Boycotts as a Legitimate Means of Resistance

As Determined by the Oppressed People

Prejudice does not always come with an ugly face. The same holds for Zionism and racism. It is entirely possible for well-intentioned people to hold a prejudice and, even worse, act on held prejudices.

Uri Avnery opposes the brutality inflicted on Palestinians. He campaigns for peace with Palestinians. But he also has a Zionist past. He is European born and fought for the terrorist Irgun in perpetration of a holocaust (Nakba) against Palestinans. He later renounced Irgun’s tactics. He is antiwar, but he is not anti-the fruits of war. He approves of a two state solution. In other words, Israeli Jews will keep the fruits of their dispossessing others — this while continuing to press for the return of what they were dispossessed. ((See Dinah Spritzer, “Last chance for Holocaust restitution?” JTA, 30 June 2009.))

Avnery advocates selective use of tactics against Zionism. This is apparent when it comes to an international boycott of Israel. Avnery states that no one is better qualified than South African archbishop Desmond Tutu to answer this question. ((Uri Avnery, “Tutu’s Prayer,” Gush Shalom, 29 August 2009.))

What does Tutu say? He has called on the international community to treat Israel as it treated apartheid South Africa. Tutu supports the divestment campaign against Israel. ((Desmond Tutu, “Israel: Time to Divest,” New Internationalist magazine, January/February 2003. Available online at Third World Traveler.))

Avnery’s fellow Israeli, Neve Gordon, agrees that it is time for a boycott. ((Neve Gordon, “Boycott Israel,” Los Angeles Times, 20 August 2009.)) Avnery laments, “I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time – neither about the similarity with South Africa nor about the efficacy of a boycott of Israel.”

Indeed, the apartheids — while in many respects similar — are also different. Gary Zaztman pointed to a key difference:

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.” ((Gary Zatzman, “The Notion of the ‘Jewish State’ as an ‘Apartheid Regime’ is a Liberal-Zionist One,” Dissident Voice, 21 November 2005.))

Boycotts as a Tactic against Racism

Avnery says Tutu told him: “The boycott was immensely important, much more than the armed struggle.”

But it was the revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, who refused to give up the right to armed struggle, who negotiated the dismantling of South African apartheid. ((See Bill Keller, Tree Shaker: The Story of Nelson Mandela (Boston: Kingfisher, 2008). Mandela wanted to pursue a peaceful, non-violent settlement, but when faced with the violence of state power he felt compelled to use violence as a method of struggle. Mandela did emphasize that this violence was not terrorism: 98.))

Tutu also told Avnery, “The importance of the boycott was not only economic but also moral.”

Avnery writes, “It seems to me that Tutu’s answer emphasizes the huge difference between the South African reality at the time and ours today.”

So what is Avnery saying? First he states that Tutu is best qualified person to speak to the effectiveness of boycotting as a tool in the fight against racism, then he says Tutu has it wrong. So is Avnery saying, then, that he is best qualified to speak on the effectiveness of boycotts against racism?

Avnery fears that Israeli Jews will feel “the whole world is against us.”  

However, isn’t that, in a sense, what the purpose is: to show that the whole world is against Jewish racism against Palestinians? It must be emphasized that the world is not against Jews, as Israeli propaganda would choose to portray it. Although he doesn’t specifically state it, Avnery is using a version of the anti-Semitism smear: if you are against anything Israel does, then you are against Israelis. Hence, you are anti-Semitic. This grotesque perversion of morality and logic holds that to be against racism toward Palestinians makes one anti-Semitic.

Avnery admits, “In South Africa, the world-wide boycott helped in strengthening the majority and steeling [sic] it for the struggle. The impact of a boycott on Israel would be the exact opposite: it would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme right and create a fortress mentality against the ‘anti-Semitic world’. (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.)”

Avnery merely states what is the current status quo. Israel is already hunkered down in an extreme right fortress mentality. The boycott is not the cause. Avnery fixates on the population dynamics. What is the relevance of majority and minority in Avnery’s reasoning? It would seem that Palestinians being in the minority – and the fact that the Palestinians support the boycott – to be even greater reason for international support of the boycott. Who and what is Avnery supporting: Palestinians from racism or Israeli Jews from the economic effects and moral stigma of an international boycott?

As for the aim of the boycott campaign: “to deny Israel the financial means to continue to kill Palestinians and occupy the lands.” ((”Aim of the boycott campaign,” Boycott Israel Now.))

Avnery raises “the Holocaust” arguing that Jewish suffering has imprinted itself deeply on the Jewish soul. That the Nazis rounded up Jews in concentration was a moral outrage. But what is the lesson of World War II? That suffering imposed on any identifiable group of people is evil and wrong, or that one group can appropriate a holocaust, make it their own, and use past suffering as a shield to inflict a holocaust on another people? Avnery argues that boycotting Jews will remind them of Nazism, but when Jews use Nazi-type techniques what should they be reminded of?

Avnery says it is okay to boycott of the product of the “settlements.” He draws a distinction between “settlers” (i.e., “colonisers”) and other Israeli Jews. How then does Avnery rationalize the fact that the “settlers” are in the West Bank?
Avnery asserts, “Those who call for a boycott act out of despair. And that is the root of the matter.” Indeed, despair is life for many Palestinians under occupation or in refugee camps.

Avnery states that an international boycott would be difficult to achieve, and the US would not be behind it. It was not easy to achieve against the apartheid regimes in South Africa either. Is that a reason not to try? Did not the US oppose a boycott of South Africa? Yes, it might take a long time. But times do change. The US (and its western allies’s) recalcitrance was steam rolled in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and elsewhere. Empires have risen and fallen throughout history.

Avnery finds that the tactic of boycotting is “an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy.”

Avnery continues, “In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both Whites and Blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The Whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the Blacks.”

