAMERA have hidden behind “non-partisanship” when Nazis were overrunning their neighbors and persecuting Communists, Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and others deemed inferior or enemy by the Nazi authorities?

But CAMERA is not neutral. It states, “Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice.”³ Transparently, the concern of CAMERA is how Zionism and the Jewish state are portrayed in the media. As such they engage in flak by demanding corrections of various media. Indeed, demanding accurate reporting and journalism is de rigueur. But manifestly more odious is the tendentious advocacy of CAMERA on behalf of Israel and Zionism.

Its focus is on denying or obscuring Zionist hate speech. There is no pretense of such advocacy for Arabs or Muslims by CAMERA.

Hence, even though CAMERA may expose some incorrect quotations attributed to Zionists, this does not hide the manifold overt crimes of Zionism and the state of Israel. Readers rightly demand accuracy, but readers should also demand to know the full agenda of media watchdogs that engage in advocacy.

SAMPLE QUOTATION # 2: “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more” [Ehud Barak, prime minister of Israel at the time -- August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, 30 August 2000]¹

SAMPLE QUOTATION # 3: “[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” [Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.]¹

STATUS: here again CAMERA takes exception to journalist Robert Fisk’s use of the quotation attributed to Begin. Says CAMERA:

Internet hate sites, as well as Fisk, attribute this derogation of Palestnians [sic] as “two-legged beasts” to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The source generally given is:
Menachem Begin, as quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,”New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The author posited:

For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as “beasts walking on two legs”.

However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was talking, not about “the Palestinians” but about terrorists who target children within Israel.

On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, “his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness.” According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of… Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception.

Summary: Distortion by an Israeli critic of a Begin speech discussing terrorism and terrorists.⁴ [emphasis in original]

EXAMINATION: In this case, CAMERA has minutely parsed the language. But does this fine-tooth parsing pass muster, or is CAMERA engaged in semantics to cover hate speech by leading Zionists? We submit that Zionists, by and large, draw little distinction between a Palestinian and a terrorist.⁵ Indeed, the Israeli Foreign Ministry accuses Palestinian mainstream political organizations of being complicit in the exploitation of children and teens by terrorist organizations.⁶ Therefore, we consider CAMERA’s accusing Kapeliouk of deception to be hypocritical and disingenuous.

SAMPLE QUOTATION # 4: “[The Palestinians] would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” [Then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers, New York Times, 1 April 1988]¹

SAMPLE QUOTATION # 5: “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.” [Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, David Shipler, “Most West Bank Arabs Blaming U.S for Impasse,” New York Times, 14 April 1983, A3.]¹

STATUS: Again, CAMERA takes exception with a quotation mentioned by Fisk. Says CAMERA,

According to Fisk’s article:

[Arafat] is chastised by George Bush while his people are bestialised by the Israeli leadership. Rafael Eytan, the former Israeli chief of staff, used to talk of the Palestinians as “cockroaches in a glass jar”. Menachem Begin called them “two-legged beasts”…

These quotes appear on numerous anti-Israel Web sites, raising the question of whether Fisk obtained his information on one of the sites that share his agenda. While there is some truth to these quotes, they are either distorted or taken out of context.

Investigation–Example 1: Fisk suggests that Eitan routinely referred to the Palestinians as “cockroaches” He states this as fact, giving no source, but other internet sites refer to an April 13, 1983 article by Gad Becker in the Israeli daily, Yediot Ahronot. This original source of the quote, however, indicates that Eitan’s comment was atypical, made in specific reference to Arab violence. According to Becker, this “uncharacteristic” (as he puts it) and controversial comment was made by outgoing Chief of Staff Eitan during a discussion of how best to deal with Arab violence in the West Bank. In responding to suggestions by Knesset members that the army should stop stone throwers by shooting at their feet or throwing stones back, Eitan reportedly said:

The Arabs will never win over us by throwing stones. Our response must be a nationalist Zionist response. For every stone that’s thrown–we will build ten settlements. If 100 settlements will exist–and they will–between Nablus and Jerusalem, stones will not be thrown. If this will be the situation, then the Arabs will only be able to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.

Summary: A single (albeit controversial) remark made in a specific context is misrepresented as a generalized, routine slur by an Israeli leader.⁴

EXAMINATION: A microfiche search did turn up Eitan’s quotation in the New York Times. Clearly, CAMERA is turning itself into a pretzel trying to whitewash a racist remark by Eitan. It distracts readers by noting that Fisk did not disclose the source of the quotation. Then CAMERA admits Eitan made the comment, but insists it was “atypical” by citing one person. Is this supposed to be compelling evidence of atypicality?

In examining these three cases, it should be evident that CAMERA is running damage control for Zionist racism. With this in mind, we will present next further examples of racist comments by prominent Zionists.

Zionist websites with grandiose names that play the “accuracy game” are omnipresent across the net. One such outfit is Accuracy in Media founded by the Zionist Reed Irvine. As for disinformation on Arab and Palestinian issues, as well as for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism, none can top Daniel Pipes.org.

Next: Part 9 of 12

Read also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.

1. “Israeli quotes about Palestinians” at IsraelForum.com.
2. Ricki Hollander, “Exposing False Zionist Quotes (Quote Busters),” CAMERA, 1 October 2004.
3. “About CAMERA,” CAMERA.
4. Ricki Hollander, “Exposing False Zionist Quotes II (Quote Busters II),” CAMERA, 4 October 2004.
5. “Palestinian Terrorism,” Jewish Virtual Library. At the IsraelForum.com, “Israeli quotes about Palestinians,” one commenter, physics, wrote, “If you replace the words Arabs/Palestinians with terrorists, then all of the quotes are justified. For every single Arab/Palestinian that is involved in terrorism, this is certainly justified. For every single Arab/Palestinian that is not affiliated with terrorism, then the comments are not justified. I see these comments directed at the terrorists.” But many people read literally. What physics does not deal with is the planting of a seed whereby “Arab” or “Palestinian” has become synonymous with “terrorist.” The language of Zionist figures is deliberate, and the overwhelming number of such quotations in existence adduces this Zionist tactic.
6. “Palestinians exploit children for terror – Background,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 March 2004. One can even find “Palestinian political violence” on Wikipedia, and although “Zionist political violence” is found, apparently such political violence ceased in 1948. Further, there is no Wikipedia page for “Israeli political violence.” Presumably Israeli political violence does not exist for the mavens at Wikipedia, and all the contemporary political violence (read terrorism; if you do a search on “political violence” at Wikipedia, the “terrorism” page appears) is confined to the Palestinians.

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.

F: Examples of Israeli Zionist Racism

As the guiding ideology of Israel (and a highly influential, if not guiding, ideology now in the United States), Zionism has concrete sides. That is, its basic tenets moved from being agenda items to a tangible reality. However, while the scope of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine is now clear: an exclusive Jewish state that is also the dominant military power in the Middle East, the wider objective is the accomplishment of the scope of American imperialism (as dominated by American Zionists) for world domination managed through Israel but with direct participation of the United States and Europe. In essence, it is correct to characterize the ongoing wars against the Arab states as principally the Americo-Israeli wars with Canada, Australia, and European states in ancillary roles.

To accomplish its own specific objective, Israeli Zionism adopted four measures:

1. The attainment of an exclusive state for “Jews” through ethnic-religious cleansing of Palestinians;

2. Expanding the boundaries of this state through the continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, and claims over other parts of contiguous Arabs states, as the recent claim that Syria sold part of its territory to Zionist organizations under the direction of Baron Rothschild in the 1920s.¹

3. The reliance on the systematic use of extreme racist violence to achieve the objectives set by the Zionist manifesto,² as well as by the successive developments of the ideology of imperialism inside the Israeli ruling class; and

4. Using American-supplied military hardware and technology to project the Israeli Palestinian experience to other countries as it has been happening in Iraq, Lebanon, and Somalia (a member of the Arab League).

The aforementioned Israeli Zionist measures in Palestine astoundingly resemble the American measures on what came to be called the United States. Through extermination and expropriation, British and European colonialists and their American successors exterminated and destroyed most of the socio-economic structures of the Original Peoples, and then declared them “Domestic Dependent Nations” (granting them US citizenship in the early 1920s). Likewise, European Jewish settlers repeated the American colonialist example as when the installed Zionist state granted the Original People of Palestine a political status called the “Palestinian Authority”, which in effect, is a copy of the American concept of “domestic dependent nation”, only it is far worse and more cynical.

To show how racism is working in the Israeli example, we relied on two sources: 1) Arabs Against Discrimination Organization (AAD), and 2) We The People Foundation (WTP). [For extensive listing of acts of racism reported by the AAD.³. In addition, footnotes from 3 through 8, can be found in the same link]

Facts Reported by the AAD

• “In a moment of truth and courage, Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon admitted that the field investigation into the close-range shooting of Palestinian Iman al-Hams ended in failure. “Our inability to find the full truth in the field investigation is a dismal failure,” he said. In addition to launching a scathing internal critique, the Chief of Staff announced that despite recently published reports of serious behavior on the part of Israeli soldiers in the territories, “We should not take field investigations out of the army’s purvey. … etc.”⁴

• “Yesterday 117 olive trees were uprooted from a Palestinian-owned orchard in the Jayyus village near the Tzofin settlement next to Qalqaliya. The owners of a quarry surrounding the orchard on all sides and the residents of the Tzofin settlement, whose structural plan puts the orchard inside the settlement, are contesting the Palestinians’ ownership of this land. Despite clashes with the owners of the quarry and the settlers, the Palestinians continue to cultivate the orchard. Recently, the Civil Administration announced that the land on which the olive trees are planted is the private property of Mohammed Salim, a resident of Jayyus village. The people of Jayyus said that dozens of settlers, some of them armed, came yesterday morning to the olive grove, which is located west of the separation wall. A bulldozer began uprooting olive trees planted there.”⁵

• “Today (December 13) a strongly worded public confrontation took place at the Herzliya Conference between journalist Ilana Dayan, the presenter for Channel Two’s “Ovda,” (Fact) and IDF spokeswoman Ruth Yaron. During a workshop entitled “Society, Media, and the Administration,” General Yaron attacked Dayan for broadcasting a tape in which soldiers involved in the shooting death of a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza exchanged words. Last night, Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon strongly attacked the program’s operation team because of the story, broadcast a few weeks ago, describing it as “false and distasteful.”⁶

• “According to statistics published by the United Nations, the IDF has demolished more than 1,500 homes in the Rafah are in four years of combat, leaving 15,000 homeless. Most of the demolitions took place in this area because the IDF wanted to expand the Philadelphia Corridor on the Israeli-Egyptian border to prevent the digging of tunnels for weapons smuggling and attacks on their forces along the border”⁷

• “Fighters with a special naval force reported that they forced Palestinians to act as human shields for the soldiers, according to reports on Israeli Army Radio today.⁸

• “As for me, I wish the scum would die of thirst.” These words were spoken by a general with the IDF last night, referring to the residents of Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, during a lecture he gave to reserve soldiers in Tzrifin.⁹

