Zionism: An “Abnormal” Nationalism

The ultimate goal…is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years…The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.

— Vladimir Dubnow, 1882

Zionism is best described as an abnormal nationalism. This singular fact has engendered a history of deepening conflicts between Israel — leading an alliance of Western states — and the Islamicate more generally.

Jewish ‘nationalism’ was abnormal for two reasons. It was homeless: it did not possess a homeland. The Jews of Europe were not a majority in, or even exercised control over, any territory that could become the basis of a Jewish state. We do not know of another nationalist movement in recent memory that started with such a land deficit — that is, without a homeland.

Arguably, Jewish nationalism was without a nation too. The Jews were a religious aggregate, consisting of communities, scattered across many regions and countries, some only tenuously connected to others, but who shared the religious traditions derived from, or an identity connected to, Judaism. Over the centuries, Jews had been taught that a divinely appointed Messiah would restore them to Zion; but such a Messiah never appeared; or when he did, his failure to deliver ‘proved’ that he was false. Indeed, while the Jews prayed for the appearance of the Messiah, they had no notion about when this might happen. In addition, since the nineteenth century, Reform Jews have interpreted their chosenness metaphorically. Max Nordau complained bitterly that for the Reform Jew, “the word Zion had just as little meaning as the word dispersion…He denies that there is a Jewish people and that he is a member of it.”

Since Zionism was a nationalism without a homeland or a nation, its protagonists would have to create both. To compensate for the first deficit, the Zionists would have to acquire a homeland: they would have to expropriate territory that belonged to another people. In other words, a homeless nationalism, of necessity, is a charter for conquest and — if it is exclusionary — for ethnic cleansing. At the same time, the Zionists would have to start creating a Jewish nation out of the heterogeneous Jewish colons they would assemble in their newly minted homeland. At the least, they would have to create a nucleus of Jews who were willing to settle in Palestine and committed to creating the infrastructure of a Jewish society and state in Palestine. For many years, this nucleus would be small, since, Jews, overwhelmingly, preferred assimilation and revolution in Europe to colonizing Palestine.

A Jewish nation would begin to grow around this small nucleus only if the Zionists could demonstrate that their scheme was not a chimera. The passage of the Zionist plan — from chimera to reality — would be delivered by three events: imposition of tight immigration restrictions in most Western countries starting in the 1900s, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. As a result, when European Jews began fleeing Nazi persecution, most of them had nowhere to go to but Palestine.

In their bid to create a Jewish state in Palestine, the Zionists could not stop at half-measures. They could not — and did not wish to — introduce Jews as only one element in the demography of the conquered territory. The Zionists sought to establish a Jewish state in Palestine; this had always been their goal. Officially, they never acknowledge that the creation of a Jewish state would have to be preceded, accompanied, or followed by ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, it is clear from the record now available that Zionists wanted nothing less than to make Palestine “as Jewish as England is English.” If the Palestinians could not be bribed to leave, they would have to be forced out.

The Zionists were determined to reenact in the middle of the twentieth century the exclusive settler colonialism of an earlier epoch. They were determined to repeat the supremacist history of the white colons in the Americas and Oceania. By the measure of any historical epoch, much less that of an age of decolonization, the Zionist project was radical in the fate it had planned for the Palestinians: their complete or near-complete displacement from Palestine. A project so daring, so radical, so anachronistic could only emerge from unlimited hubris, deep racial contempt for the Palestinians, and a conviction that the ‘primitive’ Palestinians would prove to be utterly lacking in the capacity to resist their own dispossession.

The Zionists faced another challenge. They had to convince Jews that they are a nation, a Jewish nation, who deserved more than any nation in the world — because of the much greater antiquity of Jews — to have their own state, a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the duty of Jews, therefore, to work for the creation of this Jewish state by supporting the Zionists, and, most importantly, by emigrating to Palestine. Most Jews in the developed Western countries had little interest in becoming Jewish pioneers in Palestine; their lives had improved greatly in the previous two or three generations and they did not anticipate any serious threats from anti-Semitism. The Jews in Eastern Europe did face serious threats to their lives and property from anti-Semites, but they too greatly preferred moving to safer and more prosperous countries in Western Europe, the Americas, South Africa, and Australia. Persuading Jews to move to Palestine was proving to be a far more difficult task than opening up Palestine to unlimited Jewish colonization. Zionism needed a stronger boost from anti-Semites than they had provided until the early 1930s.

The Zionists always understood that their movement would have to be driven by Jewish fears of anti-Semitism. They were also quite sanguine that there would be no paucity of such assistance, especially from anti-Semites in Eastern Europe. Indeed, now that the Zionists had announced a political program to rid Europe of its Jews, would the anti-Semites retreat just when some Jews were implicitly asking for their assistance in their own evacuation from Europe? This was a match made in heaven for the anti-Semites. Once the Zionists had also brought the anti-Semites in messianic camouflage — the Christian Zionists — on board, this alliance became more broad-based and more enduring. Together, by creating and continuing to support Israel, these allies would lay the foundations of a deepening conflict against the Islamicate.

Zionism was a grave assault on the history of the global resistance to imperialism that unfolded even as Jewish colons in Palestine laid the foundations of their colonial settler state. The Zionists sought to abolish the ground realities in the Middle East established by Islam over the previous thirteen hundred years. They sought to overturn the demography of Palestine, to insert a European presence in the heart of the Islamicate, and to serve as the forward base for Western powers intent on dominating the Middle East. The Zionists could succeed only by combining the forces of the Christian and Jewish West in an assault that would almost certainly be seen as a new, latter-day Crusade to marginalize the Islamicate peoples in the Middle East.

It was delusional to assume that the Zionist challenge to the Islamicate would go unanswered. The Zionists had succeeded in imposing their Jewish state on the Islamicate because of the luck of timing — in addition to all the other factors that had favored them. The Islamicate was at its weakest in the decades following the destruction of the Ottoman Empire; even a greatly weakened Ottoman Empire had resisted for more than two decades Zionist pressures to grant them a charter to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The first wave of Arab resistance against Israel — led by secular nationalists from the nascent bourgeoisie classes — lacked the structures to wage a people’s war. Taking advantage of this Arab weakness, Israel quickly dismantled the Arab nationalist movement, whose ruling classes began making compromises with Israel and its Western allies. This setback to the resistance was temporary.

The Arab nationalist resistance would slowly be replaced by another that would draw upon Islamic roots; this return to indigenous ideas and structures would lay the foundations of a resistance that would be broader, deeper, many-layered, and more resilient than the one it would replace. The overarching ambitions of Israel — to establish its hegemony over the central lands of the Islamicate — would guarantee the emergence of this new response. The quick collapse of the Arab nationalist resistance in the face of Israeli victories ensured that the deeper Islamicate response would emerge sooner rather than later. As a result, Israel today confronts — now in alliance with Arab rulers — the entire Islamicate, a great mass of humanity, which is determined to overthrow this alliance. If one recalls that the Islamicate is now a global community, enjoying demographic dominance in a region that stretches from Mauritania to Mindanao — and now counts more than a billion and a half people, whose growth rate exceeds that of any other collectivity — one can easily begin to comprehend the eventual scale of this Islamicate resistance against the Zionist imposition.