Seems there is some faulty analysis going on. “Whites did not want partition”? How can Avnery state something so factually inaccurate? What were Venda, Lebowa, the Bantustans, if not sections of South Africa partitioned off by the White government? Furthermore, that Zionism is now no longer dependent on Palestinian labor does not mask that it at one time was dependent on such labor; Avnery is cherry picking in his argument. Denying Palestinians the right to work in historical Palestine is a tactic that evolved from Zionism.

Also, how is it that Avnery can argue against an international boycott of Israel when Israel maintains a crushing illegal embargo against Palestinians – a war crime? As long as Israel uses such a tactic, then resistance through boycott, certainly, is legitimate.

Avnery says Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common. However, this same lack of commonality was true between White and Black South Africans as well. Nonetheless, I take exception with the thrust of such argumentation. It prepares the ground for racism. Israeli Jews, Palestinians, Black and White South Africans are all humans. They all eat, work, sleep, have dreams, have families. This should be reason enough to act humanely toward each other: love of humanity. It is entirely possible to embrace our shared humanity and respect diversity.

Avnery concludes, “In short: the two conflicts are fundamentally different. Therefore, the methods of struggle, too, must necessarily be different.”

This is logically flawed reasoning, much like the logical and moral flaw that being a victim of a genocide minimizes one’s own culpability in a subsequent genocide. One suspects that Avnery may well be the victim of a pained conscience and cognitive dissonance. I submit that the two “conflicts” ((The word “conflict” minimizes the atrocities wreaked on Palestinians and South Africans by their oppressors.)) are fundamentally similar. Fundamentally, colonial Israel and colonial South Africa share these hallmarks: a racially, culturally, spiritually, linguistically different group of outsiders through preponderant violence dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their homeland, and set up an apartheid system which humiliates the Indigenous peoples and privileges the occupiers.

Avnery focuses on certain “fundamentals” — which I submit are not fundamentals but nuances — that he considers different.

Avnery’s solution lies with “a comprehensive and detailed peace plan” from US president Barack Obama and “the full persuasive power of the United States” to lead to “a path of peace with Palestine.”

Avnery remembers well previous US-backed peace plans, like Oslo and the Roadmap. Why, then, does he cast his audacious hope on AIPAC appeaser Obama? Avnery hopes that Israeli Jews will realize that peace with Palestinians is the way? The peace activist touts a solution that has failed and been rejected many times. He rejects a solution that worked in South African because of the sensibilities of the oppressors.

But let us examine Avnery’s logic that fundamentally different “conflicts” demand different struggles.

Oppression is overthrown by struggle. Fundamentally different “conflicts” can succeed through similar struggles. As one example, revolutionaries overthrew an American-backed dictatorship in Cuba through armed struggle and Cuban revoluntionaries defeated South African forces in Angola through armed struggle. ((Isaac Saney contends that the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale was the “turning point in the struggle against apartheid. ”Isaac Saney, “The Story of How Cuba Helped to Free Africa,” Morning Star, 4 November 2005. Available at Embajada de Cuba en Egipto.))

In his article’s finale, seemingly assured of his own argumentation over the person he deems the best qualified authority on boycotts as a tool to overcome apartheid, Avnery points to a prayer of Tutu’s – a prayer that would serve all of us well:

“Dear God, when I am wrong, please make me willing to see my mistake. And when I am right – please make me tolerable to live with.”

Hopefully, Avnery abides by such humbleness when he sees the error of his ways as well.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at Read other articles by Kim.

46 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. B99 said on August 29th, 2009 at 12:58pm #

    Very interesting. Avnery, however is too close to Israel to see the overall systemic similarities between Israel’s Apartheid and that of South Africa. Thus he focuses on the differences (lost on the Palestinians – and on Tutu) rather than the parallels.

    He is of course correct that Jews, 80% of the population, are in the catbird seat relative to South African whites – only 10% of that country’s population. Further, Apartheid South Africa had no powerful constituency in the US advocating for it, as does Israel.

    Probably the most important thing about the boycott of Israel is not its effectiveness, but it consciousness-raising among the uninitiated.

  2. hmmm said on August 29th, 2009 at 1:27pm #

    “Hence, you are anti-Semitic…” When will someone point out that Palestinians, as well as other Arabs, are also Semitic peoples, and thus, even using the anti-Semitic slur in such contexts is racism at its extreme?

  3. B99 said on August 29th, 2009 at 2:49pm #

    Actually, Semitic is a language group, not a people. So when the term was first used – regarding European Jews – it was inaccurate, as they were largely speaking Yiddish, which but for a few loan words from Hebrew, is an entirely Indo-European language.

    The height of hubris was Israelis calling Arafat an anti-Semite.

  4. balkas b b said on August 29th, 2009 at 3:01pm #

    As petersen points out,anyone who’s for a two-state solution of any kind is for a win solution for terrorists such as irgun, stern, and haganah and a loss for palestinians.
    Rewarding terrorists with a state or anything else [actually, they shld be posthumously tried for their crimes] appears a crime as well.
    There are also many living criminals that must be tried to ensure that not another land robber does to a people what the christo-talmudic world had done to palestinians.
    However, i do recognize that return to lawfulness and moral obligation is not possible at ths time.
    US is now the law, truth, and morality! tnx

  5. balkas b b said on August 29th, 2009 at 3:16pm #

    countless people have affirmed that the khazaro-europeans have no connection of whatever kind [save the cult] with zion or shemites.
    the word “semite” appears a corruption of the “shemite”. According to torah [there is not much truth in it, tho] hebrews and arabs descended from shem, noah’s oldest son.