Facts Reported by the WEP

The We the People Foundation (WEF) published an all-inclusive petition to the U.S. government to stop funding the state of Israel thus stopping the violent practices of the Israelis in the remaining but occupied Palestinian territory. In the document entitled, “Petition for Redress of Grievances Regarding the United States’ Unconstitutional Financial Aid [sic] to Israel and Occupation of Various Countries in the Middle East”, and after a preamble of twenty paragraphs starting with the word, “Whereas”, begins paragraph 21 that contains a comprehensive list of Israeli violations of Palestinians’ human rights.¹⁰ If studied carefully, each item listed in the paragraph is a screaming testimony of Israeli Zionist racism:

PARAGRAPH TWENTY-ONE

WHEREAS, evidence presented by Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter show the tax revenues collected from the People of the United States and sent to Israel are being used by Israel as follows:

• Treating the Palestinians worse than cattle, detaining them at will for long periods at hundreds of check points (denying emergency medical care to those who need it and causing produce to rot on farmers’ trucks, etc.);

• Arresting, torturing and assassinating thousands without due process; destroying homes, orchards and business places to make room for new Israeli settlements and highways that are off limits to the Palestinians;

• Keeping Palestinian cities under intermittent curfews, with confinements sometimes lasting for weeks;

• Depriving the Palestinians of their basic Natural Rights to assemble, speak freely, travel freely, and to fair and public trials in civilian rather than military tribunals;

• Imposing indefinite sentences of imprisonment;

• Preventing free trade of produce and manufactured goods originating in the occupied territories;

• Curtailing the supply of water and foodstuffs into the occupied territories if for the benefit of the Palestinians, resulting in widespread hunger and malnutrition;

• Discharging untreated sewage from the new hilltop Israeli settlements into the surrounding fields and villages;

• Closing Palestinian schools and universities; arresting educators; closing bookstores, censoring libraries;

• Encouraging unemployment;

• Intercepting aid meant for the Palestinians and using it for the benefit of Israel, including the razing of more Palestinian homes and the construction of additional Jewish settlements connected by limited access highways. …

G: Israeli Zionist Racism in Their Own Words

We divided the arguments in two parts: 1) general discussion, and 2) Zionist quotes

(1): GENERAL DISCUSSION

No racism can exist and then persist without an intellectual substrate, in this case, ideology. Ideology — acquired or assimilated — is a conscious practical attitude vis-à-vis specific subjective or objective reality. Racism subsists for its existential continuation on a plethora of nourishing elements. No such element — from whatever origin — can compete with that one single source that feeds racism with unlimited rationales to exist, prosper, spread, and predominate: language — written or oral.

Language expressing distorted, derogatory, bestializing and supremacist geographical, regional, national, racial, ethnic, political, or religious sentiments are the ubiquitous distinguishing marks of the ideology of racism. Among all ideologies of hate and racism, past and present, perhaps none can surpass the abhorrence, violence, and utter falsehood of Zionism. Incidentally, the wall that Israel built to isolate its ghetto-fortress from the territory it occupies in the Palestinian West Bank symbolizes the highest expression of racism. What else could it be except arrogant racism that makes Israel (which has colonized an additional fifty-five percent of stolen historic Palestinian territory since 1967) dehumanize the Palestinians with dependency on its economy by denying them petty jobs and turning them into starving, desperate prisoners in their own land?

Although Zionist racism in Palestine exists in countless forms (for instance, military occupation by itself presupposes essential racism, since it means 1) the subjugation of one by another based on disparity of force, and 2) incompatibility of objectives between occupier and occupied) a problem of method to qualify this racism does exist. For example, how does one track down what, when, how, and where Israeli or western Zionists make racist assessments on the Palestinians or Arabs, and how to authenticate their veracity?

It is utterly redundant to say that, in the age of instant global mass communication and of the internet where reliance on information disseminated by websites is gradually supplanting all other means of information, we are confronting a situation whereby we have no choice but to wade through mounds of outright falsifications, false claims, fake news, and forged data.

Consequently, in a situation such as this where the mendacity of manipulated information is suffocating our desire to know the truth about events, being able to distinguish between what is true and what is false is not only difficult to grasp, but also requires to us to overdose on stamina and perseverance. That is because manipulation, alteration, disinformation, and corruption of authentic news, information, and historical data are nowadays rampant to the point of stubborn insanity. However, despite the daunting task to verify sources and authenticity of information, a modest research to discover who is behind the website and how the site presents its facts and self is the clue we need to make informed evaluations without delving deeply into the presented subject.

Conversely, while it is easy to anticipate with precision the information divulged by websites such those of the White House, Department of Defense, the Weekly Standard, AIPAC, the New York Times, the New York Post, ADL, the Council for Foreign Relations, and the Wall Street Journal, etc., evaluating websites that profess “accuracy” in media reporting requires a rigorous examination. Ensuing is a concise discussion on this matter.

As it is always the case, supporting an analysis by calling on reliable sources is a powerful instrument to validate specific arguments. Accordingly, to support our analysis about Israeli Zionist racism, we prepared a few quotations that may uphold our charge. However, since reasoned skepticism is necessary when dealing with these issues, we are compelled to pose a few questions: Are these quotations reliable? Did anyone verify the source? Is someone trying to disgrace “blissful”, “innocent” Zionism maliciously? Are these “infamous” Arabs or “Jew haters” white American supremacists behind these anti-Zionist fabrications? Finally, since we are advocating accuracy, can we ourselves be accurate while putting forward a material that most probably is true, yet we need to verify further? Yes, we can; but only by adopting a strategy that allows for reasoned conclusions.

Hence, we have decided to re-produce these quotations and place the burden on the Zionists to prove them fake. A caveat is in order though: as is always the case, a contentious matter needs neutral, unbiased verification. For instance, where verification is in order, Zionists who wish to dispute a quotation cannot call for support other Zionists. An example of this: if the Zionist Organization of America wants to prove that a quotation we cited is false, it cannot refer us to a “study” done by the Anti-Defamation League. For us, accepting, face value, proposed disqualifications of quotations just because they emanate from websites or sources describing themselves as “guardians of accuracy,” means a recipe for intellectual disaster and a perpetuation of dishonesty.

On the other hand, shifting the burden onto us to prove the authenticity of a quotation would not work for the following fundamental reason: in the absence of ironclad proof on the origin of a quotation, the best way out is to see how opposing ideological forces resolve a specific contention. We will discuss this matter by studying two cases: 1) Barbara Kay (the National Post), and 2) the Hungarian-Israeli-American author Raphael Patai.

Next: Part 7 of 12

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

1. Read “Israel’s latest “land grab” against Syria – Rothschild bought 15K acres!,” Elder of Ziyon, 1 December 2007 and by Arab media): Translation, “Israel claims possession of land in the heart of the Syrian capital near the palace of President Bashar al-Assad,” Palestine today, 1 December 2007.
2. A summary, “Der Judenstaat,” Wikipedia.
3. Discrimination Against Palestinian by Arabs Against Discrimination.
4. Yariv Oppenheimer, “The army has discovered negligence and apathy,” Haaretz, 13 December 2004. Available at Arabs Against Discrimination website.
5. Arnon Regular, Palestinians: Armed settlers uproot 117 olive trees in an area declared private property by the Civil Administration, Source: Haaretz, 11 December 2004.
6. Roni Dorn-Dinur, “IDF Spokeswoman accuses Ilana Dayan of fabricating tape,” Walla, September 28, 2004. Available at Arabs Against Discrimination website.
7. Site editor, “Around 1,500 houses have been razed during the intifada and 15,000 civilians made homeless,” Haaretz, September 28, 2004. Available at Arabs Against Discrimination website.
8. Site editors, “Naval special unit: We forced Palestinians to act as human shields for us,” Nana, 8 December 2004. Available at Arabs Against Discrimination website.
9. Site correspondent, “IDF General: Let this scum die of thirst,” Walla, 26 November 2004. Available at Arabs Against Discrimination website.
10. Petition for Redress of Grievances Regarding the United States’ Unconstitutional Financial Aid to Israel and Occupation of Various Countries in the Middle East by the We The People Foundation.

E: Reports by Israeli Media

Martin Frost’s blog reprinted a comment to an article written by an Israeli journalist, Aviram Zino, who, under the title “Racism on the rise in the Jewish state”, reported on the status of racism in Israel. (The source of Martin Frost was the Israeli Insider, an online Israeli daily news magazine.)

Israel’s Declaration of Independence promises, “Complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

According to a recent poll, however, the majority of Israelis see racism in the Jewish State as worse than a decade ago.

The Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) recently conducted a poll in honor of Anti-Racism Day, in which 502 adult Jewish Israelis gave their opinions on racism and their Arab neighbors, Ynetnews reported Wednesday.

According to the poll, in fact, thirty-nine percent would prefer not having Arab neighbors, though a majority wouldn’t object to hiring Arabs. Twenty-eight percent flat out objected to hiring Arab employees and 38 percent wouldn’t work for an Arab employer.

In terms of the government, the vast majority of respondents (83%) would not accept an Arab president, only 13 percent considering the possibility. Twenty-one percent accepted having an Arab minister in the Knesset, like first-ever Arab minister Raleb Majadele, whereas 31 percent objected.

When asked the question, “Is the State of Israel more racist now that it was one decade ago?” a significant 37 percent of Israelis asked said yes.

Anat Hoffman, IRAC Executive Director expressed her disappointment of growing racism Tuesday, saying, “displays of racism, and especially those done in the name of Judaism, disgrace the Jewish people.” [italics in original]

Despite the ever-raging Israel-Palestinian conflict, the majority of poll respondents didn’t identify Arab Israelis as the most discriminated minority in Israel, placing them second after Ethiopian immigrants. Russian immigrants came in third.

A vast majority of the respondents (72%) identified the education system as a cause of the growing racism, claiming schools insufficiently acted to ameliorate the situation and stop prejudice. …¹

But racism, as an unopposed and dominant social ideology of Israel, is easy to gauge if one considers the present sentiments of the descendants of invading Jewish colonizers of Palestine. For instance, commenting on the annual report on racism in Israel, issued by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Zino, on the pages of ynetnews, gives a sober assessment of racism in Israel and point the fingers to official apparatuses of the state of Israel and institutions.

The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI’s racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes.

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.

Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled.

The media, said the ACRI, played a major part in fanning the flame, intensifying the Arab image as negative and terrorizing.

The Knesset was not absent from the report as well, as it allows bills which delegitimize Israel’s Arabs citizens before the plenum, preconditions social rights in IDF or national service and make its Arab MKs swear allegiance to a Jewish State. [italics added]

The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only.

According to the report, Israeli Arabs are subject to constant racial proofing, which defines them as a security threat; resulting in demeaning and degrading treatment at airports and public venues.

Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low.²

Remark: despite Zino’s earnestness in exposing Zionist racism, it is categorical to state that such an earnestness coming out of a Zionist is futile and even deceptive because Israeli Zionist racism goes beyond nominal values; hence, it has permeated and fused with the essence of the Zionist structures that constitute Israel.

Beyond that, it is no exaggeration to postulate that excising the Zionist ideological malignancy from Israel society requires generational commitment and enormous battles against ignorance, psychological dependency on racism, abandonment of mythological motives supporting racism, and most importantly the decoupling of Israel from the western imperialist project. Could that happen?

