On Rationalizing Israel’s Dispossession of the Palestinians

Hello Uri,

I have just read your response to critics of your opposition to boycotting Israel and, having long ago realized the limits of your activism and worldview, it held no surprises. You have quite clearly invested too much time and energy over the years in rationalizing Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians from their homeland to acknowledge the injustice that was not only inherent but required for Israel’s creation. The passage of time does not erase that injustice no matter how many times you or others invoke the Nazi holocaust. The die for establishing a Jewish state displacing the Palestinians from their homes and villages was cast well before Hitler came to power so that issue should have no place in this argument.

The arguments against establishing a Jewish state in Palestine raised by anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews going back to the early years of the last century were well known and all have been proved correct. So it should not be a matter of surprise that Israel’s legitimacy has not been accepted by the Palestinians and the other peoples of the region. It was advertised by Zionists worldwide as a colonial settler enterprise with pride, in fact, until such terminology fell out of favor. That it was established at a time when the rest of the world was engaged in a period of decolonization was even a further guarantee of its rejection and had it not been for the influence of its supporters in the US and Europe and the arms that flowed from that support, Israel, like French Algeria, would have become another episode in history. (And it is noteworthy that it was Israel’s support for the French against the Algerian resistance that led to France being Israel’s chief supplier of weaponry until 1967).

You are also well aware that to maintain Israel as the Sparta of the Middle East, the “Pro-Israel Lobby” has long held the US Congress in thrall, strangling what little is left of American democracy. Do you not recall writing how one president after another tried to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and how each one was forced by The Lobby to retire from the field defeated? And with each defeat, the theft of Palestinian land and the growth of the settlements continued. Who has paid the price for that?

As you have already assumed, I am against the existence of the state of Israel or a Jewish state by any other name which is based on the notion that a Jew from anywhere in the world has more of a right to live in what most of the world knew and accepted as Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there or her or his family members. If that is not both immoral and racist, we need new definitions for those words. And yet you, apparently, do not find it so and reject the opinions of those who do. (The notion that Israel or any country can be a homeland for a person not born there and who cannot trace a single relative that was born there is but another example of how Zionists have twisted the language to justify the unjust.)

You desperation for an argument against the idea of a single state becomes apparent when you write that the French and the Germans did not agree to live together. Do you really believe there is any comparison to be made between the two situations. Are the French sitting on German land or vice versa?

I continue to be mystified at your continuing efforts to separate the settlers from those Jews living within the Green Line as if the majority of those in Israel proper are not as responsible for electing a series of professional killers as their prime ministers year after year, all of whom have expanded the settlements. There hasn’t been a single poll of Israeli Jews that I have seen going back to 1988, in the early days of the first intifada, where half of those polled did not call for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. How many settlers were there in 1988?

In your wonderful democracy, every able bodied Jewish man or woman, with the exception of the chassdim, has served as an occupier in the West Bank or Gaza for the past 42 years. Are they not culpable? Yesterday, I watched on Al-Jazeera as Israeli soldiers fired waves of tear gas and some smelly green liquid on non-violent Palestinians who were marching to demonstrate against the steel fence that cuts through their land at Ni’ilin and who then began targeting the Al-Jazeera reporter. Are we expected to embrace these young thugs wearing an Israeli uniform? Are those who hate them to be condemned and not the thugs and those who sent them there?

You repeatedly use the word “peace” but not once do you use the word “justice.” And that is what separates you and your fellow Zionists from the Palestinians and those who genuinely support them. The occupation bothers your conscience, your sense of identity as an Israeli, but how much does it affect your life? Ending the occupation no matter how it is arranged will bring you peace of mind and time to finish your memoirs. Now, try if you can,and imagine yourself as a Palestinian who has been under an Israeli jackboot all of his or her life. Would you be simply looking for peace, an absence of that Israeli jackboot, or would you be seeking and demanding justice?

Your conclusion expresses your confusion. You write that you want “Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender,religion or language; with completely equal rights for all,” yet you assume there will be a “Hebrew-speaking majority” that will allow its “Arab-speaking citizens… to cherish their close ties with their Palestinian brothers and sisters…” If there is no distinction between one citizen and another, Jewish or Arab, how can you assume that the majority will continue to be Hebrew-speaking (or are you allowing for the possibility that Israel’s Palestinian Arab population which already is largely bi-lingual will become the majority at which point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state?). If that is so, perhaps there is hope for you yet.

Jeff Blankfort

Jeffrey Blankfort lives in Northern California. He can be reached at: jblankfort@earthlink.net. Read other articles by Jeff.

220 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Suthiano said on September 5th, 2009 at 3:16pm #

    uri avnery would not have a job if he hadn’t continuously displayed his loyalty to the pack. avnery is at least subconsciously aware that his survival depends on zionists.