    Khazaro-europeans, it appears, have changed the word shemite to the word semite;so as to appear of diffeent origin than the other semitic peoples.
    Khazars have been screwing us in too many ways for too long. It is usually best to put everything on it’s head what they say.
    To nearly all ‘jews’ all of us nonjews are now palestinians or injuns! tnx

  6. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:05am #

    I admire Avnery because he seems to me a decent fellow with a conscience. When so many of his co-religionists are alas, fascists and racists, that is no mean achievement. Not that Jews are the only religious community effected by the rise of religious fanaticism. They are, however, in my opinion, the most dangerous, more dangerous than Hindu, Christian or Islamic fundamentalists, although these are bad enough. The innate Messianism, the tribal apartness of Jews has always been the most congenial bedrock on which to construct an apartheid system. For the chauvinistic Jews who rule the roost in Israel and in the Judaic diaspora, the transparent paranoia and absolute belief that all the goyim are ‘eternal anti-Semites’ is, I believe, part the real trauma of memories of anti-Semitic pogroms culminating in the Nazi Judeocide, and part projection of their contempt for non-Jews and their belief in the literal truth of the ‘Chosen People’ mythology.
    The ‘anti-Semite’ canard, rolled out ruthlessly at every criticism of Jews or Israel, is a quaint tactic, perhaps unprecedented in history, although latterly imitated by apologists for the US. The clear corollary of ‘anti-Semitic’ hysteria is the assertion that the Jews are a people incapable of ill behaviour, so all those Palestinian children barbecued with white phosphorus or shot through the head on the way to school, must clearly be ‘evil-doers’ to have forced the world’s only perfect race to have dealt with them in such a manner. Hence the most clearly malevolent and dangerous manifestation of Zionist power-the crusade to defame, demonise and de-humanise the whole of Islam, Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. This process has led to the destruction of millions of innocent lives, of whole countries and driven an upsurge of retaliatory hatred from the victims that presages a religious war of unprecedented fury. And yet the Zionists and their fellow-travelers, goyim who are almost invariably racist haters of low mentality and debased morality, still bellow the lie that it is the West, none of whose countries has been invaded or blockaded and whose civilians have died in numbers less than 1% of Islamic victims, which is under attack from Islam. This Orwellian inversion of reality is the only acceptable ‘mainstream’ discourse, rammed down our throats by largely Jewish-controlled media. Any recitation of the actual facts results in febrile denunciations as an ‘anti-Semite’ or ‘apologist for terrorism’. The future, unless something is done to rein in Israeli malevolence and emasculate the overwheening Judaic Lobbies in the West, is certain to be even grimmer than the past, as Israel has grown more and more openly fascistic over the years, and its political, military and intelligence elite is increasingly dominated by fundamentalist religious zealots, whose desire to enact a Final Solution to the Arab Problem cannot be doubted.

  7. Chis@ said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:24am #

    [i]Avnery raises “the Holocaust” arguing that Jewish suffering has imprinted itself deeply on the Jewish soul.[/i]

    What with the holocaust-imprinted-in-the-soul story again?! Even the ones born at that time must be around 70 y/o today! And the very few elderly holocaust survivors that are still alive to talk about it, are against the absurdity and the abuse from the Israelis. The ones doing all the damage, how many are actual survivors themselves?! And what Palestinians have anything to do with the holocaust, except they’re living one in the hands of the Israelis for much longer.

    Secular Jew is a misnomer coz they’re a multiethnic group and, according to Shlomo Sand (professor in Tel Aviv), the Palestinians are the original Jews. They brandish so much their so-called ‘democracy’ but it’s a THEOcracy for being a Jewish state.

    Needless to say, I’m for a boycott.

  8. mary said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:32am #

    Mulga I used to share your thoughts on Avnery (brave/fearless/speaking out/living in the belly of the beast etc) but have revised them. He is after all still there, living the life of an Israeli in the Zionist terror state whereas others like Ilan Pappe got out.

    umkhalil voices this and refers to Helena Cobban’s piece on Counterpunch. There is a link to it within this –

  9. Deadbeat said on August 30th, 2009 at 3:33am #

    Very interesting. Avnery, however is too close to Israel to see the overall systemic similarities between Israel’s Apartheid and that of South Africa. Thus he focuses on the differences (lost on the Palestinians – and on Tutu) rather than the parallels.

    The same can be said of Noam Chomsky who consistently denies any parallels between Israel and South Africa. Most recently was when Desmond Tutu visited Boston last year. How ironic a pioneer in the struggle against Apartheid to be insulted by the “White Leftist” oracle Noam Chomsky, who uses his matery of syntax to obfuscate Zionism.

  10. Kim said on August 30th, 2009 at 4:31am #

    Capitalism is democratic – consumers have a vote – with their wallets .

  11. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 5:37am #

    News for you Balkas – it’s 62 years too late to be talking about terrorists winning a state – they’ve had a state since May 1948.

    Countless people don’t count. Geneticists have affirmed and reaffirmed the genetic connection of Jews to the region, the wider region, and beyond the region. No doubt Jews would have liked the connection to have been even stronger, they would have liked it if the European genetic connection had been small, nonetheless, there is a connection – so it does not do truth any justice to fudge the issue.

    Semite comes from Shem, but the name had already evolved to Semite when the linguists borrowed it. They applied it to a language group that originated largely in East Africa and to a lesser extent the Arabian Peninsula. At one time the language and the people were one and the same, but for Arabians and Arabic and other Semite people and languages, that no longer applied when it was adopted by non-Semitic-speaking people, say, the Philistines or the Berbers. For the Ashkenazi, the connection to Semitic languages was almost entirely liturgical. It was only the Mizrahi Jews that could be said to be ‘Semitic’ – because they spoke Arabic.

    Regarding Shem, the son of Noah, he almost certainly did not exist – nor did the other son Ham or Noah himself. The history of the Jews among the Khazars is murky. They are likely a component of Ashkenazi genetics, maybe even a significant component, but to label Jews as Khazars is a reach.

  12. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 5:40am #

    So Kim, you are equating democracy with consumers – rather than with citizens. Well, if we are mere consumers, maybe our job is too absorb whatever shit the capitalists hurl at us.

    Speaking of capitalists – they have far more money than do consumers. So it would seem that when they speak with their wallets it is far more significant than when a mere consumer does. No?