In the era preceding the rise of the Nazis, the Zionist idea — even from a Jewish standpoint — was an affront to more than two millennia of their own history. Jews had started migrating to the farthest points in the Mediterranean long before the second destruction of the Temple, where they settled down and converted many local peoples to the Jewish faith. Over time, conversions to Judaism established Jewish communities farther afield — beyond the Mediterranean world. In the 1890s, however, a small but determined cabal of European Jews proposed a plan to abrogate the history of global Jewish communities extending over millennia. They were determined to accomplish what the worst anti-Semites had failed to do: to empty Europe and the Middle East of their Jewish population and transport them to Palestine, a land to which they had a spiritual connection — just as Muslims in Bangladesh, Bosnia, and Burkina Faso are connected to Mecca and Medina — but to which their racial or historical connections were nonexistent or tenuous at best. Was the persecution of Jews in Europe before the 1890s sufficient cause to justify such a radical reordering of the human geography of the world’s Jewish populations?

A more ominous implication flowed from another peculiarity of Zionism. Unlike other white settlers, the Jewish colons lacked a natural mother country, a Jewish state that could support their colonization of Palestine. In the face of this deficiency, the career of any settler colonialism would have ended prematurely. Instead, because of the manner in which this deficit was overcome, the Zionists acquired the financial, political, and military support of much of the Western world. This was not the result of a conspiracy, but flowed from the peculiar position that Jews — at the end of the nineteenth century — had come to occupy in the imagination, geography, economy, and the polities of the Western world.

The Zionists drew their primary support from the Western Jews, many of whom by the middle of the nineteenth century were members of the most influential segments of Western societies. Over time, as Western Jews gravitated to Zionism, their awesome financial and intellectual assets would become available to the Jewish colons in Palestine. The Jewish colons drew their leadership — in the areas of politics, the economy, industry, civilian and military technology, organization, propaganda, and science — from the pool of Europe’s best. It can scarcely be doubted that the Jewish colons brought overwhelming advantages to their contest against the Palestinians and the neighboring Arabs. No other colonists, contemporaneous with the Zionists or in the nineteenth century, brought the same advantages to their enterprise vis-à-vis the natives.

Pro-Zionist Western Jews would make a more critical contribution to the long-term success of Zionism. They would mobilize their resources — as well-placed members of the financial, intellectual, and cultural elites of Western societies — to make the case for Zionism, to silence criticism of Israel, and generate domestic political pressures to secure the support of Western powers for Israel. In other words, the Zionist ability to recruit Western allies depended critically upon the peculiar position that Jews held in the imagination, prejudices, history, geography, economy, and politics of Western societies.

The Jews have always had a ‘special’ relationship with the Christian West; they were special even as objects of Christian hatred. Judaism has always occupied the unenviable position of being a parent religion that was overtaken by a heresy. For many centuries, the Christians regarded the Jews, hitherto God’s ‘chosen people,’ with disdain for rejecting Jesus. Nevertheless, they incorporated the Jewish scriptures into their own religious canon. This tension lies at the heart of Western ambivalence toward Jews; it is also one of the chief sources of the enduring hatred that Christians have directed toward the Jews.

In addition, starting in the fifteenth century, the Protestants entered into a new relationship with Judaism and Jews. In many ways, the Protestants drew inspiration from the Hebrew bible, began to read its words literally, and paid greater attention to its prophesies about end times. The theology of the English Puritans, in particular, assigned a special role to the Jews in their eschatology. The Jews would have to gather in Jerusalem before the Second Coming of Jesus; later, this theology was taken up by the English Evangelicals who carried it to the United States. Over time, with the growing successes of (Jewish) Zionism, the Evangelicals slowly became its most ardent supporters in the United States. The obverse of the Evangelical’s Zionism is a virulent hatred of Islam and Muslims.

Most importantly, however, it was the entry of Jews into mainstream European society — mostly during the nineteenth century — that paved the way for Zionist influence over the politics of several key Western states. The Zionists very deftly used the Jewish presence in the ranks of European elites to set up a competition among the great Western powers — especially Britain, Germany, and France — to gain Jewish support in their wars with each other, and to undermine the radical movements in Europe that were also dominated by Jews. Starting with World War II, the pro-Zionist Jews would slowly build a network of organizations, develop their rhetoric, and take leadership positions in important sectors of American civil society until they had gained the ability to define the parameters within which the United States could operate in the Middle East.

Serendipitously, it appears, pro-Zionist Jews also found, ready at hand, a rich assortment of negative energies in the West that they could harness to their own project. The convergence of their interests with that of the anti-Semites was perhaps the most propitious. The anti-Semites wanted the Jews out of Europe, and so did the Zionists. Anti-Semitism would also become the chief facilitator of the Jewish nationalism that the Zionists sought to create. In addition, the Zionists could muster support for their project by appealing to Western religious bigotry against Muslims as well as their racist bias against the Arabs as ‘inferior’ non-whites.

The Zionists would also argue that their project was closely aligned with the strategic interests of Western powers in the Middle East. This claim had lost its validity by the end of the nineteenth century, when Britain was firmly established in Egypt and it was the dominant power in the Indian Ocean. Indeed, the insertion of an exclusionary Jewish colonial settler state into the Islamicate geographical matrix was certain to provoke waves of resistance from the Muslim peoples. Western interests in the Islamicate were not positively aligned with the Zionist project. Yet, once Israel had been created, it would provoke anti-Western feelings in the Middle East, which, conveniently, the Zionists would deepen and offer as the rationale for supporting and arming Israel to protect Western interests against Arab and, later, Islamicate threats.

Israel was the product of a partnership that seems unlikely at first blush, between Western Jews and the Christian West. It is the powerful alchemy of the Zionist idea that produced and sustained this partnership. The Zionist project to create a Jewish state in Palestine possessed the power to convert two historical antagonists, Jews and Gentiles, into allies united in a common imperialist enterprise against the Islamicate. At different times, the Zionists have harnessed all the negative energies of the West — its imperialism, anti-Semitism, Crusading zeal, anti-Islamic bigotry, and racism — and focused them on a new project, the creation of a surrogate Western state in the Islamicate heartland. At the same time, the West could derive considerable satisfaction from the success of the Zionist project. Western societies could take ownership of, and revel in, the triumphs of this colonial state as their own; they could congratulate themselves for helping ‘save’ the Jewish people; they could feel they had made adequate amends for their history of anti-Semitism; they could feel they had finally paid back the Arabs and Turks for their conquests of Christian lands. Israel possessed a marvelous capacity to feed several of the West’s egotistical needs.

As a vehicle for facilitating Jewish entry into the stage of world history, the Zionist project was a stroke of brilliance. Since the Jews were influential, but without a state of their own, the Zionists were going to leverage Western power in their cause. As the Zionist plan would unfold, inflicting pain on the Islamicate, evoking Islamicate anger against the West and Jews, the complementarities between the two ancient adversaries would deepen, and, over time, new commonalities would be discovered or created between these two antagonist strains of Western history. In the United States, the Zionist movement would encourage Evangelical Christians — who looked upon the birth of Israel as the fulfillment of end-time prophecies — to become fanatic partisans of Israel. The West had hitherto traced its central ideas and institutions to Rome and Athens; in the wake of Zionist successes, it would be repackaged as a Judeo-Christian civilization, drawing its core principles, its inspiration from the Old Testament. This reframing would not only underscore the Jewish roots of the Western world: it would also make a point of emphasizing that Islam is the outsider, the eternal adversary opposed to both.