We do not know. But with a quasi conviction, and considering the fraudulent ideological foundations of Israel, this is not going to happen — the lure of profits, hegemonic dominance, lust for territorial expansion, and entrenched superiority complex coupled with violent racism make such a proposition senseless.

We can enforce this by stating that 1) considering the alliance between Zionism and US imperialism, and 2) considering role of the United States in reviving militant colonialism and the subscription of colonial powers (Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, etc.) to the American-Israeli world agenda, predicting any change in the dangerous Israeli mentality is futile. Consequently, and from an evolutionary historical point of view, only future, revolutionary forces of history could resolve, to a certain extent, that existential struggle between imperialist slavery and freedom. None can escape this logic.

Next: Part 6 of 12

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

1. “Racism on the rise in the Jewish state,” Israeli Insider. Available at www.martinfrost.ws.
2. Aviram Zino, “Racism in Israel on the rise,” ynetnews, 8 December 2007.

E: A view by Human Rights Watch/
     UN Human Rights Committee

We have no illusion about the New York-based Human Right Watch: despite its multiple efforts to depict itself as an independent organization and despite that vibrant name it gave to itself, the Zionist-infiltrated and western biased HRW is a cultural and media organ of US imperialism that divulges American imperialist propaganda under countless subterfuges and rhetorical semantics. Nevertheless, the extract we are about to mention is significant because HRW did not play with the basic facts since to report them was the UN Human Rights Committee.¹

Curiously, since both the UN Human Rights Committee and HRW are politically controlled by the United States, neither organization dared to name episodes that are synonymous with and reflect racism as such, but limited themselves to call the collective racist measures enacted by Israel as: “discrimination.” Discrimination, however, is a weak denomination for certain civic practices that are not necessarily racist. In addition, to dilute the issue of Israel’s open racism and equate between occupiers and occupied, both organizations cited human rights violations by the so-called, “Palestinian Authority”. Why put Israeli racism and violations by the PA at par?

In replying to this question, we have to note first our opposition to the PA acting on behalf of the Israeli occupation since this “authority” has become, de facto, a full partner with the Israeli regime to suppress the aspirations of the Palestinian people that democratically disempowered it through a fair election. Second, accrediting this PA with independent domestic policy “under occupation” is a preposterous attempt to confound the issue, as who is really exercising human rights violations in Palestine? It is all too obvious that while Israel is manifestly engaging in patent collective racism against the Palestinians, the PA — illegitimate by force of the 2006 Palestinian election — is trying to survive as a nominal “personal” authority enjoying benefits and privileges by intimidating all those Palestinians who oppose its compromising/capitulating policies with the supremacist Zionist state. But, emphatically, the PA’s practices do not share any trait with those of Israel: for example, we have never witnessed that the PA demolished houses over their occupants or attacked refugee camps with bulldozers and artillery!

Now back to the issue, under the title “Human Rights Development” Human Rights Watch writes,

The 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Israel’s main law addressing human rights, defined Israel as a religious state and did not prohibit discrimination or guarantee equality before the law. Many laws and practices openly discriminated against ethnic and religious minorities and against women on issues ranging from housing and employment to personal status. Israeli law did not guarantee freedom of religion, and as of mid-October, Israel had still not fully implemented a two-year-old law allowing civil burial, and had no provisions for civil marriage. On May 20, a Knesset bill providing for a three-year prison sentence or NIS 50,000 (US$13,700) fine for “preaching with the intent of causing another person to change his religion” passed its first reading.

The UN Human Rights Committee concluded in July that discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel had produced “significantly lower levels of education, access to health care, [and] access to housing, land and employment” compared to Jewish Israelis. According to the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah), the police response to demonstrations in September against Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian citizens’ land near Um al-Fahm left 400 injured, some by live ammunition. Deputy Commander Elihu Ben-On explained the police actions, telling reporters, “In the territories it’s common in such situations to fire live munitions with intent to harm.” In July, the interior ministry acknowledged that from 1984 to 1990 Israel had revoked Palestinian women’s Israeli citizenship if they married non-citizen Palestinians and lived with them in the occupied territories or Jordan.

Israel revoked permanent residency permits of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who could not produce the many documents required to prove that their “center of life” was within Jerusalem municipal boundaries. According to interior ministry officials, 1,641 Palestinians and their families lost their right to reside in Jerusalem between 1996, when the policy began, and August 1998. Five hundred other cases were under review. Individuals who lost residency rights also lost health insurance and social benefits, and risked being barred from reentering Jerusalem. [Compare the treatment of Israeli Palestinians to Jews who have no familial connection to Israel, have never resided in or visited Israel and yet these foreign Jews have a permanent right to Israeli citizenship and residency. -- KP & BJS]

Workers’ groups like the Tel Aviv-based Kav La’Oved/Workers’ Hotline continued to criticize government labor policies which left foreign and Palestinian workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers and labor contractors. In March, Labor Minister Eli Yishai announced plans to reduce the number of foreign workers in the labor force from 10 percent to one percent by 2005, replacing them with Palestinian workers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The number of foreign workers had significantly increased after 1993 when Israel severely limited West Bank and Gaza Palestinians’ access to Israel and East Jerusalem. Yishai promised to increase deportations of unregistered workers to up to 2,000 per month and reduce processing of deportation orders to “about ten days.” Israel jailed migrants pending deportation, and workers who could not pay their repatriation costs sometimes spent up to six months in prison, without judicial oversight, awaiting deportation.

Israel exercised full or partial control over 97 percent of the West Bank and 40 percent of the Gaza Strip, while the Palestinian Authority (PA), established in 1994 pursuant to the Oslo Accords, had full control over the rest. Although most Palestinians lived in areas under some degree of PA control, Israel exercised extensive control over the freedom of movement of all West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians, impeding the exercise of those rights dependant on freedom of movement.

Israel had barred Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip who lacked hard-to-obtain permits from entering or transiting through Israel or East Jerusalem since March 1993. The closure obstructed Palestinian economic activity and access to health care, schools and universities, places of worship, and family members in other parts of the territories or in Israeli prisons. Despite Israeli claims that closure was a justified security measure, the arbitrary nature of the procedures and criteria for issuing permits and the policy’s imposition in an indiscriminate fashion on an entire population made it an act of collective punishment.
Roadblocks used to enforce closure were a frequent point of friction, leading to several deaths and numerous injuries. Two Palestinian infants died during a closure and curfew imposed on Hebron in August, after soldiers blocked their mothers from reaching hospitals. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) characterized the deaths as the result of “wrong judgment” and “an unfortunate misunderstanding.” Even when IDF regulations were followed, the closure policy sometimes resulted in deaths, as when three Palestinian workers were killed and six others wounded on March 10 at a roadblock at Tarqumiya. Soldiers fired on their van after it went out of control, apparently because of a mechanical failure. General Uzi Dayan, then head of the army’s Central Command, told reporters “During the two years that I have had this assignment, no soldier has been brought to trial because of events that occurred when he was in the field,” and in May a military prosecutor closed the investigation without bringing charges.

Despite rules of engagement intended to minimize civilian injuries, the IDF and border police were implicated in at least twelve other deaths and numerous injuries during the first ten months of the year. On May 14, five Palestinians were killed and as many as 300 wounded, some seriously, by soldiers using live ammunition and rubber-coated bullets to disperse demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza. According to the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), forty-six of the seventy-one Palestinians injured in Gaza that day were shot with live ammunition, and fifty-two were shot in the upper body.

As of mid-October Israel had not released the bodies of ‘Adel ‘Awadallah, thirty-one, and his brother, ‘Imad ‘Awadallah, twenty-seven, killed by a police special forces unit on September 10. Both were wanted by Israel for suspected activities with the armed wing of the militant Islamic Resistance Movement, HAMAS. The exact circumstances of the killings remained unclear, and Israel refused requests for an independent forensic investigation. ‘Imad had been in PA custody from March 29 to August 15, when he was reported to have escaped from an unlocked cell. Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Eitan responded to early questions about whether the men had an opportunity to surrender, saying “What do you want me to do? Knock on the door?” West Bank commander Major General Moshe Yaalon later denied charges by PA chief of intelligence Amin al-Hindi and others that the two had been assassinated, saying “They tried to shoot the [police] dogs and our men killed them.” [Insinuation: in the eyes of Israeli Jews, a Palestinian life is worth less than a dog’s life. -- KP & BJS]

As of August, more than 3,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip were held in Israeli prisons, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Almost 1,400 were serving life sentences. Many were held in poor conditions with inadequate health care. In addition to these prisoners, as of mid-September at least fifty-three other persons were held as administrative detainees under similar conditions. Many had been held for years, without charge or trial and without effective judicial review of their detention. The Supreme Court ruled in November 1997 that administrative detention could be used to hold Lebanese nationals as “bargaining chips”—in effect, hostages—even though the detainees were not themselves a threat to state security. The longest-held administrative detainee, Ahmad Qatamesh, was released on April 15, after being held almost six years without charge.

Torture or ill-treatment during interrogation by the General Security Services (GSS) continued to be widespread and systematic. In January and May a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court heard arguments on GSS interrogation methods, but postponed ruling on whether these methods constituted torture under Israeli law, although the U.N. found them to violate two treaties prohibiting torture (see below). The Knesset also debated legislation that would codify these methods in a new GSS Law, in effect legalizing torture, but as of October the bill had not passed its final reading.

Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes built without permits continued around Israeli installations in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, displacing hundreds. Building permits were almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain, and according to Israeli officials as many as three thousand homes in the West Bank could be subject to demolition. At the same time Israel targeted Palestinian homes for destruction, Israel authorized massive housing construction, tax incentives, and roads and related infrastructure for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Government approval of new construction often immediately followed attacks by Palestinians on settlers, as in the decision in August to expand the Yitzhar and Tel Rumeida settlements, and to allot NIS 90 million to build new settlements and expand existing ones. In response to a survey in August by Peace Now that found 5,892 new units under construction in 142 settlements, while 2,888 completed units stood empty, the Housing Ministry admitted that almost a quarter of all units built by the government in the West Bank between 1989 and 1992 had never been occupied.

Israel pressured the Palestinian Authority (PA) to extradite to it approximately thirty-six “suspects and defendants” as a condition of progress in Oslo Accord negotiations. The transfer of persons protected by the Geneva Conventions to the territory of an occupying power is illegal, and extradition to a state where there is substantial risk of torture is prohibited by the Convention against Torture, which Israel has ratified.

How can we interpret such report? For instance, while resisting occupiers is a right enshrined in the basic fabric of humanity, Israel wants the PA to hand over such resisters that it calls “suspects and defendant”. The question is: what are the “suspects” suspected of, and what are these charges against these “defendants”? In the US history of black slavery, if a slave escapes from his owner and someone shelters the escapee, this someone has to return the slave to his “rightful owner”; so does Israel want the resisters (enslaved by occupation) back as owned objects or as a bargaining chip with a PA that gave away everything and got nothing in return? Does the UN or HRW contemplate the situation under the slavery paradigm?