  13. bozh said on August 30th, 2009 at 6:50am #

    I think u are correct about the label Khazars. I seldom, if ever use it!
    I do not know the future; thus, i do not know whether spread of knowledge such as saying irgun, et al being terror org, wld result in prosecution of these war criminals or to a win-win solution in expalestine.

    However, if ‘jews’ and their rabbis can talk about their ‘right’ to return to a place they nor their ancestors had ever been, i can, a fortiori, adduce facts, facts, and more facts.

    In any case, win-win solution brings peace. Any other, brings what? Well, i cannot know! thanks for your input!

  14. Shabnam said on August 30th, 2009 at 6:53am #

    Mr. Qumsiyeh in his “20 zionist myths exposed” writes:

    MYTH: Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

    Israel did not “become” a nation (need definitions for both) and it is important not to compare apples to oranges. Israel of today has little to do with “Israel” of 3000 years ago. Archeologists at Tel Aviv University showed that city states and kingdoms were routinely made and obliterated in the ancient land of Canaan while the natives survived and continued to live. Ethnic cleansing was only recently practiced (1947-1949). The Israelites evolved from local Canaanites (archeological evidence, not the stories of the bible which were never intended to be taken literally). But even if one is to take the stories of the bible literally, there is plenty of “evidence” in the bible that Hebrews prospered with Adomite and other Canaanites. These are not states or nations in the modern sense.
    Canaanitic groups are classified into Western Canaanitic languages (Aramaic, Assyrian, Phoenician etc.) and Eastern Canaanitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew which were spoken but not written languages). Northern Canaanites (e.g. Nebateans and Phoenicians) developed the written languages. All these groups lived, fought, interacted, collaborated, etc. but no group was obliterated in history. Two facts are easily verified as examples. Palestinian villagers especially in Northern Palestine for hundreds of years and until today use the name Cana’an for their children and many have it as a surname. Second, designs on the cloths of villagers (the folkloric symbols) are canaanitic symbols (and are shared by location and by locals who are both Christian and Muslim). I can site several other examples including ritualistic events that are likely pagan in origin.
    The Jebusites (Canaanites) around 3,000 B.C. dwelt on the tract of land “Jebus” which later became Jerusalem? Ur-Shalem (Jerusalem) is a Canaanite word meaning, the house of Salem, the chieftain of the clan of Jebusites. The name Salem is Shalem in the Aramaic language and was also adapted to Arabic and Hebrew (but much later) to indicate peace. Similarly, while Arabs and Jews think Bethlehem means house of bread or meat respectively, it is more appropriately house of Laham (the Canaanitic god of the southern hills).
    All these groups lived, fought, interacted, collaborated, etc. but no group was obliterated in history. Palestinian villagers especially in Northern Palestine for hundreds of years and until today use the name Cana’an for their children. Second, designs on the cloths of villagers (the folkloric symbols) are Canaanitic symbols (and are shared by location and by locals who are both Christian and Muslim). I can site several other examples including ritualistic events that are likely pagan in origin. Jews converting to Christianity and Christians converting to Islam as major trends during the establishment of these religions is also well documented.
    One of the major myths perpetuated by latter followers of the religion is their novelty/freshness/ uniqueness and in the case of of some followers of Judaism thinking that is more than a religion but an inherited attribute. Genetically, Palestinian Christians and Muslims are closer to Sephardi Jews than either group is to Ashkenazi Jews who are in turn more Turcik (and Indo-European due to significant pool of Khazars who converted to Judaism a few hundred years ago). Ashkenazi thus ARE NOT TRUE SEMITES. The use of the word anti-Semitic is corrupted as Arabs are Semites and MOST JEWS ARE NOT SEMITES.

    In addition to many others, Arthur Koestler in his book “The Thirteenth tribe” also believes that the colonists in Plaletine have no connection with the land. He writes:

    This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in A.D. 740 converted to Judaism. Khazaria, a conglomerate of Aryan Turkic tribes, was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Han, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the craddle of Western (Ashkenazim) Jewry…
    The Khazars’ sway extended from the Black sea to the Caspian, from the Caucasus to the Volga, and they were instrumental in stopping the Muslim onslaught against Byzantium, the eastern jaw of the gigantic pincer movement that in the West swept across northern Africa and into Spain.
    Thereafter the Khazars found themselves in a precarious position between the two major world powers: the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium and the triumphant followers of Mohammed. As Arthur Koestler points out, the Khazars were the Third World of their day, and they chose a surprising method of resisting both the Western pressure to become Christian and the Eastern to adopt Islam. Rejecting both, they converted to Judaism.

    Mr. Koestler concludes: “The evidence presented in the previous chapters adds up to a strong case in favour of those modern historians – whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish – who, independently from each other, have argued that the BULK OF MODERN JEWRY IS NOT of PALESTINIAN, but of Caucasian origin.

  15. bozh said on August 30th, 2009 at 7:07am #

    a very relevant observation by u. I wld just like to reaffirm that all ‘jews’ appear as zionists and talmudic/mosheic.
    The label “jew” does not denote ethnicity nor nationalism; it denotes a sense of “jewishness” and cultishness.
    Any person who calls self “jew” must first acknowledge one’s ethnicity or citizenship and only thereafter hisher cult.
    Koresh’s people or jones’ people were first of all cultists and only thereafter dutch, italian, french, english, et al, and still later americans.
    As we know, these people have renounced their being americans,
    I think all followers of jones’ cult committed suicide in guianna while most of koresh’s gang perisihed at wacko, texas.
    That had been the fate of israelites and later judeans and euros with the cult. The main cause for the three shoahs was cultishness! tnx

  16. bozh said on August 30th, 2009 at 7:07am #

    a very relevant observation by u. I wld just like to reaffirm that all ‘jews’ appear as zionists and talmudic/mosheic.
    The label “jew” does not denote ethnicity nor nationalism; it denotes a sense of “jewishness” and cultishness.
    Any person who calls self “jew” must first acknowledge one’s ethnicity or citizenship and only thereafter hisher cult.
    Koresh’s people or jones’ people were first of all cultists and only thereafter dutch, italian, french, english, et al, and still later americans.
    As we know, these people have renounced their being americans,
    I think all followers of jones’ cult committed suicide in guianna while most of koresh’s gang perisihed at wacko, texas.
    That had been the fate of israelites and later judeans and euros with the cult. The main cause for the three shoahs was cultishness! tnx

  17. Shabnam said on August 30th, 2009 at 7:10am #

    You can read “The Thirteenth Tribe” on line. The Thirteenth Tribe
    proves to you that Ashkenazi Jews are not Israelites.