  2. John Hatch said on September 5th, 2009 at 4:58pm #

    No matter how much language is parsed, stretched, squeezed or brutalized, if the holocaust was wrong, then what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians all this time is wrong, immoral, illegal, indefensible, disgraceful. The day is coming when it will not be tolerated.

  3. Dave Silver said on September 5th, 2009 at 5:09pm #


  4. Dave Silver said on September 5th, 2009 at 5:13pm #


    Thanks for expoasing another liberal, an Israeli posing as a peacenik.
    This type of human being frequently comes around completely supporting an imperialistm, colonialist Apartheid “Jewish State.
    They call folks like me as “self hating Jew.”
    Dave Silver

  5. Deadbeat said on September 5th, 2009 at 6:09pm #

    You are also well aware that to maintain Israel as the Sparta of the Middle East, the “Pro-Israel Lobby” has long held the US Congress in thrall, strangling what little is left of American democracy.

    Of which the Chomksyite “Left” are still in denial. Nice to see a submission by Jeffrey Blankfort on DV.

  6. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 5th, 2009 at 6:40pm #

    jeff, bears repeating
    All ‘jews’ are zionists and cultish but each in a diferent degree. The label “jew” that khazaro-europeans have arrogated to selves, symbolizes a connection to judeans and adherence to talmudic cult which comprises hundreds of different nationalities and ethnicities.
    Thus a pole who may be 80% polish, 10% lett and ten% russian canot be a jew but most likely a pole with catholic or jewish cult.

  7. Angie Tibbs said on September 5th, 2009 at 7:39pm #

    Brilliant, Mr. Blankfort!! Just brilliant!

    What great joy it is to see you here at DV!!

  8. Pat Blair said on September 5th, 2009 at 8:23pm #

    Thank you very much, Jeff. I am in total agreement and I am so weary that the Israeli’s criminal government continues to exist.

  9. Lance Watson said on September 5th, 2009 at 10:17pm #


    Checkout this piece by Jeff, Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the
    Israel-Palestine Conflict, as Chomsky apart. https://new.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm It took me years
    to realise that Chomsky, Avnery ect are just zionist lite shills.

  10. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:24am #

    Thanks Lance,

    I recall that article by Jeffery Blankfort and welcome his insight. It was Blankfort critique of Chomsky as well as the betrayal of the anti-war movement by the “Left” that really opened my eyes. The “Left” tried to convince people that the War on Iraq was all about “Big Oil”. However when others in the movement raised the issue of Zionist influence you saw the anti-war movement break down. It was really telling to me how these so-called “anti-Imperialist” wanted to obscure to essentially “defend” a racist ideology like Zionism. It help me understand that the real work of exposing these phonies really needs to occur on the “Left”. At least you know where you stand against the “Right”.

    The reason why solidarity is extremely weak on the Left is due to these “Trojans” among who Noam Chomsky is the leading Trojan. He has constructed a facade of a “radical” but is essentially and elitist racist who has co-opted the language of the Left to mislead well-meaning activists. But what Chomsky has really done is to weaken the Left and help to create a vacuum on the Left to be filled by Democrats like Barack Obama. Noam Chomsky and his followers has creating such confusion and diffusion on the Left it has left the public with no real choice but to keep casting their vote for the Democrats as well as help to permit the unchallenged rise of the power of Zionism upon the U.S. political economy.

    Thanks again for the link. I hope others read it and educate themselves of one of the all time great charlatans that every lived.

  11. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:51am #

    Jeffrey Blankfort writes from his May 2005 article …

    Chomsky also fails to recognize a fundamental contradiction in his argument. If the support of Israel has been based on its role as protector of US strategic resources, namely oil, why doesn’t that position enjoy the support of the major oil companies with interests in the region?

    “War for Oil”(tm) is the biggest bunch of bullshit rhetoric there is. This is why the Left is in such a sorry state and why solidarity is so thoroughly retarded. If the Left doesn’t reject and overthrow Chomsky and his ilk the current crisis of Capitalism will only get worst for the working class.

  12. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2009 at 5:27am #

    Deadbeat don’t see anyone agreeing on your “big oil/left” theory.

    But for you it’s enough that they agree that Chomsky is a zionist (small z). Better luch next time…who knows…you theory may catch on if you say it enough.

  13. RickB said on September 6th, 2009 at 7:35am #

    Deadbeat: It took me years to realise that Chomsky, Avnery ect are just zionist lite shills.

    Include Finklestein “The Zionist Peace Rockstar”: http://ww3zionism.blogspot.com/2008/07/finkelstein-hopes-for-resolution-of.html

  14. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 6th, 2009 at 9:28am #

    I started to read chomsky’s books, i think, in late ’80’s. However, as far as my memory serves, he had not ever even mentioned let alone affirmed the pal’n right of return.