We believe that people (who claim to be genuinely concerned about human rights) need to scrutinize the words, actions, and motivations of self-professed human rights organizations. One should regard with utmost skepticism the desire to a balanced human rights picture. When a violent situation is between balanced sides and where no side has an upper hand on the other side, then we would clearly expect a balance in reporting. However, when a self-professed human rights organization, like HRW, attempts to draw an equivalency between an occupier and the occupied, the victimizer and the victims, the exploiter and the exploited, then critical thinkers should take umbrage at such Zionist, imperialist, corporatist deceit. Human rights organizations have no rights whatsoever to stymie the victims of racism from the right of self-defense. And they have no right, whatsoever, to usurp the right of oppressed and occupied peoples to resist oppression and occupation.

Clearly, in historical Palestine the preponderant means of violence are with the Zionists. The Zionists are also the dispossessors, colonialists, occupiers, and oppressors. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves from further aggression against them and to resist the crimes wreaked upon them. A human rights organization that does not acknowledge these moral principles is but a tool of the violators of human rights.

Next: Part 5 of 12

Read also Parts 1, 2, & 3.

1. “Racism on the rise in the Jewish state,” Israeli Insider. Available at www.martinfrost.ws.

D: Psychoanalytical reading by Joseph Massad

Joseph Massad is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. Aided by acute sense of history and insight to read into the Zionist psyche, Massad gives a vibrant political psychoanalysis of Israeli fascist Zionism. He writes,

Israel’s struggle for peace is a sincere one. In fact, Israel desires to live at peace not only with its neighbors, but also and especially with its own Palestinian population, and with Palestinians whose lands it military occupies by force. Israel’s desire for peace is not only rhetorical but also substantive and deeply psychological. With few exceptions, prominent Zionist leaders since the inception of colonial Zionism have desired to establish peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands they slated for colonization and settlement. The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, is that all recognize its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere. The resistance that the Palestinian people and other Arabs have launched against Israel’s right to be a racist state is what continues to stand between Israel and the peace for which it has struggled and to which it has been committed for decades. Indeed, this resistance is nothing less than the “New anti-Semitism”.

Israel is willing to do anything to convince Palestinians and other Arabs of why it needs and deserves to have the right to be racist. Even at the level of theory, and before it began to realise itself on the ground, the Zionist colonial project sought different means by which it could convince the people whose lands it wanted to steal and against whom it wanted to discriminate to accept as understandable its need to be racist. All it required was that the Palestinians “recognize its right to exist” as a racist state. Military methods were by no means the only persuasive tools available; there were others, including economic and cultural incentives. Zionism from the start offered some Palestinians financial benefits if they would accede to its demand that it should have the right to be racist. Indeed, the State of Israel still does. …

After all, Israeli racism only manifests in its flag, its national anthem, and a bunch of laws that are necessary to safeguard Jewish privilege, including the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State’s Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965), and the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories. …¹

Massad continues his piercing analysis by describing how the Zionist “state” enshrined racism and its bogus theological and mystical underlayment into its socio-politico-military structures while imposing — with western and American financial and military help — on the Palestinians and Arabs to either obey such practice or face perpetual war. He writes,

Let us start with why Israel and Zionism need to ensure that Israel remains a racist state by law and why it deserves to have that right. The rationale is primarily threefold and is based on the following claims.

1. Jews are always in danger out in the wide world; only in a state that privileges them racially and religiously can they be safe from gentile oppression and can prosper. If Israel removed its racist laws and symbols and became a non-racist democratic state, Jews would cease to be a majority and would be like Diaspora Jews, a minority in a non-Jewish state. These concerns are stated clearly by Israeli leaders individually and collectively. Shimon Peres, for example, the dove of official Israel, has been worried for some time about the Palestinian demographic “danger”, as the Green Line, which separates Israel from the West Bank, is beginning to “disappear … which may lead to the linking of the futures of West Bank Palestinians with Israeli Arabs”. He hoped that the arrival of 100,000 Jews in Israel would postpone this demographic “danger” for 10 more years, as ultimately, he stressed, “demography will defeat geography”.

2. In December 2000, the Institute of Policy and Strategy at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Centre in Israel held its first of a projected series of annual conferences dealing with the strength and security of Israel, especially with regards to maintaining Jewish demographic majority. Israel’s president and current and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers were all in attendance. One of the “Main Points” identified in the 52-page conference report is concern over the numbers needed to maintain Jewish demographic and political supremacy of Israel: “The high birth rate [of 'Israeli Arabs'] brings into question the future of Israel as a Jewish state … The present demographic trends, should they continue, challenge the future of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel has two alternative strategies: adaptation or containment. The latter requires a long-term energetic Zionist demographic policy whose political, economic, and educational effects would guarantee the Jewish character of Israel.” The report adds affirmatively that, “those who support the preservation of Israel’s character as … a Jewish state for the Jewish nation … constitute a majority among the Jewish population in Israel.” Of course, this means the maintenance of all the racist laws that guarantee the Jewish character of the state. Subsequent annual meetings have confirmed this commitment.

3. Jews are carriers of Western civilization and constitute an Asian station defending both Western civilization and economic and political interests against Oriental terrorism and barbarism. If Israel transformed itself into a non-racist state, then its Arab population would undermine the commitment to Western civilization and its defense of the West’s economic and political interests, and might perhaps transform Jews themselves into a Levantine barbaric population. Here is how Ben Gurion once put it: “We do not want Israelis to become Arabs. We are in duty bound to fight against the spirit of the Levant, which corrupts individuals and societies, and preserve the authentic Jewish values as they crystallized in the [European] Diaspora.” Indeed Ben Gurion was clear on the Zionist role of defending these principles: “We are not Arabs, and others measure us by a different standard … our instruments of war are different from those of the Arabs, and only our instruments can guarantee our victory.” More recently, Israel’s ambassador to Australia, Naftali Tamir, stressed that: “We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not — we are basically the white race.”

4. God has given this land to the Jews and told them to safeguard themselves against gentiles who hate them. To make Israel a non-Jewish state then would run the risk of challenging God Himself. This position is not only upheld by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, but even by erstwhile secular Zionists (Jews and Christians alike). Ben Gurion himself understood, as does Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, that: “God promised it to us.”

5. From this point further, Massad makes exceptional inroads in reading the mindset of Israeli Zionist racism. For the purpose of this article, we are going to extract only a part of Massad’s brilliant conclusion. He writes,

6. It is important to stress that this Zionist rationale is correct on all counts if one accepts the proposition of Jewish exceptionalism. Remember that Zionism and Israel are very careful not to generalize the principles that justify Israel’s need to be racist but are rather vehement in upholding it as an exceptional principle. It is not that no other people has been oppressed historically, it is that Jews have been oppressed more. It is not that no other people’s cultural and physical existence has been threatened; it is that the Jews’ cultural and physical existence is threatened more. This quantitative equation is key to why the world, and especially Palestinians, should recognize that Israel needs and deserves to have the right to be a racist state. If the Palestinians, or anyone else, reject this, then they must be committed to the annihilation of the Jewish people physically and culturally, not to mention that they would be standing against the Judeo-Christian God.

Next: Part 4 of 12

Read also Parts 1 & 2.

1. Joseph Massad, “Israeli right to be Racist,” Palestineremembered.com, 5 May 2007.

C: An Analysis by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Nafeez Ahmed is a political analyst and human rights activist based in London; he is also director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission inn the same city. In his article: “Is Zionism racist?,” Ahmed offers not only a solid analysis of Zionist racism, but also details the connubial bond between this racism and western imperialist aims and strategies in the Middle East and the Arab world.¹

The following are extracts form this must-read article where Ahmed begins with an overview followed by a question:

The United States is threatening to pull out of the planned “United Nations Conference Against Racism”, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance from 31st August to 7th September [to be held in South Africa, on the pretext that discussions on whether ‘Zionism equals racism’ will derail the conference. As usual, Israel’s leading donor remains unwilling to allow any criticism of the Zionist State of Israel, nor scrutiny of its policies that are perceived to be racist. This is not the first time the U.S. has intervened to save Israel’s ideological skin. The U.S. has already boycotted the two previous annual UN Conferences Against Racism due to the inclusion of discussions of the role of Zionism in Israel’s racial policies.

Indeed, the current President’s father, President Bush Snr., while in his term at the White House told the UN General Assembly at its opening session on 23rd September 1991 that to equate Zionism with racism is to “forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history.” The former President, whose son appears to be following meticulously in his footsteps, chose not to elaborate on why the historic suffering of the Jews in Europe somehow places the Zionist State of Israel beyond criticism with regards to its racial policies.

Ahmed continues by highlighting U.S. imperialist cynicism in relation to Israel racism while masterly delving into the core of Israeli objectives. Says Ahmed,

But the vocal protestations of the world’s leading superpower and rogue state, parroted by the UN High Commissioner, can hardly be rooted in humanitarian concerns. This is clear when we ask: Why should any particular country, state or people be exempted from scrutiny with regards to their racial policies? Surely, a World Conference Against Racism should be ready to debate and scrutinize the racial policies of every nation in the world. Indeed, it would be racist to say that racists can’t be found among all the peoples of the world, that some race or group of people are somehow above question.

Actually, there is good reason to believe that once again, the United States is attempting to manipulate the process of open discussion in an international forum to suit its own vested interests. The longstanding interests behind U.S.-led Western support of Israel as the principal Western client regime of the Middle East have been explained by Israeli General Shlomo Gazit, former Military Intelligence commander and West Bank Administrator. Gazit explicitly described Israel’s role as protector of U.S. interests in the Middle East:

Israel’s main task has not changed at all [since the collapse of the USSR], and it remains of crucial importance. The geographical location of Israel at the center of the Arab-Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be a devoted guardian of stability in all the countries surrounding it. Its [role] is to protect the existing regimes: to prevent or halt the processes of radicalization and to block the expansion of fundamentalist religious zealotry.

For this purpose Israel will prevent changes occurring beyond Israel’s borders [which it] will regard as intolerable, to the point of feeling compelled to use all its military power for the sake of their prevention or eradication.

Thus, Israel aims to impose hegemony on all other surrounding states in the Middle East through military action. The historic roots of Israeli policy in this regard are clear from the very conditions which prevailed during the creation and formation of the State of Israel. Since its 19th Century origins, the most prominent pioneers of the Zionist movement focused on the goal of establishing a specifically Jewish state in which Jews would be protected and privileged over non-Jews. The Zionist occupation of Palestine began at a minimal level (amounting to 10 percent of the population by 1900, and by 1947, Jews were still only about 30 percent of the population of Mandate Palestine. Although they owned only six percent of the land, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution assigned 55 percent of the land to a new Jewish state, without consulting the indigenous Palestinian population and thus in violation of their right to self-determination which the UN Charter itself purports to recognize. As a consequence of this forcible international support of the Zionist penetration of Palestine, Israel took over larger and larger expanses of land by means of the 1947-48 war, culminating in the expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians. It is in this context that we can understand why, as Gazit points out, Israel asserts its right to intervene militarily in any Arab state facing:[italics added]

… threats of revolt, whether military or popular, which may end up by bringing fanatical and extremist elements to power in the states concerned. The existence of such threats has no connection with the Arab-Israeli conflict. They exist because the regimes find it difficult to offer solutions to their socio-economic ills. But any development of the described kind is apt to subvert the existing relations between Israel and this or that from among its neighbors. [italics in original]

Once he established the objectives of Israeli fascist racism, Ahmed proceeds to delineate the essence of this racism. Says Ahmed,

Racists can be found everywhere, among all people, including both Palestinians and Israelis. If institutional racism is apparent even in Western democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and so on, then why should we rule out the possibility of the same occurring in Israel? And why should the possible role of certain interpretations of Zionism be automatically assumed to have no role in this? Indeed, when prominent Israelis themselves have noted the racist character of the Israeli state in its treatment of Palestinians, it would be nonsensical to attempt to prevent open discussion of this important issue.