Zionism owes its success solely to this unlikely partnership. The Zionists could not have created a Jewish state in Palestine by bribing the Ottomans into granting them a charter to colonize Palestine. Despite his offers of loans, investments, technology, and diplomatic expertise, Theodore Herzl was repeatedly rebuffed by the Ottoman Sultan. It is even less likely that the Zionists, at any time, could have mobilized a Jewish army to invade and occupy Palestine, against Ottoman and Arab opposition. The Zionist partnership with the West was indispensable for the creation of a Jewish state.

This partnership was also fateful. It produced a powerful new dialectic, which has encouraged Israel — as the political center of the Jewish diaspora and the chief outpost of the West in the heart of the Islamic world — to become ever more aggressive in its designs against the Islamicate. In turn, a fragmented, weak and humiliated Islamicate, more resentful and determined after every defeat at the hands of Israel, has been driven to embrace increasingly radical ideas and methods to recover its dignity, wholeness, and power, and to seek to attain this recovery on the strength of Islamic ideas. This destabilizing dialectic has now brought the West itself into a direct confrontation against the Islamicate. This is the tragedy of Israel. It is a tragedy whose ominous consequences, including those that have yet to unfold, were contained in the very idea of an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University, Boston. You may read this essay with footnotes and references in Real World Economics Review where it was first published. He is the author of Poverty from the Wealth of Nations (Palgrave-Macmillan: 2000) and Intimations of Ghalib (Orison Books: 2018). Read other articles by M. Shahid.

50 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Dawson said on August 23rd, 2009 at 7:04pm #

    More like late and sponsored nationalism.

    But, surely, as a scholar, you can’t believe that any other “nations” have any more rational claims to “their own” states, can you? If so, what are they?

    In any event, cultural politics are not the way out of this nightmare.

  2. Michael Dawson said on August 23rd, 2009 at 7:07pm #

    P.S. The English colonists of the eventual USA clearly had a concept of themselves as deserving a nation-state before they had the land they eventually used.

    So, again, which nation-states were NOT formed in this manner?

    The problem isn’t Zionism. It’s global capitalism. which requires an aircraft carrier near “our” oil.

  3. b99 said on August 24th, 2009 at 11:29am #

    Michael – The differences are that the Israeli colony is of far more recent vintage and that Palestinians are not vanquished – they are many millions strong, they equal the numbers of Jews, and they live within Israel and in the immediate vicinity. And they want their country back. Other indigenous groups also have this same right – but they do not have the viable movements.

    If the effort in supporting Israel were merely about securing Middle Eastern oil, then the US would get more bees with sugar than with vinegar. It supports Israel DESPITE its liability as ‘ally’.

  4. Michael Kenny said on August 24th, 2009 at 11:36am #

    What is abnormal about Zionism is that it is a mere “snapshot” of the European nationalism of Herzl’s time, not a “natural” nationalism which springs from the culture of the Jewish people and which evolves with that culture. The Jewish strategy in Europe, for those who did not want to integrate into European society, was to “assimilate”, i.e. they made themselves look like Europeans while remaining Middle Easterners in their hearts. Thus, they aped European dress, speech, habits and even ideas but they were merely playing a role (form whence, I suspect, comes their success in Hollywood!). They took snapshots of aspects of European life and copycatted them.
    It was Herzl’s failure to understand that that lead him not to understand why everywhere the Jews went in Europe, anti-Semitism followed them. And, of course, he compounded his error by proposing as a solution to that problem a snapshot of European nationalism. By 1948, European nationalism had moved very far away from the “superior races v inferior races” idea of 1892, due in no small part to the fate of the Jews themselves, but the pseudo-European nationalism of the Zionists remained stuck in the 1892 time warp in which it was created and remains stuck there to this day. Thus, the Jews, having annoyed everybody in Europe by insisting on maintaining, Middle East-style, their separate ethnic identity in other people’s countries, returned to the Middle East and there, proceeded to annoy everybody by trying to graft an outdated version of European nationalism on to a local culture which perceived precisely that version of European nationalism as colonialism and was in the process, at that very moment, of chasing it out of the region!
    Thus, Zionism contains the internal contradiction of being an ideology copied from Europe but which can only be put into effect in the Middle East. By definition, therefore, it is condemned to fail.

  5. Shabnam said on August 24th, 2009 at 12:43pm #

    MK writes:

    {Thus, the Jews, having annoyed everybody in Europe by insisting on maintaining, Middle East-style, their separate ethnic identity in other people’s countries, returned to the Middle East and there, proceeded to annoy…}

    Where did you get this BS? The colonists never lived in the Middle East to maintain their ‘M.E style.’ This vision is nothing but an Orientalist vision that you have learned in school. People in the region let greatest civilization in different lights where many followed. The ‘jews’ you are talking about are not from the ‘middle east.’ They belong to Europe who should have stayed where they belong to. These colonists have NOTHING TO DO WITH PALESTINE AND THE REGION.

  6. bozh said on August 24th, 2009 at 1:28pm #

    I’d much rather talk about land stealing and people who steal it. For the last few centuries it had been euros mostly who were and are now stealing lands.
    Because, in the main, that is the only way one can stay rich, or failing that, nevertheless, be the richest and thus the most powerful.
    And, folks, this appears as an universal tendency. It goes, or shld go, under the name of fascism: the only governance [save few ephemeral socialist governances] we ever had since at the latest with the sumerian ascendancy.

    i further assert that no humane [to quite a degree] society of whatever lore/culture/language wld ever aggress against another humane society.
    It is manifestly the inhumane societies with its tsar[inas] amirs, beys, deys, aghas, kings, princes, sultans, viziers, generals, marshalls, priests, mullahs, lords, boyars, patricians, emperors, popes, rabbis, imams, ulema, mullahs, bishops, advisers, et al which waged wars, established slavery/serfs, gradated master-serf relationship, oppression via cults, etc.
    And to this day; probably for centuries longer.

    Now, the question arises, how to rouse roughly 6.4 + bn people to get going and start a massive passive resistance.
    As a wise person had said, Structure is the only content of knowledge. Thus, study the structure of society. Avoid talking what any ism “IS”; instead, talk mostly what any ism does.
    to teach children one has to guide them to see; bring to the eye, in other words, and describe, describe, and describe it in english sans foreign words, if possible. That is the only language child knows; the language of its mother.
    And she cld care less about any ism or what an ism “IS”.
    Children and even adults are not going to learn from [re]defining [‘explaining’] what capitalism, socialism, militarism, fascism, catholicism, etc., are but solelyby what they do.
    Fortunato for us, that can be seen with a naked eye, heard by an ear, and understood by unadulterated brain. Bring it to the eye and the ear!
    I think that any child wld quickly see that a child of a parent who makes less or much less money than another child’s father, is being punished: is shamed, envious, angry, etc., solely because he was born to the ‘wrong’ parents and not because it is innately less worthy.
    some societies! Go figure! tnx

  7. B99 said on August 24th, 2009 at 2:23pm #

    Michael – Jewish ultranationalism (aka Zionism) is a product of European nationalism. The Jews, like the other nationalities/ethnicities of Europe embarked on a nation-state building exercise culminating in the race-based ‘blut und boden’ (blood and soil) ideology of Nazism. The problem for the Jews is that they did not have a state – nor any soil to build one on. They got the Brits to sponsor a state in Palestine on the grounds that that they, the Jews, could act as an outpost of the West against the orientals and barbarians of Asia.