    The colonists have no connections to Palestine. Therefore, Israel has no right to exist. One state for all is the only just solution. Stop
    the puppet, Obama, to cover up the zionist’s crimes in the region and the world.

  18. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 8:48am #

    Mary – I could almost agree with you, but…not every one will leave their home country because of its faults. Pappe is exceptional but he should not be the standard. In fact, Pappe was pretty much hounded out of the country. The advantage Avnery retains is that his newspaper column is in front of the Israeli public several times a week. Pappe’s work goes pretty much unread but by a select few. There’s room for both.

    Deadbeat – Chomsky is wrong not to equate South Africa’s Apartheid with that of Israel.

  19. balkas b b said on August 30th, 2009 at 9:55am #

    I wld have to reread all that chomsky had said or written to agree with the assertion that chomsky did not espy some similarities btwn what euroasians do to pal`ns and what the whites had done to blacks of s. afrika.

    However, chomsky`s description of what khazaro-europeans were and are doing to pal`ns appears, to me, accurate and adequate.
    Unfortunately, chomsky thus not respect the right of return. He is also not for a win-win solution. Or so it seems to me. But let him speak on this issue!
    Only one solution appears available: one state. And if khazaro-euros wld leave, it wld be even better.
    They look dwn on shemites because they want to be, in appearance at least, like us whites and not look like darkies that shemitic people were and still are. tnx

  20. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 10:52am #

    Shabnam – Qumsiyeh (as almost always) is correct. I would add that not only did the Hebrews not establish a nation or kingdom – what they established was more akin to a hilltop chieftainship similar to that which can be found in today’s New Guinea.

    The Israelites evolved in the main OUT OF the existing Canaanite population in that country of Canaan. There may have been supplemental tribal groups from elsewhere – Ur? or even Egypt (but no “Let my people go,” slave exodus) that attached themselves to the Israelites – but the whole legend of Abraham and Moses traveling from Mesopotamia and Egypt is dismissible as mythology.

    It seems that this goat-herding group did not have the engineering capability to build grand structures, so much of the architecture and construction was done by the Phoenicians – including the so-called First Temple.

    There are a number of words in Palestinian Arabic that come out of their Canaanite past – including many place names. I disagree that the Hebrew world shalom (nor the Arabic Salaam) has any relationship to the similar Jebusite word having a different meaning. I think the aural similarity is mere coincidence.

    On the issue of of the term Semite Qumsayeh is confused. The people called Semitic and a language called Semitic were only coincident as long as non-Semitic speaking were not integrated into the group. There were at one time Semitic tribes in the Horn of Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula. North of Arabia, there were also non-Semitic tribes – the Sumerians being a famous one. In any case, the overtaking of many peoples by the spread of Islam and Arab culture brought a wide swath of people to the Arabic language. They are genetically not Semitic. The Philistines are one such group (though absorbed into the Semitic speaking Canaanites long before the Arab conquest), and the Berbers of North Africa are too – among others. For several thousand years now, one need not be descended from Semite tribes to speak Arabic. Thus Semitic has long become a language group from what had been a population group. Speakers of Hebrew are certainly Semitic speakers. That does not necessarily mean they have ancestry in the Levant or the wider region. Neither does that in and of itself rule it out.

    Sephardic and Mizrahi individuals are more likely related to Palestinians than are Ashkenazis. In fact, Sephardics and Mizrahis may be more related to Palestinians than they are to Ashkenazis. Plenty of genetic work still to be done on this.

    It seems the Khazars were a Turkic group (which indicates NON-Aryan) that had been Slavified by centuries of Russian penetration into the area. That the Slavification process was both cultural and genetic is not yet clear – it was certainly the former. Thus, the mass conversion of Khazars may explain some or a good deal of Jewish genetics in Europe. However, Jews had already migrated up the Italian Peninsula and were living in Germany and lands east of Germany. They spoke a variant of German – Yiddish. It is difficult to make the leap from Khazarian to German, thus the ancestry of Jews in Europe is likely from multiple sources – and still murky.

    While Koestler’s work is fairly comprehensive – it hardly ‘proves’ the case unless one is predisposed to accepting it. Koestler in no way proves that there is no Jewish connection to Palestine. Besides, it is too late – the Jews established a state 62 years ago and it is accepted by the global community and most Israelis have now been born in that country. One can hardly make the case that Israel must cease and desist because Arthur Koestler wrote a book. It is not as if Koestler’s work is accepted as gospel – and if it was – would it matter?

  21. balkas b b said on August 30th, 2009 at 11:33am #

    In the end, 15mn ‘jews’ or 15 mn talmudic cultist will have to face their enemies: most world plutos, blacks , asians or about at least 5bn people.
    And these people will not care all that much about whether euroasians with the atrocious cult have any connection or no connection to the lands of the shemites
    Actually, there is no shred of evidence that the new talmudniks have a connection to zion. But heaps of evidence show that these people are not shemitic or semitic , if one will.
    Winning enemies is horribly easy for any cult; but no cult to date had won even one friend.
    Nobody liked jones’, koresh’, or jehovah witnesses’ cults. US is i think just using these demented people. Methinks that also many ‘jews’ who condemn israeli crimes think so! tnx

  22. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 12:55pm #

    balkas – ‘ In the end’ of what? The end of time? Most plutocrats, blacks and Asians are not necessarily the enemies of Jews. And few people besides you view Judaism as an atrocious cult – or at least only marginally worse than other monotheisms – or at the very least not beyond the point of acting on it. The Jewish connection (or its tenuousness) to Palestine of ancient times is now irrelevant. They have the country right here in the present. Israelis who speak Hebrew or Arabic are Semitic speakers. That’s pretty much the beginning and end of it. Trying to equate the language with a race of people is a wasted effort. Most Americans, deceived they may be, believe in the rightness of Israel more than the rightness of Palestinians. So I’m not sure what you are angling for or expect to accomplish with all this cult talk and end of times talk.