For instance, Ami Ayalon, retired head of Israel’s domestic security service Shin Bet, spoke against the Israeli policy of “separation” from the Palestinians at an annual meeting of the Israeli Finance Ministry’s budget division last year. “Is the option of a Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? In my view, it is not. That’s a dilemma we’ve always wanted to delay.” He added that the Palestinians should not be expected to be content living “in a Bantustan”, separated from Israel, as well as from Egypt and Jordan “for security reasons”.[3] He also observed: “The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair… We have to decide soon what kind of democracy we want here. The present model integrates apartheid and is not commensurate with Judaism… We will never attain security without an in-depth discussion about this issue.”[1]

The Los Angeles Times reported Ayalon’s comments as follows:

In public remarks that shocked Israelis, a former head of the Israeli domestic security service blamed government policies for triggering the Palestinian revolt. Ami Ayalon, retired head of the Shin Bet security service, said Israel is guilty of ‘apartheid’ policies that go against the spirit of Judaism. He suggested that the Palestinians were following a logic in choosing violence, and spoke of the profound ‘humiliation’ that Israel inflicts on Palestinian workers and others who seek to enter Israel.[1] [italics in original]

The UN Conference Against Racism provides an ideal international forum to openly and intensively engage with exactly this issue, in the manner Ayalon indicated is essential for peace and security in the Middle East. The role of Zionism in legitimising Israeli policies that are racist should also be investigated. Unless the international community is allowed to collectively scrutinise these matters in an open dialogue, the human rights of Palestinians will continue to be violated due to Israeli discrimination.

The Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem (The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), has similarly concluded that Israeli policies in occupied Palestine amount to nothing less than apartheid. Executive Director of B’Tselem Eitan Felner wrote in an article titled ‘Apartheid By Any Other Name: Creeping Annexation in the West Bank’ in an article for the French journal Le Monde diplomatique based on an extensive B’Tselem report, that Israeli settlement policies have been systematically “reinforcing the system of discrimination in the West Bank”. Describing what he labels “Apartheid in the Holy Land”, Felner observes:
The massive network of roads and highways in the West Bank that connect the major settlements to Israel represents the most overt aspect of Israel’s relentless efforts to incorporate the settlements and settlers into Israel. It makes it possible for settlers to commute to Israel each day… Another aspect of the integration of the settlements into Israel — less conspicuous but no less important — is the application of virtually the whole Israeli legal system to the settlements. Throughout the years Israel’s civil and military authorities have enacted a myriad of laws, regulations, and orders relating to settlers in the Occupied Territories to ensure that in almost every respect the lives of settlers are like those of Israelis living in Israel itself…

The result, he writes, is the establishment of a system of institutional racism against the indigenous Palestinians under the alien regime Israeli military occupation:

Israel has established a system of segregation and discrimination, in which two populations living in the same area are subject to different systems of law. While Palestinians are subject to military law and usually tried in military courts, Israelis who commit the same offence in the same place are subject to Israeli law and tried in civil courts inside Israel. Jewish settlers enjoy all the rights of Jews in Israel, including complete freedom of movement, speech and organisation, participation in local and national (Israeli) elections, social security and health benefits, etc. For Palestinians, on the other hand, even those living a few hundred metres from Jewish settlements, freedom of movement is limited. They cannot, obviously, vote to curtail the powers of the IDF and they do not enjoy Israel’s social security or health benefits. In Africaans they call it apartheid… [T]his institutionalised discrimination is spelled out in the government’s basic guidelines. [italics in original]

Afterwards, he proceeds to make a robust comparative study between Israeli racism and the nominally defunct but effectively alive Apartheid system in South Africa where economic realities, disparities of income, cultural slavery, and subservience of the black South African political establishment to the world strategy of U.S. and European imperialisms, speak of nothing but the survival of ugly Apartheid.² To see how Ahmed establishes this important comparison, please follow the link provided in the footnotes.

Next: Part 3 of 12

Read also Part 1.

1. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, “Is Zionism racist? U.S. Manipulation of the UN Conference Against Racism,” Media Monitors Network, August 3, 2001.
2. We agree with the deft argument put forward by Gary Zatzman (“The Notion of the “Jewish State” as an “Apartheid Regime” is a Liberal-Zionist One, Dissident Voice, 21 November 2005) that the apartheid in South Africa is a different creature than in historical Palestine, and this lack of distinction is abused by left Liberals to camouflage a slow-motion genocide that did not exist in South Africa:

   “For all its serious and undoubted evils and the numerous crimes against humanity committed in its name, including physical slaughters, South African white-racist apartheid was not premised on committing genocide. Zionism, on the other hand, has been committed to dissolving the social, cultural, political and economic integrity of the Palestinian people, i.e., genocide, from the outset, at least as early as Theodor Herzl’s injunction in his diaries that the ‘transfer’ of the Palestinian ‘penniless population’ elsewhere be conducted ‘discreetly and circumspectly.’ The fact that the present day heirs of his outlook practice this genocidal policy in ongoing slow motion, so to speak, over decades rather than in one fell swoop, and that their assault on the Palestinians’ identity as a people is not confined to acts of physical extermination, does not make their practice any the less genocidal.”

We must do everything to ensure they (the Palestinian refugees) never do return.
– David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948.¹

Let us not today fling accusations at the murderers. Who are we that we should argue against their hatred? For eight years now they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their very eyes, we turn into our homestead the land and the villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.
– Moshe Dyan (Israeli Defense Minister during the Israeli-Arab war, 1967), 1953.²

No state has the right to exist as a racist state.
– Palestinian activist and author, Omar Barghouti.³

Responding to issues raised by the article “Defining Racism,”⁴ Barbara Kay, a columnist with the Canadian newspaper National Post,⁵ employed a standard Zionist discourse devoid of elementary principles, historical validity, or logical thematic constructs. Kay’s defense of the Zionist dispossession of Palestinians coupled with heinous crimes against humanity is patently manipulative since she flagrantly attempts at confounding the fundamental subject that defines Israeli Zionist racism in its factual historical context and sequence of events. Writes Kay:

They [Palestinians] were transferred for two reasons: i) because their own leaders told them to leave so they would not be in the path of war, which the Arab countries initiated in 1948 and fully expected to win, after which the people would return and take back all the land and homes of the Jews; and ii) because you cannot have hostile people in your own state if they will not agree to live as citizens. Transfers of populations go on all the time. If the Arabs had accepted the two-state solution proposed by the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have been living in their own state for 60 years in peace with Israel. Why do you blame Israel for Arab intransigence and stupidity?

You mention the expulsion of the European Jews. i notice you fail to mention the expulsion of the Jews in Arab lands, of which there were 600,000, the exact same number as the Palestinians. Except they were not left to rot by their brethren as the Arab refugees were; they were absorbed by Israel, just as the Arab refugees should have been absorbed by Jordan, since ethnically they are Jordanians. So let me ask you: Was it wrong for the Arabs to expel Jews from their lands? And since I now assume you will say yes, why don’t we agree to call it a draw. The Arabs are now happily free of Jews, and Israel – while happily living with their 1 million Arab citizens – is also happily free of those Palestinians who wish them dead.

We present a general dissection of Israeli Zionist racism with Kay being only the instigative trigger behind this series. Accordingly, Kay is just a minute personification of Zionism that we can use as a model for our dissection. Therefore, to deconstruct Kay’s (and by extension all Zionist analysts) statements — hence, tearing down her manipulative ideological edifice — we have to address first the eminent question whether racism, pointedly, Israeli Zionist racism, is materially applicable to the Palestinian issue. To this end, we will divide this series in two sections: 1) analysis of Israeli Zionist racism, and 2) the deconstruction of Kay’s statement.

Section 1: Analysis of Israeli Zionist racism

Before demonstrating the material aspects and institutionalized policies of Israeli racism in Palestine (and actions and policies in the Arab world), we must define said racism in its practical and ideological terms. However, to do just that, we still have to define first the term, “racism” itself. As a preliminary approach, we decided to rely on the definition given by the United Nations Organization. This is in spite of the fact that 1) western colonialist-imperialist powers created this organization to defend — exclusively — their strategic and geo-economic interests, an 2) it was this same organization that illegally sanctioned the partition of Palestine between the indigenous Palestinians and Jewish European invaders, thus leading to the installation of the racist state of Israel.

Definition

Sub-article # 1 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination⁶ gives the following definition to racism:

In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Do all elements that the United Nations said constitute the practical manifestation of racism apply to the situation of Palestinians since the immigration of Europeans of Jewish faith to the Arabic Syrian region of Palestine in the early 20th century? Does the subsequent forcible installation of the Zionist entity in Palestine where diverse ethnic groups from disparate parts of world having no social, anthropological, or cultural relations amongst them except nominal adherence to Judaism, settled through violence, murder, intimidation, land expropriation, and then collectively joined in practice of ritualistic discrimination against the indigenous populations constitute, per se, racism?

To answer these questions methodically and give the reader the widest view possible on this subject, we relied on extensive anthological extracts dealing with Israeli Zionist racism from varied perspectives. We anticipate that Zionists and their sycophants and acolytes would want to debate this series or distort its basic conclusions. For this purpose, we want emphasize that we are not merchants of accommodating principals and have no inclination to debate insincere arguments such as that of Israeli racism vis-à-vis the Palestinians based on terms dictated by Zionists whereby cheap preemptive accusations, such as labeling those who disagree with Zionism and the über-colonialistic policies of Israel as “anti-Semites,” is a norm.

We took the position for not debating Zionists on their own terms primarily because, before dubbing anyone with this trite label, one needs to define what Semitism is in the first place, who invented the term, and who decided to use it to intimidate and silence the opponents of Zionism. In addition, if Zionists insist to make anti-Zionism and anti-“Semitism” (or more accurately and specifically, “anti-Jewish”) interchangeable or equivalent, then that would not be our problem to address, discuss, or resolve.

Facts about Israeli Zionist Racism

A) A historical view by Basel Ghattas

Writing for the Jerusalem Fund, Basel Ghattas, General Director of the Galilee Society (Haifa, Israel), gives the following account on the situation of the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who remained in the newly formed exclusivist Jewish state:

History and Demographics

The 156,000 Palestinians that remained in the newly established Jewish state of Israel in 1948 have grown into more than one million. Their annual birth rate exceeded five percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and decreased to around three percent in recent years.

More than 20 percent of these one million people are displaced from their towns and villages as internal refugees. Palestinians in Israel now live in three main geographical areas: the Galilee, or the northern district of Israel where they comprise half of the population; the central triangle of Israel; and in the Negev in the south. The majority of Palestinians in Israel (60 percent) live in 115 villages. An additional 20 percent live in 7 towns, 10 percent live in 6 mixed Jewish-Palestinian cities, and the rest live in over 40 “unrecognized” villages that are considered illegal by the government.