    Jewish culture in Europe is in no way based on Middle East values. There is certainly some degree of genetic connection to Southwest Asia, but the Jews of Europe were thoroughly European in culture and in their views on Middle Easterners. Jewish ethnic separatism was in fact the status quo (with exceptions) for all groups throughout the pale of Eastern Europe, with German towns amidst a Slavic countryside, or Hungarian towns amidst a Romanian countryside, etc. Jewish stetls and ghettoes were not an unusual phenomenon. What was imposed upon Palestine was a European people with European technology and European approaches to political economy.

  8. Deadbeat said on August 24th, 2009 at 5:23pm #

    Hmmm… No “war for oil” in this analysis.

  9. Dashiell said on August 24th, 2009 at 6:50pm #

    The Muslims (in their initial military conquests) subjugated many peoples and told them their language (Arabic) was holy and that the subjugated peoples had to prostrate themselves to the direction of the Arab homeland…The Jews were scared and confused in the late 19th century. and even now have a lot of historical heartbreak to carry around, but the Arabs could have worked for a compromise in 1947-1948 under the newly formed United Nations, they instead chose war and lost. They have never wanted a peaceful arrangement with the Jews because they cannot accept the idea of the dhimma actually exercising political sovereignty on land they believe is theirs. Life for the Jews (and Christians) in traditional Islamic society is very close to Jim Crow in the American South. Dig that.

  10. Dashiell said on August 24th, 2009 at 7:21pm #

    It was Marx that advocated supporting the progressive capitalist empires (Britain & France) against the regressive and medieval empire (Czarist Russia) during what is called the Crimean War in the mid-19th century. I do not understand why the nakedly imperialist nature of Islamic politics is ignored and the supposed unique evil of Israel/Zionism is endlessly condemned by so-called enlightened progressives and radicals. About a million non-Jewish Arabs live as acknowledged citizens in the modern Zionist Entity, yet the ancient Jewish populations of the entire Arabic-speaking world (“Middle East” is rather Euro-centric) were almost entirely chased out of their hometowns in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and other places in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s and their plight is never mentioned or lamented. Just note that Baghdad was roughly a quarter Jewish in 1900.
    And how does one ascertain whether a given people have a “just” or “legitimate” claim to any territory? And once you answer that, how about why do they Arabs get 22 states (the Arab League) while the Kurds and Jews (among others) are not allowed even one?

  11. B99 said on August 24th, 2009 at 8:23pm #

    Dashiell said, “the Arabs could have worked for a compromise in 1947-1948 under the newly formed United Nations, they instead chose war and lost.”

    Well, Dashiell – I think you’ll have to show evidence for this – but you can’t so you won’t. It doesn’t seem you know the first thing about what went down in those years. Dig that.

    Speaking of a Jim Crow state – that is how Palestinians citizens of Israel live. And in Israeli-Occupied Palestine, the proper term is Apartheid. Dig that.

    Baghdad was emptied of its Jewish population when the Israeli Mossad planted bombs in Jewish synagogues in that city so as to blame the Arabs. Those deaths are on Israel’s hands – and the Jews of these countries are in Israel because Israel wanted them to man the frontier, pick the crops and pick up Ashkenazi garbage.

    Tell me how the Jews get a state yet the original population of that country, the Palestinians, get expelled?

  12. Dashiell said on August 24th, 2009 at 11:20pm #

    Again, 22 states of the Arab League and one little Jewish state, and the uniquely evil Zionist Entity gets all the moral condemnation. Its just interesting.
    And the Mossad planting bombs in a conspiracy theory…cheap and to the point.
    And what of the imperialism and apartheid of the Arab-speaking peoples under the banner of Islam?
    Why are Arab Christians being run out of the homes in the West Bank and subject to discrimination and oppression in most Arab states, esp. Egypt?
    Did the Jews and their Mossad also invent the dhimma status for themselves with the Pact of Omar in the 8th century?
    And Jim Crow in the US involved systematic denial of the right to vote, which is not at all the case for the Arab citizens of Israel, who not only vote but have members in the Parliament.

  13. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 12:07am #

    And its a point of history that the armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia invaded the territory of the former British “Mandate” of Palestine in May 1948 to crush the political aspirations of the Zionists. This invasion failed, and the cease-fire lines of 1949 became the borders of the state of Israel until 1967 when the illegal military occupation of Egypt and Jordan was ended over the Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively. No Arab state was declared in Palestine in 1948-49, nor was one created under the military occupations of the two named Arab states.
    The League of Nations (1919) defined the territory of Palestine to include also what is today Jordan, but the British unilaterally separated Trans-Jordan and closed it to Jewish immigration in 1922. Why this territory is not the focus of an Arab Palestinian state is a mystery I can’t get over. Well they tried in 1970…

  14. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 25th, 2009 at 1:41am #

    Our new golem, Dashiell, certainly has that gift for arrogant mendacity and racialist supremacy one expects from Zionists. The lies are familiar. The Arab armies intervened in Palestine after months of Zionist atrocities against the Palestinians, dozens of massacres, murders, rapes and terror. They prevented the complete ethnic cleansing which has always been and remains the Zionist project. Ben-Gurion, as we know, was outraged that any Arab ‘two-legged animals’ (to use Zionist terminology) remained inside the Judaic apartheid state, but those that remained have been treated as third-class citizens ever since, and the current fascist and racist Israeli regime is intensifying the repression. Of course Dashiell shows commendable chutzpah in denying the role of Mossad in stampeding the Jewish exodus from the Arab states. These communities had lived in peace in Arab countries for centuries, which gives the lie to his xenophobic slurs that Christians and Jews cannot live peacefully in Islamic states.
    And naturally Dashiell says nothing on the decades of utmost brutality and inhuman barbarity visited upon the Palestinians by the Israelis. Israel has defiled every tenet of international humanitarian law, but with practised arrogance, denies it all. Being ‘Chosen People’ seems to have given the Israelis the impression that being a Jew renders one immune from criticism, no matter how heinous your crimes, and grants absloute impunity for even the grossest crimes.

  15. mary said on August 25th, 2009 at 3:00am #

    Mulga I was thinking the other day where the trolls had got to. Are they summoned only when there is a big offensive like Cast Lead, when they were on this site en masse, and do they metamorphosize into new creations like this Dashiell?

    Netanyahu is in Downing Street this morning to see Brown (patron of the UK JNF and a professed Zionist) and then meets Obama’s Mitchell who is London-based apparently. The war criminal Blair and Quartet Envoy doesn’t seem to feature – he has been on the other side of the world working in China for his bosses J.P. Morgan Climate Care. This follows his stay on the Geffen/Ellison superyacht Rising Sun. Cherie went along to China for the ride trying to flog her execrable book Speaking for Myself and giving talks on human rights! The China trip followed their holiday in Bali where they have been riding elephants much to the disgust of the animal rights activists. Emetic.

    This morning, to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit, the state broadcaster is putting out the usual stuff on Iranian nuclear weapons ad infinitum in every news summary.

    Meanwhile in Gaza, three Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air strike and some are missing according to ZBC. On Telesure earlier, a report said that four people had been killed and six were missing. But hey what’s the difference – they are only Palestinians after all.