  23. United-Socialist-Front said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:22pm #



    Remember the predictions at this site, for some time, that Pakistan is absolutely the next target in the US’s “War on Terror”?

    And please note the other post about Pakistan at WRH today, indicating that the US is accusing the Pakistani government of modifying an older US weapons system to increase its range against India?

    Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise to Pakistan. The sudden arrival of U.S. marines, U.S. military Hummers, the hired killers of Blackwater, houses barricaded for U.S. personnel in Islamabad and the construction of the world’s largest U.S. “Embassy” are terrorizing this nation of 180 million people. The U.S. slaughter and destruction in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan for the last 8 years warn them of what may lie in store for them, their families, their land.

    Eye witnesses and informed journalists have been reporting sightings of U.S. personnel in Islamabad for the past week or so, but now they are seen moving freely throughout the capital.

  24. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:39pm #

    USF – Pakistan is not the Arab world. US, of course, fires drones into Pakistan all the time – but that’s not the same as an invasion. US has its hands full with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran without taking on another invasion. However, US operations continue in Pakistan, as they do in Latin America.

    Latin America is not united, not by any means – but there are likely no plans to invade Latin America – other than the low-level ongoing military operations the US has in several countries there.

  25. hmmm said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:49pm #

    “So I’m not sure what you are angling for or expect to accomplish with all this cult talk and end of times talk.” Nothing really can be accomplished with just talk, esp. on this site. But as long as we’re having a discussion, my understanding of what he was angling for (or at least the way I see this) is the following: Religion (blind faith in what some authority tells you is their privileged status with an omnipotent, omniscient, mysterious entity called God and blind belief in fables written by old men thousands of years ago and used by those in power to keep us from asking too many questions) has been screwing us, ordinary people, for a very long time now. Someone said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Well, my belief (based on facts as I see them) is that religion is the first and last refuge of scoundrels, too. So, balkas is right to call all such nonsense “cults”.

  26. eileen fleming said on August 30th, 2009 at 1:54pm #

    According to a UN report, Haaretz columnist Danny Rubinstein admitted that “Israel today was an apartheid State with four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status…even if the wall followed strictly the line of the pre-1967 border, it would still not be justified. The two peoples needed cooperation rather than walls because they must be neighbors.”

    “An apartheid society is much more than just a ‘settler colony’. It involves specific forms of oppression that actively strip the original inhabitants of any rights at all, whereas civilian members of the invader caste are given all kinds of sumptuous privileges.”

    “The truth which is known to all; through its army, the government of Israel practices a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp.”- Israeli Minister of Education, Shulamit Aloni quoted in the popular Israeli newspaper, Yediot Acharonot on December 20, 2006

    On April 4, 1969, General Moshe Dayan is quoted in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz telling students at Israel’s Technion Institute that “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You don’t even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don’t blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either… There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

    October 23, 2001: Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew and a minister in the South African government, co-authors a petition “Not in My Name,” signed by some 200 members of South Africa’s Jewish community, reads: “It becomes difficult, from a South African perspective, not to draw parallels with the oppression expressed by Palestinians under the hand of Israel and the oppression experienced in South Africa under apartheid rule.”

    Three years later, Kasrils will go to the Occupied Territories and conclude: “This is much worse than apartheid. Israeli measures, the brutality, make apartheid look like a picnic. We never had jets attacking our townships. We never had sieges that lasted month after month. We never had tanks destroying houses. We had armored vehicles and police using small arms to shoot people but not on this scale.”

    The Rest:
    On BDS and Why it is Apartheid in Israel Palestine:

  27. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 2:48pm #

    But Hmmmmm – if Judaism is a cult, then so too are Christianity, Islam, etc. I’m pretty sure that Balkas is only singling out Judaism. I have no use for religion myself, being an atheist, but what applies to one religion, pretty much applies to the lot of them.

  28. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on August 30th, 2009 at 3:13pm #

    “I am sure that balkas is only singling out judaism” is a conclusion and not a fact.
    And i think that you knew that! And if you knew that then the conclusion is obvious: you once again tried to get away with a sneaky smear. And why?
    Methinks, because you want to reward criminals and i don’t.

    In case the readers on DV have not read my numerous posts dealing with ‘religions’, i’ll reaffirm that i deem islam, and christianity cultish, enemy of man, and some of the greatest banes to have ever befallen us.

  29. kalidas said on August 30th, 2009 at 4:58pm #

    Well B99, thanks for your learned opinions as to religions and their relative worth(s) but I for one believe I’ll stick with Dostoevsky, Voltaire, T.S. Eliot and that list of notables throughout history which goes on and on and on, when it comes to that rather horrid tasting pudding which is Judaism.

    Denial ain’t just a river in Eretz Israel.

  30. B99 said on August 30th, 2009 at 7:36pm #

    Bozh – No, no. I’m right. no sneaky smear here. Referring to “Jews’ in quotes and calling them talmudic cultists, calling their religion ‘atrocious’, calling them talmudniks, shemites, with no connection to Zion – that kind of talk is what you save for Judaism. That’s a fact AND a conclusion. It’s rightwing talk that makes the left look bad. In fact, this language itself is cultish. It’s diversionary and disruptive. Methinks that may be your aim.