Statistics of Discrimination

Until 1966, the Palestinian citizens of Israel lived under military administration. Still today, despite supposedly being equal citizens of a democratic state, the Palestinian minority continues to be subjected to systematic institutional and legal discrimination, and is completely marginalized by the Israeli government. Israeli prime ministers from left and right have recently acknowledged this discrimination, yet little has been done to bridge the wide gap that has been created between Jews and Palestinians.

When one looks at the economic conditions of Palestinians in Israel, this gap becomes apparent. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics has classified all communities in Israel into 10 clusters according to their socio-economic status. All 10 communities in the lowest cluster are Palestinian. Out of 26 communities in the second lowest cluster, 23 are Palestinian. None of the Palestinian communities ranked higher than the five lowest classifications. Moreover, almost 50 percent of the children living below the poverty line in Israel are Palestinian, despite the fact that Palestinians do not comprise more than 20 percent of Israel’s entire population.

Palestinians in Israel also receive less education than their Jewish counterparts. Sixty percent of the Palestinian labor force have a maximum of nine years of education. Only five percent of Palestinians have college degrees or higher, compared to 17 percent of Jews in Israel.

In addition, Palestinians encounter problems of overcrowding. They own less than three percent of Israel’s land, and less than 50 percent of that land is under their local authority’s jurisdiction. The severe lack of appropriate, updated urban plans for their neighborhoods has created a serious housing problem. This shortage has resulted in a high population density, as well as more than 10,000 illegal houses threatened to be demolished under court order.

According to a report submitted to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination by Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, there are 17 Israeli laws that are discriminatory against Palestinians. These laws create a reality in which Palestinian citizens are deprived of basic educational, religious, social, and economic rights.⁷

B) A Statement by the United Nations

Recently, the United Nations, an organization that reflects the hypocritical establishment of its founders and signatories, condemned Israeli discrimination against the Palestinians.⁸ Before quoting on the nature of this discrimination, we have to point out to four relevant facts:

One: As for “suicide-bombing,” the U.N., as one may expect, does not explain why this type of attack (self-sacrificing against the Israeli occupiers of Palestine) is happening in the first place? An explanation, however, is readily available: 1) resistance against an occupation that has been lasting since 1967, and 2) frustration and despair against Israeli Zionist discrimination and racism.

Two: if the United Nations is concerned about anti-Palestinian discrimination, why has it never issued a resolution punishing Israel for its institutionalized racist policies and otherwise taken actions to stop the racism?

The use of the word “discrimination,” however, is a U.N. political ruse meant to appease Israel and mitigate the reality that pervades the Israeli relations with the Palestinians, which is racism. In fact, after the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 in 1975 that equated Zionism with racism (abrogated it in 1991 after Gulf War Aggression against Iraq and the de facto military occupation of the Gulf States) it would be impractical for the Israeli-controlled U.N. (via the U.S.) to reapply the term “racism” to any racist act by Israel.

Three: the imperialist news agency, Reuters, reported on the discrimination charges by employing linguistic deception. It printed the charges under the headline: “UN: Israel must stop discrimination against Arabs, Palestinians.” [italics added] It is deception because, who is the Palestinian and who is the Arab in occupied Palestine, the occupied West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip? Does Reuters mean that Palestinians are distinct from the Arabs? Or maybe Arabs and Palestinians are two similar/dissimilar groups living in Palestine? Or maybe it wanted to imply that 1) it meant all indigenous Palestinians from all origins; or 2) it meant Arabs outside Palestine?

Arguably, therefore, Reuters’ attempt at concealing the victims of Israeli racism is apparent. The agency is trying to water down the Palestinian identity and merge it with that of the greater Arab nation primarily to promote the Zionist Israeli idea that Arab countries should absorb all Palestinian refugees in the countries where they are currently residing since they are all Arabs. …

Four: reporting on the U.N. charges against Israeli practices in the whole of Israeli-occupied Palestine was no less than Haaretz, a Zionist Israeli newspaper. This is somewhat peculiar since many in the West accredit it with progressive leanings. We believe this is sheer nonsense since Israel and all of its institutions, culture, and media are multiple faces for the same merchandize, that is, they are all expressions of the racist Zionist matrix that generated them. Specifically, Zionism and political or humanistic progressivism are antithetical because Zionism as a foundation and ideology could never reconcile with the reality that it has been trying to uproot and supplant Palestinians since the Balfour Declaration.⁹

In quoting the United Nations, we added italics to all relevant situations where the charge of racism is transparent:

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said Israel’s security measures to ward off suicide bombings and other attacks must be re-calibrated to avoid discrimination against Arab Israelis or Palestinians living in Israeli-occupied lands such as the West Bank.

The committee specified that Israel should ease roadblocks and other restrictions on Palestinians and put a stop to settler violence and hate speech.

Its 18 independent experts, who examined the records of 13 countries at a four-week meeting in Geneva, also said Israel should cease building a barrier in and around the West Bank and ensure its various checkpoints and road closures do not reinforce segregation.

In its conclusions, the committee also voiced concern at an unequal distribution of water resources, a disproportionate targeting of Palestinians in house demolitions and the “denial of the right of many Palestinians” to return to their land.

Differing applications of criminal law between Jews and Arabs had caused “harsher punishments for Palestinians for the same offence,” said the committee, whose recommendations are not legally binding.

A high number of complaints by Arab Israelis against police officers are not properly investigated and many Arabs suffer discriminatory work practices and high unemployment, it said.

Excavations beneath and around the Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s holiest site in Jerusalem, should also be undertaken in a way that will “in no way endanger the mosque and impede access to it,” it added.

Israel argues that the UN committee’s remit, to ensure compliance with a 1965 international treaty against racial discrimination which the Jewish state has ratified, does not apply to the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967. The committee rejects that position.⁸

Next: Part 2 of 12

1. Quoted by Michael Bar Zohar’s in Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet (Prentice-Hall: 1967), p. 157.
2. Quoted by Uri Avneri in Israel without Zionists (Macmillan: 1968), p. 134.
3. Interview with Silvia Cattori, “Omar Barghouti: ‘No State Has the Right to Exist as a Racist State,’” Voltairenet.org, 7 December 2007.
4. Kim Petersen, “Defining Racism,” Dissident Voice, 26 November 2007.
5. David Beers, “Marc Edge on ‘Asper Nation,’” The Tyee, 13 November 2007. National Post, a chunk of “Canada’s Most Dangerous Media Company,” CanWest Global is, according to Mark Edge, associate professor of journalism at Sam Houston University, undermining democracy and attempting to set the political agenda through ownership manipulation of editorials. The Asper family that own the National Post are unabashed supporters of Zionism.
6. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” 21 December 1965.
7. Basel Ghattas, “Palestinians in Israel: Discrimination and Resistance,” Palestine Center and The Jerusalem Fund, Information Brief No. 59, December 2000.
8. Reuters, “UN: Israel must stop discrimination against Arabs, Palestinians,” Haaretz, 9 March 2007.
9. The Balfour Declaration

H: When Zionists Defends Zionism

One of the most risible things about Zionists, supremacist, racists, imperialists, and colonialists is when they rise to their own defense. One such example is of President George W. Bush who declared the United States not a “torturer nation,” while his occupation force has been actively engaging in torturing and killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis since the first day it invaded Iraq; the other, when Condoleezza Rice compared the imperialist takeover of Iraq to the “American Civil War.”

In her utter shallowness, Rice overlooked that Americans fought the Civil War among themselves. In Iraq, American imperialists invaded it not to liberate it from “dictatorship” or to take part in an Iraqi civil war that did not exist but to conquer its oil wealth, partition it, elevate Israel to absolute military power in the Middle East, and use Iraq as a territorial springboard for further American expansion in Asia.

Likewise, Zionists deny that Israel is structurally violent, racist, and supremacist. Or, when Zionists do admit their racism, they blame the victim: “it is the fault of the people that they despise!” For example, at ynetnews: “The Association for Civil Rights’ poll, which showed a high incidence of racism within Israeli society, accurately reflects the attitude of the majority of the public to Israel’s Arabs. However, the reason for it does not stem from a racist attitude on the part of the Jews, but rather, it stems from security-based hostility and political disagreements. When Arabs convey the message that they do not accept us here as a majority in a Jewish state and in control of the Land of Israel, this is the result.”¹

An example of propaganda put forward in defense of Zionism is by the Zionist website: Zionism and Israel Information Center. After stating that Zionism is not racist, the website proceeds to declare that everything negative written against Zionism is untrue, and that quotations attributed to Zionist politicians and theoreticians are either false or taken out of context. The website then continues by giving universally banal examples of “falsifications against Zionism.”

To prove its contention, the website reports benign quotes by Israeli politicians and founders. In essence, the site editors try to substitute the objective reality of Zionism as the world witnessed it with rhetorical statements without merit. It is only conceivable but also eminently believable that everything said or analyzed about the criminal nature of Zionism is true except that the Israelis eat the livers of Arab babies at Yom Kippur. Said the editors of the website:

Scattered around the Web are numerous pages of “Zionist Quotes” that show Zionism as an evil, racist conspiracy. Many of the quotes are forgeries and inventions. There was never any Ariel Sharon interview with a “General Ouze Merham,” and there was never any General Ouze Merham either. Amos Oz did not interview Ariel Sharon in 1982 or at any other time and denies that he interviewed Ariel Sharon. If you see any of those quotes, you can know the “information” on that page is a fake, and the people who present them are careless or liars. The intent of the doctored quotes is to “prove” that “Zionism is Racism.” and that ‘Zionists’ planned the transfer of Arabs from Palestine from the start. This false thesis is advanced by fabricating quotes in interviews that never took place, or by altering real quotes and taking them out of context.²

Refutation: We are willing to consider such a statement by Zionists, if they agree to consider that anti-Zionist or anti-Jew quotations attributed to Nazi leaders were just fake Nazi quotes.

However, even in the absence of quotations and despite Zionists protestation to the contrary, facts on the ground and the history of the Zionist entity in the past fifty-nine years (since statehood) speak powerfully and irrefutably about the racism of the state of Israel. While Zionist quotations help to focus the attention on the guiding mentality of Zionists, the history of racism and violence by Zionist Israelis, on the other hand, is universal by its unique barbarity and pathological intensity. A limited sampling include,

• The Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Stern’s (headed by Itzhak Shamir) massacre of villagers at Deir Yassin, 1948.³
• The massacre of Palestinians refugees at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by rightwing Lebanese Christian militia under the order of Ariel Sharon.⁴
• The Apartheid Wall in the occupied West bank (see photo at⁵)
• The occupation and frequent bombardment of refugee camps in all of the occupied West Bank and Gaza,
• The Jenin Massacre (Read a debate on the issue by David Edwards of Media Lens⁶)
• The destruction of Lebanon and the U.S. proxy wars against the Arab and Muslim states, and so on.

Special Note

Certain websites vigorously pursue denunciation of false quotations attributed to Zionists. That some websites would publish loosely researched or unverified quotations of Zionists is sloppy and stupid. It undermines social activism on behalf of Palestinians and ultimately helps Zionist aims. Establishing the veracity of information is important, but to engage in denying racist quotations without denouncing the instances of verifiable racist comments presents an inescapable conclusion: the websites are not interested in fighting racism. These websites have another agenda, and that agenda is acting as cover for Zionist racism. These websites are, therefore, guilty of perpetuating racism.