  16. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 25th, 2009 at 3:49am #

    mary, Israel serves not only as the homeland of the most powerful tribe in history, a safe haven for its massive criminal enterprises (a small fraction of which are being exposed)but also as the template for the coming era of globalised apartheid. Israel is the gated community par excellence, the enclave hewn from the land and flesh of the un-humans, who are not considered necessary for the purposes of late market capitalism. Israel is like a light unto the psychopaths, who flock to its cause like moths to a lamp. By identifying with Israel and it racist exclusionary project, the Blairs and the others of that loathsome ilk, not only are rewarded richly in filthy lucre, but get to strut and fret upon the stage, which is meat and milk for their hypertrophied egoes. Israel is the leading force, the cutting edge, of an era of globalised class and race war, the long promised (by the Zionists) ‘Clash of Civilizations’. After the Arabs and other Moslems are subdued, after Africa is returned to US dominance, after South America is purged of the promise of change, then (if not before) Russia and China will be the last dominoes standing and US ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ of the planet (under Judaic tutelage and control, of course) will be established. Resistance is futile as the US and its puppet-masters in Tel Aviv and ‘The Lobby’ will brook no opposition to their divinely ordained mission.

  17. bozh said on August 25th, 2009 at 6:05am #

    I evaluate as factual that euro-asians with mosheic cult are multi-ethnical and, ergo, are not and cannot ever be called tribal, but much cultish.
    Hebrews were tribal.
    It had been hebraic fierce cultishness that was probably main cause for the evanescence of 10 tribes ca. 728 bc and and later of the judeans.

    Euroasian cultishness was a cause for the death of ab. 2-3 mn of these cultists; in which, according to many reports, also ‘zionists’ participated or aided nazis.
    Manifestly, the label “jew” does not denote or symbolize any ethnicity; it clearly symbolizes ‘jewish’ sense of being a cut above us.

    We are symboilc class of life. Thus, using labels that have correct symbolic value, does matter.
    We are not going to use such labels as `collateral damage` for children being killed or “catholic“ for a pole.
    We shldn`t be using the word “jew“ for a pal`n or ancient judean. tnx

  18. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 7:13am #

    Dash – There are about a dozen or so English-speaking countries in the world and the Uighurs don’t have one. There are about 20 Spanish-speaking countries or almost two-dozen ‘Latino’ countries in the world and the Tibetans don’t have one. Should New Zealanders or Ecuadorians be angry if the major powers gave their countries away to the Uighurs and Tibetans? Should Austalia and Peru shrug and say. “not our problem”? The truth is that Palestinians are not Moroccans, not Iraqis, not Yemenis, not even Lebanese. They are Palestinian and they come from Palestine and have come from Palestine since fire was invented.

    You say its interesting that comdemnation is reserved for ‘little Israel.’ Little Israel is a nuclear power, perhaps in the top three in the world in conventional arms, it uses these arms ALL the time against its neighbors, and is wholly supported in this by OUR country (speaking as an American). We not only have the right to speak out on this – but it is a duty to do so. It is a duty to speak out against the one country that claims to be a democracy but practices Jim Crow on one-fifth of its citizens and practices Apartheid in the world’s only illegal occupation of another country and people.

    Mossad planting bombs in synagogues is no theory. If you are familiar with Israeli history (and most Israelis prefer not to be) then you would know about the Israeli synagogue bombings. If you don’t I can provide you with easily verifiable details. Would you like me to do so, Dash?
    What imperialism and Apartheid under the banner of Islam? Certainly not in the modern era – and a charge of Apartheid against the Arabs is TOTALLY without merit.

    Why are Christians second-class citizens in the Israeli ‘democracy’? Why are Christian holy sites desecrated and demolished in Israel? Why do Jews spit on Christians in holy Jerusalem? Why can’t Christians buy land in 100% of Israel if they have the finances? Why are they restricted to 7% of Israel? Why can’t a Christian marry a Jew in Israel?

    Dhimma status was not reserved for Jews. While I won’t defend religion, it is safe to say that Jews were not singled out for such status.

    You are right about Jim Crow – and Jim Crow indeed applies to non-Jewish citizens in Israel. Non-Jews ARE systematically denied rights in Israel via several dozen laws that favor Jews over non-Jews. Hell, it’s even CALLED ‘the Jewish state.’

    So Palestinian-Israelis vote? Well, they are citiizens, no? But did you know that Palestinian-Israelis cannot have their own political parties unless sponsored by or affiliated with a Jewish poltical party? Maybe you’ll find it interesting that despite being one-fifth of the population, there has only been one Palestinian Cabinet member in all of Israel’s 61 years of history – I think he was Minister of Arab sports or something similar. How’s that for a Jim Crow stat? And how about Palestinian members of parliament – as few as there are – being constantly subjected to charges of treason and efforts to force them to prove their loyalty to ‘the Jewish state’? Sounds like Jim Crow stuff to me.

    It is NOT a point of fact that the Arab states invaded the newly declared Israeli state. The Jews began the war in late 1947 and continue it through 1949 – a successful effort to ethnically cleanse the country of its native inhabitants. By the time the neighboring states came to the rescue, the deed had been done – nearly 800,000 Palestinians had been violently removed from their country. “The political aspirations of the Zionists” was to create a race-based state in what had been Arab land – and you think what? – the Palestinians needed to nurture that notion? In the words of Zionist leader Chaim Weizman – there had been a ‘miraculous cleansing of the land.’

    In the pre-dawn hours of 1967 Israel invaded Egypt and Syria. Period. I have to thank you for suggesting that the Egyptian and Jordanian presence in the West Bank and Gaza were illegal. Because if they were illegal – then that’s an admission that Israel’s occupation of these same lands is ALSO illegal – and in fact, that means that Israel’s state presence in 45% of what is today called Israel is ALSO illegal. Israel, you may recall, overan both the Arab-identified sector and the internationalized Jerusalem sector.

    Both Egypt and Jordan have legal provisos that the WB And G could opt out for independence if they so desired. Israel’s proviso is that the WB will be absorbed into Israel and Gaza will be strangled to death for having the temerity resist ‘the Jewish state.’

    The League of Nations did NOT define Palestine to include today’s Jordan. What the LN did was separate out spheres of influence with Syria and Lebanon going to France, and Palestine (with French acquiesence) and Transjordan (and Iraq/Kuwait) going to Britain. (The LN did not consult the inhabitants, by the way.) The Brits specifically promised that Jordan would NOT be annexed to Palestine.

    The British occupation of Palestine (and Trans-Jordan) was not recognized as legitimate by the inhabitants and thus Britain had no right to rule on Jewish immigration whatsoever.

    To use your terminology – why the Brits and Americans did not absorb refugee Jews into their own countries is a mystery I can’t get over. Well OK – not true – we know why – they did not want more Jews – they thought it best if Palestine was given away, not their own countries. So they armed the Jews to the teeth – to the point they could drive the Arabs into the desert. (And also the sea!)

  19. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 7:14am #

    Wow. Now I take you all seriously. So I suppose I should study up on the all these Jewish conspiracies, but if the Jews don’t really exist, how should I look it up on the internet?

  20. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 7:45am #

    Thanks b99 for keeping the ad-hominem to a minimum.
    The British armed the Arabs, not the Zionists in 1948-49, as Egypt and Trans-Jordan were still British client states. The British were no allies of the Zionists after they realized that Zionism represented a liability to their control over vast numbers of Muslims. They sharply restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939. Furthermore, British officers commanded the Arab Legion in 1948 in the sector of what later was known as the West Bank.