  31. mary said on August 30th, 2009 at 11:47pm #

    Helena Cobban again on the discrepancies in Avnery’s numbers game vis-a-vis South Africa and Israel and in support of the boycott as the only way to achieve justice for the Palestinians.

  32. mary said on August 31st, 2009 at 2:04am #

    The Inequality

    Israel Population 7 million (UN 2007)
    Life expectancy: 79 years (men), 83 years (women) (UN)
    Main exports: Computer software, military equipment, chemicals, agricultural products
    GNI per capita (Israel only): US $21,900 (World Bank, 2007)

    Palestinian Population (4 million UN 2007)
    Life expectancy: 72 years (men), 75 years (women) (UN)
    Main exports: Citrus
    GNI per capita: US $1,230 (estimated, World Bank, 2007)

  33. mary said on August 31st, 2009 at 5:30am #

    If there is truth in this report and assuming that as it comes from Reuters, there is, the poor little kids in Gaza living in tents in the rubble will be getting lessons on the Holocaust courtesy of UNWRA. They have just lived through their own shoah/holocaust.
    Hamas slams UN over “Holocaust classes” in Gaza
    Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:45pm EDT By Nidal al-Mughrabi

    GAZA (Reuters) – Hamas condemned the United Nations Sunday, saying it planned to teach Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip about the Holocaust — but the U.N. agency which runs schools in the enclave would not confirm any change.

    Branding the Nazi genocide of the Jews “a lie invented by the Zionists,” the Islamist movement which runs the Gaza Strip wrote in an open letter to a senior U.N. official that he should withdraw plans for a new history book in U.N. schools.

    A spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which educates some 200,000 refugee children in Gaza, said the Holocaust was not on its current curriculum. He would not comment on Hamas’s statement that it was about to change.

    Palestinians resent the way world powers reacted to the Holocaust by supporting the establishment of Israel in 1948, a move that left half the Arab population of then British-ruled Palestine as refugees in Gaza, the West Bank and abroad.

    Hamas said it believed UNRWA was about to start using a text for 13-year-olds that included a chapter on the Holocaust.

    In an open letter to local UNRWA chief John Ging, the movement’s Popular Committees for Refugees said: “We refuse to let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists.”

    UNRWA spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said: “There is no mention of the Holocaust in the current syllabus.” Asked if UNRWA planned to change that, he declined to comment.

    In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, run by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas, teachers said there was no official guidance on teaching about the Holocaust.
    Israelis are angered by denial of the Holocaust among some in the Middle East, notably lately by leaders in Iran, who provide support for Hamas. Abbas, who has engaged in negotiation with Israel, has had to distance himself from his own 1980s doctoral thesis, which cast doubt on the scale of the Holocaust.

    Hamas’s official spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said he did not want to discuss the history of the Holocaust but said:
    “Regardless of the controversy, we oppose forcing the issue of the so-called Holocaust onto the syllabus, because it aims to reinforce acceptance of the occupation of Palestinian land.”
    (Editing by Erika Solomon and Alastair Macdonald)

  34. b99 said on August 31st, 2009 at 6:08am #

    Mary – It has been rumored for some time that the Holocaust will be introduced to the Gaza school curriculum. That would be quite the irony in as much as Sharon and now Netanuyahu forbid the teaching of an-Nakba in Israeli schools.

  35. balkas b b said on August 31st, 2009 at 6:17am #

    The label “jew” in my thinking denotes the fact that khazaro-europeans have arrogated for selves the label “yehud” or a “Judean”.
    And i use the double quotes to indicate that also much of the world accepts the label.
    The same label under the single quotes signifies the fact that there is no such people nor that such humans have any connection to zion, or yehud, save the cult.

    Fortunately for me, others also know that talmud and mishnah as books full of hatred for goyim. And all those who preach such arrogance, intolerance are cultists.
    And what they do pal’ns is simply the result of such ‘teachings’.
    But you are a zionist and a shit disturber.

  36. b99 said on August 31st, 2009 at 6:40am #

    balkas – There is no such thing as a Khazaro-European except in your head. Using that term and similar reduces what you have to say on the matter to less than zero and makes DV appear to be a venue for kooks, cultists, and racists. I suppose there is some recompense in the fact that you also post on other sites using the same bizzarro language. What it means however, is that you have dismissed yourself as one who can discuss the gentile-hatred of the Talmud, or for that matter, anything having to do with the plight of Palestine. It’s instead a cultish rant designed to obfuscate. I do notice you get off on using Yiddish terminology – goyim, talmudnik, etc. And you do admit to being part Jewish – or is it part-Khazaro-European? So it would seem you are here only to disrupt. Maybe if you stuck to discussing Bosnians and Croatians…if such people can be said to exist.

  37. kalidas said on August 31st, 2009 at 6:50am #

    There’s no such thing as sayanim,
    There’s no such thing as sayanim,
    There’s no such thing as sayanim.

  38. b99 said on August 31st, 2009 at 7:02am #

    Mary – Cobban is great – and as usual correct. She used to (I suppose she still does) write for the Christian Science Monitor. It always seemed she had to curtail a seething rage so that her articles could be rendered publishable by CSM – in polite form. I’m happy to see she’s on Avnery’s case. They go back a long ways, but she’s not letting him off the hook for that.