Readers must be vigilant and consider information with sufficient skepticism. Readers should be skeptical of unsupported claims. Readers should demand that writers make known the sources upon which they made their claims.

Next: Part 11 of 12

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

1. Yitzhak Levy, “Arabs are to blame,” ynetnews, 8 December 2007.
2. Zionism and Israel Information Center, “Zionist Quotes.”
3. Deir Yassin Website, “Deir Yassin Remembered.”
4. “What happened at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982?” Palestine Facts.
5. “Israel’s Wall in the West Bank,” Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel.
6. David Edwards, “How To Fool The Whole World,” Machiavelli, ZNet, 10 May 2002.

With the exclusion of his closing remark, “‘Our way of life’ has caused a holocaust of unspeakable pain and suffering in much of the world, and for generations,” Manuel Garcia’s article, “Forgetting 9-11,” is an exercise in intellectual censorship, investigative debate, and the imposition of rigid ideological patterns under the pretense of achieved scientific and self-sustained epistemological verities.

Debating an article that is replete with ad hominem is not something that we aspire to do. Nor is Garcia’s dialectically flawed article of such a clear-cut scientific relevance or factual compactness that makes it a model for rebuttal or debate. Nonetheless, the body of ideas that Garcia is advocating, which is to move beyond the 9-11 debate and accept the state’s version of it, is critically unacceptable in view of the countless holes in the Bush administration’s account of the event. Simply, Garcia’s tendentious approach not only damages the research on the making of the ultra-fascist American state, but it also sets the trend for replacing the real physical mechanics of 9-11 with dubious facts that still, six years after the attack, fail to pass the test of reasoned acceptability because of a host of unresolved contradictions and inconsistencies.

Because 9-11 is a pivotal event that re-introduced defunct Euro-American colonialist conquests into our present time and glorifies genocidal violence under the guise of fighting so-called Islamic terrorism and counter-insurgency in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, accepting the official theories as an emotional placebo to unanswered questions — thus far — does not sit well with reasonable and responsible minds. Consequently, and leaving the physics of the attack out of our debate, a rebuttal to Garcia’s intellectual model of 9-11 is mandatory, seeing that he elevates his disparagement of different views to an emphatic level of certainty but without providing any substantive validation to uphold this “certainty.”

Yes, we might never find the truth about 9-11 since the American state can bury the naked truth about it under a zillion tons of state secrecy, deception, and lies. Still, we can argue that the plethora of alternative evidence and logical inferences from the events that surround pre- and post-9-11 are sufficient to contradict and, to a certain extent, dismantle the official theory and shed light on the Zionist Israeli-American scheme to militarily control resource-rich, non-nuclear, strategic nations consequent to a cataclysmic event, whether engineered or not.

Considering, therefore, the immense importance of the debate on the universal significance of 9-11, we cannot but challenge Garcia’s basic theses and conclusions regarding how one should behave in debating 9-11 or when discussing the physical aspects of the attack. Primarily, we reject the name-calling, since neither Garcia nor any one else has the exclusive right to dissect 9-11 according to personal convictions and issue peremptory conclusions thereof.

How should one respond to name-calling? Noam Chomsky, institute professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology saw no way to respond:

There’s no way of responding to it. If someone calls you an anti-Semite, what can you say? I’m not an anti-Semite? If someone says you’re a racist, you’re a Nazi or something, you always lose. The person who throws the mud always wins because there is no way of responding to such charges.¹

Deconstruction

Garcia: Because 9/11 happened a long time ago, as time is now experienced by the now-now no-history-cache wireless-wired over-caffeinated infotainment public mind, people have solidified their views on the subject, and new commentary is unnecessary.

Analysis: First, we have no idea why the passage of time after an event must be a factor in deciding its preponderance or irrelevance in history. If that were the case, then why do world cultures and societies still deal with eon-old superstitions, beliefs, dogmas, and events! Second, it is hard to know what to make of Garcia’s sentence, “now-now no-history-cache wireless-wired over-caffeinated infotainment public mind, people have solidified their views on the subject.” Was that an insult, derision, mockery, vapid witticism, or what? Among the public, mud slinging is, maybe, effective. But among people interested in open and intelligent dialogue, mud slinging speaks more to the slinger than the object of slinging.

By these comments, does Garcia imply that people who consider themselves part of a 9-11 “truth” movement are stubborn and unwilling to consider other viewpoints? David Ray Griffin, for one, demonstrated the incorrectness of such a position in his response to critics who support the “official” theory of 9-11 — impossible if one was unwilling to consider what the other side had said.²

Garcia: Those who have moved beyond 9/11 see it as blowback from decades of inhuman US foreign policy.

Analysis: Garcia’s position in this regard is untenable because of unsubstantiated postulation. Before everything, by stating that 9-11 was “blowback from decades of inhuman US foreign policy” means that he reached the categorical conclusion that the attack was executed by citizens or organizations of regions (Arab is implied) that were exacting revenge on the United States because of its imperialistic policies and interventions.
However, there were many inconsistencies in the story telling that purports to identify the perpetrators or their motives. Indeed, despite an avalanche of speculations, analyses, and reports, we still do not know who was behind 9-11. From the first instance, the Bush administration and media, controlled by Zionist conglomerates, accused al-Qaeda without any proofs except disputable “evidence” fabricated by U.S. intelligence such as ATM-captured photographs, manipulated passenger lists, a passport of one the perpetrators found six blocks away from the flaming infernos, and a laughable letter attributed to the lead perpetrator of the attack.

Most importantly, stating that the attack could be because of “decades of inhuman US foreign policy” is false. First, granting credence to US government allegations, the American-founded al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden were American allies who never protested the “inhuman foreign policy” of the United States in Palestine or Iraq during all the period from the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan until the invasion of Iraq. In particular, bin Laden never issued any condemnation of the U.S. strangling and starving of Iraq during the entire 1990s and beyond because Wahabi Saudis considered the Iraqi government secular and, thus, heathen.

If, but only at face value, it was al-Qaeda that attacked the United States, the motive for such an attack could be only one: the de facto military occupation of Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf “War” 1991 prompted Saudi dissidents within the ruling family to declare war against the United States to dislodge them from the Arabic Peninsula. To defeat those who opposed its presence and military bases, the United States reacted by declaring war against it erstwhile anti-Soviet occupation allies. From that moment on, it was war and counter-war between the Saudi organization of bin Laden and the United States.

Garcia: Those who cannot accept the realization that “the natives” successfully struck back will instead find comfort in the hypothesis that 9-11 was an engineered catastrophe, and the ultimate puppeteers were those who pull the strings of the US government.

Analysis: Tautologically, a banal language cannot be but a banal language. For instance, Garcia’s word, “natives,” is utterly equivocal and decidedly derogatory as is the rest of this specific quote. Does he mean “natives” as domestic forces within the United States or “alien natives” outside the United States? In addition to this gelatinous insinuation, the phrase “successfully struck back” lacks specific reference to a precise objective; does he mean retaliation, and if so, in retaliation for what, by whom, and who are the “ultimate puppeteers who pull the strings of the US government”? Why did Garcia not name names so the readers can have an inkling on the econo-political forces that have such capacity to pull those strings? Or does he want us to guess?

Garcia: I consider the first school of thought to be of rationalists and realists and the second school to be of rationalists and fantasists. “Faith-based” is a synonym for irrational, and a strong belief in conspiracies — with insufficient evidence — is an irrational expression of fear. And it is fear, ultimately, which is at the root of the obsession by so many with 9-11.

Analysis: Uncritically and based on flimsy arguments, Garcia begins classifying two camps in the debate on 9-11 with such an ease and ideological alacrity. Garcia labels those people who accept the 9-11 Commission’s version of the events as “rationalists and realists” and the detractors of the 9-11 commission’s version of the events as “irrationalists and fantasists.” But even more puzzling than this shallow classification is his characterization of that debate in religious terms as when he states: “‘Faith-based’ belief is a synonym for irrational, and a strong belief in conspiracies with insufficient evidence is an irrational expression of fear. And it is fear, ultimately, which is at the root of the obsession by so many with 9-11.”

In truth, to open oneself to such invective and other fallout — such as loss of job, for example, physicist Steven Jones — seems to indicate that the 9-11 “truthers” are far more courageous than fearful.

Why is it that some persons consider questioning a historical event in a way that does not conform to official theories as “conspiratorial”? For instance, during the Inquisition, the Church considered questioning the deity of the Christ or the Immaculate Conception of Mary a blasphemy punishable by death. Why then insult the people who dare questioning the “official” version of 9-11?

Yet, ironically, some people tout the supremacy of their arguments as relying on scientific evidence. The question is, if such evidence is impregnable and facts are solid, why then the need to resort to ad hominem to support it? One conclusion: the argument is too structurally deficient to present without smearing those people who adhere to a different explanation.

Garcia seems to call the 9-11 “truth” movement a religion driven by fear. But is it not fear that many pundits contend the US regime is effectively instilling in the American public?³ After all, who depicted Osama bin Laden as bogeyman so the U.S. could wage war against him? This argument seems to work better the other way around? The 9-11 “truthers” are a movement against fear.

Garcia: In our commercialized world, the infotainment produced for this purpose is now a torrent. One of the mantras of the faith (of a US government conspiracy to engineer 9/11 and its subsequent perceptions in the public mind) is that “we need an ‘independent’ investigation” to expose the inner workings of the presupposed conspiracy, thus ‘awakening’ the American people to popular unanimity in toppling the Bush administration and punishing all its associated hench-people. After this, nirvana supposedly. Much of the mail I get from conspiracists (my term for school #2) takes me to task for failing to support the idea of the desired investigation.

Analysis: In the end, why is it a “mantra of faith”? His say-so? Over half the people polled seem to agree with this mantra of wanting a proper, open investigation.⁴ Nonetheless, Garcia persists in his demonization of the 9-11 “truth” movement as a religion.

While name-calling tactics used by supporters of the Bush-regime version of 9-11 may work with some people, it has obviously not cowered masses of Americans from doubting the “official” 9-11 theory.”

Garcia: The psychology of fear is involved, but I am impatient with it, thus “unsympathetic”. The presence of a large population of fearful people creates opportunities for alert charismatic opportunists to profit, by resonating with the archetypes of the shared mass-mindedness and stroking it to spasms of “comfort” — as the fictional Elmer Gantry did.

Analysis: Garcia finds “the psychology of fear” trying his patience and making him “unsympathetic.” One wonders whereby Garcia makes his assertion of an involved psychology of fear. Is this a scientifically driven claim or emotional appraisal toward a political position? Can he point to data or evidence that indicates that “fear” drives the 9-11 “truth” movement? If not, why should readers give his claim any credence?

Garcia then enters into the wide and complex realm of mass psychoanalysis. He states, “The presence of a large population of fearful people creates opportunities for alert charismatic opportunists to profit, by resonating with the archetypes of the shared mass-mindedness and stroking it to spasms of ‘comfort’ as the fictional Elmer Gantry did.”