  21. United-Socialist-Front said on August 25th, 2009 at 7:55am #



    Fuck Alex Jones, fuck Jeff Rense, fuck David Duke, fuck Brother Nathaniel from http://realjewnews.com, fuck Michael Rivero, and fuck all ultra-right wing conspiracy theorists. Because i love jews and i love the illuminati order !!

    i woke up to the real intentions of the ultra-right wing, libertarian conspiracy theorists in America

    the problem is that conspiracy theory websites have a conspiratorial world view, and not an anti-capitalism world view. And oligarchic capitalism is the main cause of most world problems right now.


  22. United-Socialist-Front said on August 25th, 2009 at 8:01am #

    b99: I agree with you. I mean the Palestines are just like the Colombians, Americans, Italians, Haitians, Peruvians. They should be entitled for a country (nation-state) in this world. I don’t know why there are so many confusing arguments out there coming from the Israeli’s fascist state, negating the right of Palestines to own their own nation-state.

    But the real problem of all this is the capitalist system, not a crazy jewish conspiracy in which all jews are evil and on a plot to takeover the whole world. The problem lies in the Jewish capitalist class, not in all jews.


  23. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 8:14am #

    It was Marx that advocated supporting the progressive capitalist empires (Britain & France) against the regressive and medieval empire (Czarist Russia) during what is called the Crimean War in the mid-19th century.

  24. Shabnam said on August 25th, 2009 at 8:29am #

    {They should be entitled for a country (nation-state) in this world.}

    Palestinians have a country which has been stolen by the zioninsts.
    Palestine was given to Rothschild who controlled the British Empire. Palestinians want their country back and will take it back with the help of the international community. Palestinians have lived in their land non- stopped for the past, at least, 21 centuries.

  25. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 9:19am #

    Its hard to believe that the Arabic speaking population has been there “non-stopped” for 21 centuries, a lot of populations and empires have crossed through that land, and who lived there 22 centuries ago? Did the Israelites live there or is that more Zionist conspiracy?

  26. Shabnam said on August 25th, 2009 at 9:58am #

    The zionist agents should be reminded that the presence of Palestinians in their land has nothing to do with Arabic language. Islam arrival into other territories came in 7th century and after that. Are you that ignorant to think that Palestinian came after 7th century? Are you that ignorant? Aramaic language was widely spoken in the region. Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian (ancient Babyulonian and Assyrian). There are still people in the region who speak Aramaic but it is rare. Do you think Human history does not go that far? Do you think the history history started since the arrival of the ‘chosen people’ into the region supported by Rothschilds who control the British Empire? if people adopted Islam and the language of Arabic, it does not mean that they were not living in Palestine before the zionist arrival. After 62 years of killing and forcing people out, you have not been able to destroy their hitory and their presence in the land to implant your phony history to carve a country for yourself on the land of others. No one from the region voted for the partition of Palestine in 1947. Not even Greece, China, India, Turkey so on and so forth. Not even your creator, Britain.
    However, it is very clear those colonists who came from Europe are not Hebrew, like the indigenous Jews who have lived with other groups side by side in peace for centuries now. The colonists have no relations with either the land or the indigenous people.

    They are from Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The Khazars under the instruction of the King converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D. Thus, these colonists have adopted Judaism which does not give them any right to kill Palestinian and steal their land.

    The history of these Zionist colonists has been written by Arthur Koestler under the title: “The Thirteenth Tribe.”

    You have no claim on the land of Palestine. Palestine belongs to Palestinians.

  27. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 10:08am #

    No, the British kept arms FROM the Palestinians. In fact, the Brits looked the other way while Jewish terror squads violently cleared out Arab nieghborhoods in Haifa. The Brits made the whole colonization possible, encouraging Jewish organizations while appointing puppets (the Grand Mufti) to oversee the Arabs. When Palestinian resistance broke out, the Brits fired away – at Palestinians, not Jews. No Britain, no Israel. And when the Brits left in late ’47, the Zionists began getting all manner of arms from the Soviets, thru Czechoslovakia, funded by American Zionists. When it comes to armaments, it was an embarrassment of riches for the Jews.

    The Brits indeed had to pay attention to Arab demands. They, after all, were the native population and easily outnumbered the incoming Jews – and British interests in the region as a whole required stroking Arab leaders. But they betrayed the Arabs – and while walking out of Palestine in 1947 they made sure the Jews were in a position of easy military and organizational superiority.

    Yes, the Brits sharply curtailed Jewish immigration in 1939. After all, it was not their country to give away. In doing this however, Britain should have redirected refugees to Britain. But they did not – and in some measure were supported in this by Ben Gurion and company – who did not want Jews going to England, but only to Palestine.

    They sharply restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939. Furthermore, British officers commanded the Arab Legion in 1948 in the sector of what later was known as the West Bank.

  28. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 10:19am #

    Dashiell said, “They sharply restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939. Furthermore, British officers commanded the Arab Legion in 1948 in the sector of what later was known as the West Bank.’

    Yes, the condition of Arab forces in these quasi-functioning hemi-states was such that there was little internal coherence nor leadership. By agreement between Jordan and the Jews, areas adjacent to central Jordan – largely the WB – were not going to be seriously contested by the Jews, and would instead be annexed by Jordan (the ‘illegal’ occupation you mention). These agreements eventually broke down but not before the Arab Legion held its own with and without fighting. The balance of Arab forces were largely rag-tag armies or pomp and circumstance guards only fit to parade before rulers at ceremonies. They were out-numbered, ill-trained, poorly armed, unmotivated, and working at cross purposes. A British officer or two could change none of this.

  29. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 10:27am #

    Palestine has only been Arabic-speaking since the arrival of Islam from the Arabian peninsula. Language change is not an unusual phenomenon. My ancestors did not speak English a hundred or so years ago, did yours? Palestinians are essentially the descendents of Canaanite peoples of three-thousand to ten-thousand years ago. They have Philistine in them, and likely Greek, Hebrew/Jew, and a host of others. The Palestinians lived there when the Hebrews arrived from where ever, when the Jews left for greener pastures, and when the Zionists shipped in from Europe a century ago.

    The Israelites were but one group among many. The region has likely never had a Jewish majority (until the expulsions of Palestinians – ’47-’49) – and in any case, most Jews left more than a thousand years ago. Those that remained intermarried with gentiles becoming Christian or later Muslim, or otherwise remained integrated as Jews into the larger fabric of the country.

  30. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 10:30am #

    So whats the recommended solution?

  31. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 11:23am #

    Dashiell – Israel withdraw entirely from the West Bank (and end the siege of Gaza). That means, all troops and settlers. That Israel recognize the right of Palestinians to return to their country and begin fair and honest negotiations in that regard. That Israel will not threaten destruction when Palestine declares a state in all of the WB and G (including Arab East Jerusalem and the non-Jewish portions of the Old City), that Israel recognize that the new state of Palestine has all the rights and responsibilities of any other state – including the right of egress and ingress of goods, people and finance – the right to its own air and sea space, the right to unhampered communications, the right to negotiate with other states as it wishes. That is, the same rights you assume for Jews.

    In return for that, Israel can go about the business of returning to civilian normalcy within the pre-67 borders of the state the entire world (except Israel itself ) recognizes. It can go about establishing normal relations with it neighbors, it can export its high-tech products to the region, and can benefit from improved relations with its own Palestinian citizen population. In short, Israel will thrive when it comes to terms with its history and acts positively on it.

  32. Shabnam said on August 25th, 2009 at 11:52am #

    What happened to Palestinian modern army? or only ‘jewish state’ can have it. What kind of independ state will be if does not have a modern army?