  39. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 2nd, 2009 at 12:57am #

    Christ! This ‘teaching the ‘Holocaust’ in Gaza is a typical Zionist invention. Don’t we know how by now just these people create false stories all the time, either to smear and vilify their victims or those who dare criticise the Judaic Herrenvolk, or to provoke some response that can be manipulated to Israel’s propaganda advantage?Getting a ‘Hamas spokesman’ (if he actually exists)to criticise such a preposterous idea gives every Zionist smearer and slimey vilifier yet another opportunity to label Hamas ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’. If the ‘Holocaust’ was to be taught in Gaza, it ought to be the real story, where the tens of millions of victims of Nazi cruelty were primarily Soviet citizens, as well as other Slavs, Poles, Roma, gays, socialists and those subjected to the vile process of deliberate exterminism were not the Jews alone, but also the Roma. Of course in the propaganda version of Nazi crimes created by Zionism, it is only the Jewish suffering that matters. While being subjected week after week, year after year, to an incessant stream of ‘Holocaust’ stories commemorating Jewish suffering (they tend to proliferate whenever Israel is committing a major crime against humanity, or preparing the atmosphere for one, as now, with the upcoming aggression against Iran) in the local media I cannot remember a single story concerning Roma suffering, or the vast destruction and suffering incurred by the people of the Soviet. Where Judaic influence reigns, as in this country, only Jewish suffering is of any concern whatsoever, indicative of a fantastic narcissism allied to a deeply, viciously,cynical drive to utilise the dreadful suffering of the Jewish victims of Nazism, as some sort of excuse or justification for Israeli crimes today, crimes that have brought Nazi-like cruelty, sadism and immense suffering to millions.

  40. mary said on September 2nd, 2009 at 1:25am #

    Mulga – the 70th anniversary of the start of WWII has given the British media a great opportunity to mention the Holocaust as many times as possible. There used to be a running gag here ~~ ‘Don’t mention the war’ ~~ especially in the company of Germans. We didn’t like to rub their noses in it. No longer.

    Firstly we have running reports on the Winton Train ( a re-enactment of the train journey that took Jewish children from Czechoslovakia to the the UK) and then yesterday live from Gdansk in Poland a ceremony which Miliband attended.

    As you say millions of Russians died amongst the 50 million souls who perished in the War.

  41. mary said on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:52am #

    Boycotts do work. Diamonds, at least those offered by Leviev, are obviously no longer a girl’s best friend. Will his mansion in London be up for sale? He bought it last year for £35m. It has an indoor pool with a floor that rises to form a dance floor! Such obscene wealth for one who has exploited so many people.

    Did Leviev’s Empire Succumb to Boycott?
    Shir Hever, Alternative Information Center (AIC) /

    On 31 August 2009, Lev Leviev, the sixth richest Israeli according to /Forbes Magazine/, convened a press conference and announced that his company /Africa/ /Israel/ will be unable to meet its financial obligations and repay its debts on time. Leviev’s debt is estimated at nearly Euro 1.4 billion. While this tycoon said in August 2008 that “I will meet all of my obligations, to the last penny,” he admitted in the latest press conference, one year later, that he made serious investment mistakes.
    Though Leviev originally made his fortune in the diamond industry, /Africa Israel/ is the flagship of his business empire. The company is well known for its widespread real-estate investments, but also for the fact that it builds in Israeli settlements, or colonies, in the West Bank. The company’s construction projects in areas such as Ma’ale Adumim, Har Homa, Adam and Modi’in Ilit contribute to the ongoing efforts to dispossess Palestinians from their lands, to expand illegal Jewish settlements, entrench Israeli control, and place obstacles to ending the occupation and achieving peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
    As a result of these construction projects, Leviev’s business empire came under a massive and well-coordinated worldwide boycott campaign. Although it is difficult to organize a consumer boycott on a real-estate company, because that would amount to convincing people not to live in certain areas, supporters of the Palestinian cause for justice and freedom found creative ways to apply pressure on /Africa Israel/.
    As the crimes of /Africa Israel/ became infamous throughout the world, international pressure on the company began to mount. Demonstrations took place in New York City, including in front of Leviev’s store on Madison Avenue. Leviev’s diamonds were shunned in Dubai, and UNICEF refused a donation from him, saying “We are aware of the controversy surrounding Mr. Leviev because of his reported involvement in construction work in the occupied Palestinian territory.” The UK embassy in Tel Aviv decided not to buy its office from /Africa Israel/ while on 23 August 2009, it was revealed that Blackrock Inc., a large British investment firm, decided to divest from /Africa Israel/. Eight days later, Leviev convened the press conference in which he announced his inability to repay his debts.


    To read the whole article, click here .

  42. mary said on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:53am #

    To read the whole article, click here

  43. dino said on September 3rd, 2009 at 5:03am #

    Never will be written a history of the pillage of Russia which happened after “perestroika”.So many gangsters became extremely rich acting in a realm “almost ” legal.But who will try surely will be classified as an antisemit.

  44. dino said on September 3rd, 2009 at 5:22am #

    In my view the boycott is necessary .Israeli’s people ,brainwashed by the Israeli’s propaganda and brainwashed by the myths which run into Jewish people community is sure that not exist in world a people more moral than the Jewish people.Sentences like “we have the more moral army in the world” or “no one ca learns us moral”are often repeated by the politicians.If Goldwasser wrote “The willing tortioners of third Reich” and was bestowed with a professor title is time to write about the Israeli willing tortioners.But until now in a orwellian world Israel indicates who is bad and who is good and the media echoing that.So all the world is bad and especially Iran,Syria ,Islam ,Russia etc and a few are good:American Congress,Sarkozy ,Micronesia,Bikini island .To show to Israeli’s people that he is wrong the boycott is necessary.

  45. Mary said on November 29th, 2009 at 1:34am #

    Further comment on Leviev’s decline.

    I hope that Mr Leibman is keeping the dolphins fed in this folly to greed and excess built by slave labour according to an article in the Independent by Johann Hari. Just part of the $62 billion Dubai default that will probably trigger a double dip in the world recession.

    ‘You don’t build a billion-and-a-half dollar project just anywhere in the world,’ said Alan Leibman, president and managing director of Kerzner International, the hotel operator that teamed with Dubai developer Nakheel on the resort.

    With its own oil reserves running dry, Dubai hopes to woo those eager to make money and those who know how to spend it – even as much of the global economy sours.’

  46. sid wright said on November 29th, 2009 at 4:09am #

    great posting,mary
    nice to see the jews and muslims getting along together in the real world
    nice but very sad,sad indeed