We would rebut this type of pretentious analysis as such: Garcia depicts the people in the 9-11 “truth” movement as “charismatic opportunists to profit”? It seems that Garcia is improvising as psychoanalysis expert although nothing of what he said gives the impression of any possessed expertise in the matter, especially where “mass-mindedness” is involved. We, certainly, do not see the need to possess a PhD in psychology to be knowledgeable on psychological matters, but note that a leading writer debunking the “official” 9-11 theory is often criticized for being a doctor of theology rather than a doctor of engineering.

Garcia offers no references to buttress his claims of “mass-mindedness,” so apparently readers should second his claim because he says so.

Garcia: For the record, I am in favor of further investigation. … I encourage all conspiracists to investigate to their heart’s content (in fact, why don’t they?). I am sure this investigatory frenzy will thrash out like that of the Kennedy assassination, and in 40 years we’ll finally know for sure: it was airplanes crashing into the buildings (1), insulation knocked off steel, fire, metal creep, and a massive oil-fed fire in WTC 7 (2).

Analysis: With this statement Garcia is incurring a patent contradiction: Since he encourages all “conspiracists” to continue investigating 9-11, then why does he feel the need to trash the 9-11 “truthers” as “conspiracists” and “irrationalists”?

Why ask an inane question like why aren’t they investigating? Does not their pouring over videos, digging into the probability of perfect demolitions occurring in three buildings on the same day, determining who was or was not on board the ill-fated flights, etc. constitute investigation?

And, just why is it that a huge crime isn’t investigated by the government as a normal course of events? Why does he shift the onus to investigate 9-11 from the government to the citizens? Do citizens normally investigate crimes? But the 9-11 “truth” movement would likely readily snap up the offer made by Garcia, if he had the authority to grant the right to investigate 9-11 properly. If the 9-11 “truthers” were to fully investigate what happened, would, for example, the government turn over all evidence and open itself to full questioning by the 9-11 “truth” movement?

Garcia claims to know the “truth”: “in 40 years we’ll finally know for sure: it was airplanes crashing into the buildings (1), insulation knocked off steel, fire, metal creep, and a massive oil-fed fire in WTC 7 (2).” Our question is: how will we know for sure in 40 years when Garcia tells people to forget 9-11 now?

Regardless, Garcia appears to have faith that the truth will be clear in the future. He still, obviously, holds to the theory that a Mousetrap® like chain-of-events resulted in the simultaneous knocking out of all the support structures of WTC 7 such that the building would fall straight down demolition-style into its footprint” even though it was not hit by an airplane! What are the mathematically calculated odds of something-that-had-never-happened-before ever happening?

A top Dutch demolition expert averred on Dutch TV that WTC 7 was definitely brought down by a group of demolition experts.⁵

The same expert concedes that WTC 1 and 2 probably collapsed from being hit by planes on 9-11.⁶

Garcia: Isn’t it amazing, that non-white “natives” from far away can make so many white people in the most powerful white people’s country scared?

Analysis: It is redundant to state the implied chauvinist racism although he puts some contentious terms between quotations marks. In reverse psychoanalysis, such terms never appeared in the neocon literature, in the annals of Bush administration, or in right-wing theories, so necessarily they were the brainchild of Garcia himself. One wonders, therefore, at the peculiar language, in that “native” is often pejorative, coming from a progressive even when, as we stated, offset by un-attributed quotation marks. In so stating this, Garcia is buying wholly into the political duopoly’s version that sustains the so-called “war on terrorism.”

Is this furthering the antiwar cause? Is demonizing the 9-11 “truth” movement furthering the antiwar cause? Yet, those antiwar types who disparage the 9-11 “truth” movement for distracting people from what they assert really matters are driving a wedge in the antiwar movement. So not only are the critics of the 9-11 “truth” movement supporting the duopoly’s version of 9-11, but they are, arguably, doing a hatchet job on weakening the antiwar movement.

Garcia: Are we really to believe that a small band of swarthy raiders from Islamic lands could possess the imagination, the cunning, the determination, the ruthlessness, the grit and the courage to scare the living hell out of the superpower populace? How is it possible for these “nobodies” to have a greater impact over us than our own powerful lords? Are we to believe that “the natives” smote us?

Analysis: Again, it is beside the point to state that Garcia descended irreparably into the terrain of racial discrimination, and his stratagem in obvious circumlocution is to make what he said appear to be as if he was translating thoughts by others. It is of no use, since his intent is transparent. Why the fixation on skin pigmentation? Ann Coulter was pilloried for referring to Arabs as “swarthy males,” and fired from her job at the National Review, not so long ago, and yet Garcia calls the Arabs “swarthy raiders,” though he might argue that it is tongue-in-cheek.

What Garcia is attempting to do, by dipping into the language of ethnic prejudice, is to smear the 9-11 “truth” movement as racist through insinuation and without providing an iota of evidence that Arabs were behind the attack on the United States. It is a strange inversion of usually defined prejudice. Exculpating Arabs as the criminal perpetrators makes 9-11 “truthers” racists!

Garcia: Reality can present us with “an obvious” that our racist thinking is blinded by: “Dick Cheney,” “Project for a New American Century”, “controlled demolition” (3); inhale, “connect the dots”, regain your equilibrium, now you see that the world is as it SHOULD be.

Analysis: What dots are there to connect? Garcia has only asserted racist prejudice among the 9-11 “truth” movement (and society as a whole) without citing one actual instance of such prejudice! Yet, Garcia’s own name-calling and insinuations against the 9-11 “truth” movement expose his own prejudice against the 9-11 “truth” movement.

Garcia: Why is it so imperative to the conspiracists to convert everybody else?

Analysis: Why is it that skepticism to stories emerging from a serially prevaricating regime, presenting an alternative view, or asking questions makes one a “conspiracist”? Where is the evidence that the 9-11 “truth” movement seeks to convert anyone? Of course, Garcia used the word “convert” to debase the 9-11 “truth” movement as a faith-based movement. The movement is, by no means, monolithic, and, as far as we can ascertain, the movement is calling for a proper open investigation. Supposedly, then people would be able to scrutinize the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions. Apparently, Garcia is satisfied with the result of the 9-11 inquiry report that did not initially try to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Garcia: No one prevents them from “investigating,” no one prevents them from running engineering simulations of the Towers collapses to demonstrate their claims “scientifically” (commercial software is available to do this, and various universities, like Purdue, are touting their research software by applying it to the 9/11 events). Why the missionary zeal to infect me with their disease?

Analysis: This is patently false and Garcia should know much better. If anyone tried to access government files, police evidence, go the site and carry out testing, etc., they would be prohibited and probably much worse. A proper forensic investigation, in the case of 9-11, is not done solely by computer simulations, and computer simulations are only as good as the number of variables entered into the calculations. On-site inspections would be necessary and so would access to the forensic evidence. To speak of an investigation without all the variables and all the evidence is an affront to forensic scientists. Also, “missionary zeal” is clearly another attempt by Garcia to paint the 9-11 “truth” movement as akin to a faith-based religion. They merely believe what they want. It is an attempt to ignore solid questions that they raise without dealing with them.

Garcia: Next there is a “virus; it propagates by corrupting consciousness” like the invasion of the body snatchers” so the new human carrier is propelled into a rabid invasion of the consciousness of others.

Analysis: This is a classic case of ad hominem. How much vitriolic name-calling before Garcia’s entire article collapses under the weight of ad hominem and innuendo? It is almost as if Garcia were calling upon a faith based upon his word to persuade readers.

Conclusion

We cannot give an exhaustive conclusion to such an article. However, the following is a synopsis:

1. Garcia denies that the “zombies” in the 9-11 “truth” movement are interested in discussion. This ignores their calls for a full and open inquiry. He tarnishes the 9-11 “truth” movement in the same manner as the US and Israeli establishment tarnish the Palestinians: “there is no one to talk to.”

2. Garcia warns that the 9-11 “wrangling” has caused us to forget the “holocaust of unspeakable pain and suffering in much of the world, and for generations’ wrought by “our way of life” and has wasted the “anguish of the victims and the sacrifices of the rescuers … if we fail to recognize the universality of human anguish and our direct contributions to it.”

3. As support for his view of the collapse of WTC 7, Garcia offers an email account of the great heat felt from the building. Is that scientific evidence? No one disputes there was a fire in WTC 7. Some dispute the intensity of the fire, but what causes many heads to turn askew is the notion that every steel support beam collapsed simultaneously throughout the building so that it could fall straight into its footprint. Then the steel remnants were carted off overseas before a forensic examination could be undertaken that would have conclusively revealed whether explosives had been used or not.

4. Garcia’s article was an attack upon a group of people concerned about a murderous crime. He asks people to forget. It is a risible response to Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s oft quoted dictum: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If people do not know what happened, then the past is doomed to repeat itself. According to Santayana’s dictum, cataclysmic crimes must be solved and/or understood in order to prevent their reoccurrence. History is perpetually unfolding. Even now the Bush regime (with Democrats in tow) is scheming to attack Iran; standing by while Israel aggresses Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria; increasing the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti; and undermining resistance to oppression in Columbia, Philippines, and elsewhere. It just might be that 9-11 is the most colossal cover up of a false-flag operation in history.

Furthermore, whereby do some people arrogate the right or authority to determine for other people what they should forget or what they may investigate? Garcia’s essay comes with a title implying that people should forget 9-11. Yet, he graciously accepts that people have the right to investigate 9-11 if they so choose, and he even suggests ways in which they might do so. But, if this is so, why then does he castigate the 9-11 “truth” movement with a series of slurs? Is this a scientific rebuttal of queries or arguments that the 9-11 “truth” movement raises? Do slurs deserve credence within civilized discourse among progressives?

Garcia has written many thoughtful articles, especially making scientific matters digestible for lay readers, from a progressivist standpoint. However, in “Forgetting 9/11,” there are no scientific points or points of evidence to rebut. The article falls on its own words. Ad hominem does not make for worthy argumentation. Progressives should rightly reject any appeals to prejudice, especially appeals that invoke divisiveness among the ranks.

Now, it is important to unite all opponents of state-sanctioned murder and prevent an attack on Iran and work to achieve the withdrawal of the invader-occupiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only rational to conclude that for the antiwar movement to prevail, the “rationalists” and the “irrationalists” need to work together. Name-calling does little to achieve this requisite co-operation. One day a revolution will come but only through coalescing among the antiwar movement can a large enough mass movement be built.

We suggest that people who want their arguments to be taken seriously drop the ad hominem baggage and deal solely with facts and logic to make their case. To present ad hominem as argument insults not only the target of ad hominem but also the reader. Emphatically, since ad hominem demeans the person who resorts to it, one would think that at least out of self-respect, people would abandon this tactic.

1. Quoted in Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (National Film Board of Canada, 1992).
2. David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Olive Branch Press, 2007).
3. Widespread fear (91 %) of another terrorist attack on US soil exists. “Zogby Poll: Six Years Later, 81% Still See 9/11 Terrorist Attacks As Most Significant Historical Event of their Lives,” Zogby International, 9 September 2007.
4. “Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment,” Zogby International, 6 September 2007. The subheadline reads: “67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7.”
5. “9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7,” You Tube.
6. “Controlled Demolition Expert on WTC1 and WTC2,” You Tube.