  33. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 12:17pm #

    Yes, the right to a modern army – that comes under the heading of ‘having all the rights of any other state,’ and under ‘the same rights you assume for Jews,’ and under the right to negotiate with other states.’

    I inadvertently omitted that.

  34. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 12:24pm #

    I appreciate the candid response.
    What about the Arab rejectionist elements (those motivated by their religion to fight until all non-Islamic sovereignty is crushed)?
    I personally don’t long for peaceful relations with any single party dictatorships, Arab or otherwise…perhaps the region needs a revolution to overcome its long winter of internal political oppression and only then deal on the level with their Jewish neighbors.
    It would be nice if the Arab-Israeli conflict was alive only in memory, but alas…

  35. b99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 12:58pm #

    There are no Arab rejectionist elements that amount to anything. Both Fatah and Hamas publicly accept the existence of Israel behind ’67 borders. Hamas has called for an indefinite Hudna (truce) which is merely a face saving way of accepting the 2-state solution. They have publicly accepted a Palestine consisting of the WB and Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. All 22 Arab League states have their offer of full recognition and relations on the table since 2002. I should say all 22 states plus Fatah and Hamas.
    Well, if you think the internal politics of the Arab states is of importance to you, then we’d have to discuss the legally second-class status of non-Jews in ‘the Jewish state.’ Personally, it sounds as if your reluctance to deal with one-party states is an end-around having to part with conquered territories. In any case, Fatah and Hamas have had a number of democratic elections – and that’s who Israel should be dealing with. Besides, a number of Arab state dictatorships are supported by US with military training in order to stifle democratic opposition. That meets with Israeli approval. I mean, do you really want Jordanians offering up opinions that differ from King Abdallah? Israel doesn’t. Abdallah’s their man.

  36. Dashiell said on August 25th, 2009 at 1:08pm #

    LOL…but fascism means war, sooner or later. Try not to identify me as representing Israel’s perspective, I’m just a regular guy living in the United States. I do not support the US government’s support of these dictatorships. I do not support the large aid that Israel receives from the US either. I do believe that if the people of the region had a stake in their internal politics it would take some of the drama out of who controls a small area termed “Palestine” by the Romans after they forcibly removed the Jewish population in the wake of the second Jewish revolt (c.135 CE). peace

  37. Ricardo said on August 25th, 2009 at 1:27pm #

    Next war in the middle east is among the so-called Palestinians, to determine whether they will be Jihadist hamas or secular Fatah. Neither recognize the existence of a Jewish state. BOth are pledged to exterminate all Jews from the Jordan to the Mediteranean Sea and Hamas has pledged to kill all Jews all over the world and turn the world into a Sharia state.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls is just another confirmation that Jews are indigenous to the area. Today’s “Palestinians” are manily a mix of Syrians, Egyptians, Turks, and others who moved there after the mid 1800’s. Before then, and under rule of the Ottoman Empire the area was largely uninhabited and uninhabitable.

    The Jews drained swamps, built cities and made the desert arable.

    Anybody notice that all other Arab countries give our Palestinians the back of their hands? Where’s all the promised aid and help and money from these places, quite a few are more than rich and can afford to help. There’s your apartheid regimes in action!

  38. bozh said on August 25th, 2009 at 2:13pm #

    It is not a fact that romans have expelled any judeans. In those days empires needed conquered people to pay taxes, provide laws and order, etc.
    Empty land brings no taxes. As far as i know, empires, generally speaking, have not commited genocides or expelled vanquished people.
    Romans have conquered gaul, greece, germany, auastria, balkans, romania, bulgaria, anatolia, egypt, mideast, parts of africa, british islands but i do not recall that they expelled any of the original inhabitants or commited mass slaughters in any part of its vast empire.

    what we do know is the fact that romans did not tolerate mosheism nor christianity.
    Pop of the judea may have been a mixture of benjamo-jebusitic, amonitic, hititic, hivitic, hamitic, edomitic, ammoritic, moabitic, aramaic, et al peoples but with mosheic cult.

    Some of these people may have fled for dear life, been expelled but mostly because they were zealots and fiercely cultish.
    Some definately left for arab lands mostly in order to practice their cult and to spread it.
    And no cult tolerates another cult.
    Euroasians with talmudic or mishnahic cult, found that out on skin as another cult arose: the nazi cult; as perilous as talmudic cult had been and is now.

  39. B99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 2:26pm #

    Dashiell – Fascism is a European capitalist form of government with particular definitions. It does not apply to the Arab states.

    You say you do not represent the Israeli perspective – but all your comments reflect either an Israeli perspective or a political history written from a pro-Israeli view. How does that happen?

    The Palestinians would very much like to have a stake in their internal politics but they are occupied. That would be like saying that prison inmates need to democratize themselves disregarding the fact that self-governance is not a possibility in prison.

    The Romans only evicted Jews from Jerusalem – not the rest of Palestine. Small numbers of Jews have lived in Palestine all along – and to this day. In any case, the current thinking among some historians (and they may be Israeli) is that the evictions of Jews are apocryphal. More myth than substance. But you know what, whatever happened there, twern’t the Palestinians who done it.

  40. bozh said on August 25th, 2009 at 2:38pm #

    well, if we slhd grant a state to a cult that “jewishness” is to me, we then needed to allow koresh’s, jones’, jehovah witnesses’ cults, each to have its own state or as in, koresh’s cult, being small, an enclave of his own with own laws, etc.

    And since there are mns of muslims in france, why not give this cult a state of their own in france.
    catholic cult has a state. It is vatican. Lutherans, presbiterians, baptists in US, and especially in US shld also demand a state of their own.

    The label “jew” symbolizes a ‘religion’ [please, read:cult] it does not stand for an ethnicity
    Surely, white ‘jews’ of europe are not shemitic, ethiopean, or black jews.
    But even euro-asian ‘jews’ consist of ?hundred ethnicities.
    We are not even sure that arab jews are yehudim-benjaminim; they may be purely arabic. tnx

  41. KL5 said on August 25th, 2009 at 2:48pm #

    (Zionism: An “Abnormal” Nationalism)

    Since there is and there has been no Nation of Zion, the question, whether Zionism were an abnormal Nationalism, is superfluous, rather a submissive fucked overestimation of Zionists. Zionists, hated European Gipsies, are criminals. They have been able to practise “Nationalism” only with the support of the U.S. and its European Servants in NATO. These criminal Gipsies and second class creatures have been thus “rehabilitated” as representatives of “Civilization” and enhanced to authorized killers. God bless America, Clinton, Obama and slavery! Cheeeeeeeeers! One could imagine that “God” has chosen to be an American citizen and a Zionist.

  42. B99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 2:52pm #

    You are right Ricky – Neither Hamas nor Fatah recognize a “Jewish” state. It is after all, Palestine we are talking about – so how could it just be Jewish? BUT both orgs recognize that Israel exists and both want a solution based on Israel returning to its pre-67 borders – the only borders the world recognizes. The problem is Israel, which refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians, or for that matter, refuses to alter its law to reflect that Palestinians belong in Israel by right – and not by sufferance.

    The rest of what you type is entirely made-up and you could not even find that stuff in an Israeli history book.

    Certainly Jews arrived in Canaan at some point – but when they arrived there they found – guess who? the ancestors of the Palestinians. Few Palestinians have majority Arab genetics. The land was always thickly populated with Palestinians and they managed to farm almost every bit of arable land.

    It’s actually the British who initiated and carried out large scale swamp draining – they used black Egyptian labor to do so. The Jews joined the effort later. Too bad they did that – they eliminated some important eco-systems in doing so.

    You celebrate that some Arab states are unhappy that they have a Palestinian refugee population in their midst? How does that compare with Czarist Russia or Nazi Germany giving Jews the ‘back of their hand’?

    The Jews did NOT make the desert arable – much less bloom. The areas that were desert when the Jews arrived are still desert. The areas that were not desert were already cultivated by the Palestinians. The cities of Palestine are among the oldest in the world – Jericho, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem were old Palestinian cities when the Hebrews wondered in with their goats.

    It’s Israel that owes the Palestinians money – mucho mucho money. Not to worry though Ricky – Israel is on the US dole – the American taxpayer will foot the bill!

  43. Kl5 said on August 25th, 2009 at 3:18pm #

    “The cities of Palestine are among the oldest in the world – Jericho, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem were old Palestinian cities when the Hebrews wondered in with their goats.”

    Unfortunately the jewish goats dominated Arab camels with European and later U.S. support. European Colonialism and modern U.S. Imperialism had never been interested in historical facts. They have rather created new ones. Are these creations irreversible? I am sure they are not. Palestine is gone. When would you realize that?

  44. B99 said on August 25th, 2009 at 5:47pm #

    Kl5 – I would say you were right if Israel had been created when the other colonies were, but it didn’t happen until the 20th century, the Palestinians are still there in overwhelming numbers and they want their country back and compensation. Israel can no more deny that in the long run than than did Apartheid South Africa to its rightful owners. It’s not a matter of reversing history, its a matter of redirecting it in a positive direction. Clock is ticking inexorably on Israel.

  45. mary said on August 26th, 2009 at 5:36am #

    Israel are so pleased with their Bibi’s visit to No 10 that you get the whole thing verbatim from their MFA. Yes we will stop the settlement building yes but.. no but… but…we will carry on in Jerusalem where we hae a divine right to live.


    This is amazing – a press conference with Netanyahu and Gordon Brown that talks about Iran, Iran and then Iran, and about how Israel is for peace and decency, but for some odd reason, you never hear the word GAZA mentioned! …As if just under a year ago they did not wage war against GAZA in the most violent of ways by caging them in and then destroying from above with bombs and white phosphorus. As if the siege isn’t still happening… as if only 3 years ago they didn’t bomb Lebanon to smithereens….

    If anyone has the time or energy to deconstruct this, that would be great.

  46. b99 said on August 27th, 2009 at 6:29am #

    Mary – Simply deconstructed, in the eyes of the Europeans – whether they are Brits, French, American, or Israeli – the Palestinians are still not a People, they are merely non-Jewish residents who need not be consulted. It’s only Europeans that need have input. Only Europeans are movers and shakers. Same as it ever was.

  47. mary said on August 27th, 2009 at 6:49am #

    Thanks B99. You’re an early riser iver there!

    Bibi’s in Germany where Merkel is presenting him with the plans for Auschwitz to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of WWII as if we need reminding of that horror and into which I was born.

    These plans were conveniently discovered in a flat in Berlin last year and include the drawings for the gaskammer and crematoria. This gave the BBC the opportunity to give us another lesson on the Holocaust and the Final Solution this morning on Radio 4 Today. There was a report from their Steve *Rosenberg* ( a good non-Arab name) on here at 6.10am.


    The report included more reference to Iran and H Clinton’s threatened ‘crippling’ sanctions.

    Of course v. good at real crippling esp. of children of another skin colour in foreign lands.

  48. b99 said on August 27th, 2009 at 7:11am #

    Mary – Been up since 6am. As usual. Can’t someone arrest Nathan Yahoo?

    Yeah, National Public Radio and Public TV and CNN never miss an opportunity to milk the Holocaust. And if there is one Jew in Bhutan – NPR will find him for an interview. Nothing wrong with the Jew, but for NPR, Bhutan has no importance outside of this guy’s relationship to it.

    Right now, Mike Schuster (no gentile, he) is delivering the third of a series on the danger’s of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I’m going to comb the transcripts for the Iranian view, he’s already given us the Israeli view – which he meshes with the Western Civilization View. Business as usual.

  49. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 29th, 2009 at 1:05am #

    mary, b99, did you miss the repulsive Ron Jeremy, oops, Dore Gold (with his little Holy Hat on, just to remind us that it was the Herrenvolk speaking)on FoxNews? In my opinion it was a master-class of reptilian lying and mischief making, all aimed at Iran. The propaganda blitz to prepare us for the next Israel ordained Holocaust of ‘two-legged Islamic animals’, in Iran, is in full spate. As usual there is not the merest sign of conscience as the hatemongering lies, in preparation for the mass murder of innocents, ooze from the lips, between flickerings of the forked tongue to scent the atmosphere. Of course on FoxNews the atmosphere is good- a full complement of standard Murdochians, fellow travelers with the Herrenvolk, ‘useful idiots’ who know what Rupert wants to hear. To my mind they are rabid imbeciles and psychopaths, their bodies and faces twitching with hatred and anticipation of the carrnage to come. These Judeofascists and their goy collaborators are, as far as I’m concerned, creatures whose malice and viciousness, whose lust to spill blood and to revel in their impunity, in their power to manipulate the leaders of great countries and their brainwashed populaces towards religious war and endless carnage, is frankly horrifying. That they as well absolutely demand our worship as the finest examples of morality extant, and will vilify, intimidate and if possible destroy the careers and lives of those who refuse to do so, is both chilling and outrageous, in several meanings of the word.

  50. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 29th, 2009 at 1:24am #

    Yes, mary-the ‘discovery’ of the Auschwitz plans is probably yet another propaganda stunt. After all, before every Israeli ordained massacre we get an upsurge in Holocaust ‘remembrance’. Meanwhile the swine are outlawing commemoration of the Palestinian ‘Nakbah’, the Roma, gay, Slavic and Jehovah’s Witnesses of the Nazi stay as unremembered as ever, the Armenians remain forgotten and denied by Turkey with Israeli connivance and the vastly greater ‘Holocausts’ of the indigenous in the face of Western imperialism, the black victims of New World slavery and the poor, particularly the children (30,000 every single day), victims of the unjust global economic order that makes certain Jews so preposterously rich and powerful, are all totally ignored. The world situation where one tiny tribe so dominates Western politics, business and the media as to make their tribe’s history, its travails and its hypertrophied sense of its own importance and entitlements, probably the central obsession of our media and politics, is despicable. It elevates this one group to the very peak of human influence and power and its suffering above the suffering of all others. If this is not evidence of a belief in their absolute supremacy over the rest of humanity and the fact that the ‘Chosen People’ myth is seen by them as literally true, then I’m Ariel Sharon. When wedded to the Messianic dream of Eretz Yisrael, the implacable, pitiless cruelty displayed to the Palestinians, and the absolute determination to lord it over all their ‘two-legged animal’ neighbours, while being armed to the teeth with thermo-nuclear weapons, this is a certain recipe for catastrophe. If at any time over the years that there had been even the slightest sign that Israel, whether Labor or Likudnick, had the merest intention to deal with the Palestinians decently, I’d have some hope left. But Israel has been the cruelest, most treacherous and most cynically mendacious power imaginable, even outdoing their Yankeee puppets. so I see no hope, particularly as they control (and boast of it!) the ‘house negro’ and Presidential impostor, Obama, absolutely.