    One wld expect that one wld stress this right dozens of times. He also did not call for posthumous prosecution of many war criminals. So, i always suspected that even tho being very accurate in depiction of israeli numerous crimes, he neglected to even mention prosecution of living and dead criminals or the right to return to one’s home regardless why one left it.
    But once he recommended people vote for greater [in fact]; oops, ‘lesser’ evil, i fully understood that he’s basically a ‘jew’; defending “jewishnes” or cultishness.

    He also, as far as i remember, does not talk about deleterious effects by torah, talmud, or mishnah of these virulently cultish books that compare well with Mein Kampf= my campaign.
    yes, he’s a land robber as is every ‘jew’ because the label “jew” does not symbolize a nationality or ethnicity but hundreds of nationalities and ethnicities but with the most hateful cult we ever had to face. tnx

  15. Suthiano said on September 6th, 2009 at 11:11am #

    bozh, these books can be compared to mein kampf, but it is important to acknowledge that without torah, talmud mishnah, there would have been no need for mein kampf.

    I was a big Chomsky fan for about half of a year when I had just begun my “Re-education”. I quickly noticed that he and others like him always avoided making the most devastating connections. everything is a coincidence for these writers….

  16. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2009 at 11:11am #

    bozh, you’ve made statements here that seem to have no reference to anything but an opinion you hold. I’m not a Chomsky advocate, but I think your statements are rather off-the-wall.

    RichardB, I saw the link you provided, thank you, but what exactly did Finkelstein say that makes you want to throw him into some kind of Zionist camp?

    Let me note, I am the only one, I’ve noticed, who actually believes that Israel should be dissolved into a single ecologically sustainable area with Palestinians having full right of return to what is a combination of Gaza/Israel-state/West Bank.

    However, Finkelstein seems to be, more or less, supporting the Chomsky position (which as I said, there has been no dissention on DV) for a two state solution. I think that is both unsustainable and does not solve the fundamental problem.

    But nowhere, that I can tell, does Deadbeat ever suggest a solution for the Israel/Palestinian “conflict. Instead he is content to throw punches at Jews like Chomsky as Zionists who are interferring with “leftist” clear thinking about Zionism and Israel. Never does Deadbeat offer more than ad hominums about Chomsky with no regard for the Palestinians. It does seem, with all due respect, that DB is not interested in solutions as much as to aggitate for and anti-Jew position. He calls for solidarity, but again, with nothing more than a faint suggestion of what that means regarding American racism.

    These are all boogeymen that he can swat here on DV as if it is enough to chant down with Chomsky and the Zionist and little more.

    This swatting of Chomsky seems to be a weak form of cowardness when the problem is the USA empire. Who just killed 90 Afghan, at least 40 of which were children/women/civilian men? Who did that? Chomsky? Finkelstein?

    Come on, there is no moral courage in swatting at Jews who you think are diehard Zionists protecting Israel interest. In the grand scheme this is an utter waste when, and here I’m assuming, you live in a nation-state that has wreched more havoc on the planet than any in the history of so-called civilization!!!

  17. Shabnam said on September 6th, 2009 at 11:25am #

    [The passage of time does not erase that injustice no matter how many times you or others invoke the Nazi holocaust. The die for establishing a Jewish state displacing the Palestinians from their homes and villages was cast well before Hitler came to power so that issue should have no place in this argument.]

    Mr. Blankfort: Thank you for your contribution towards exposure of the closet Zionists who are not only working to protect the interest of a ‘Jewish state’ but also they give a helping hand to US imperialism in peruse of their policy towards regime change in Islamic countries where Israel consider enemy, to help Israel achieves her goal. Chomsky supports CPD (campaign for peace and democracy), a phony ‘anti war’ organization where Noam Chomsky has signed all their petitions against Iraq and Iran. Edward Herman and David Petersen in an article reviewed CPD polities and priorities and painted CPD as an organization where serves the interests of U.S. imperialism.

    Chomsky also is supporting HOPI, Hands off the Iranian people, a trotyskist group like CPD, with the same slogan and policy. Both organizations’ goal is identical with US imperialism and Zionism, meaning both are targeting Islamic liberation movements and Islam in general in the region but leave Israel – the racist, terrorist and apartheid entity alone. To fool the followers, they occasionally write a short letter with deceiving title like “no blank check for Israel’ and leave Israel for another 10 years alone to go after Iran. A review of CPD website proves this point very well.

    As you have indicated Mr. Blankfort, “The die for establishing a Jewish state displacing the Palestinians from their homes and villages was cast well before Hitler came to power so that issue should have no place in this argument” is very much true.

    The ottoman policy regarding Jewish settlement in Palestine from 1881 to 1908 meant NO JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN PALESTINE. To steal Palestine did not start after the WWII, rather in 1880 by Herzl and support of Jewish aristocracy demanding Abdulhamid, Ottoman ruler, to sell a piece of land in Palestine where Ottoman government was strongly opposed from the outset to modern Jewish settlement in Palestine, which began with the increased flow of Jews out of Imperials Russia and Eastern Europe generally in the early 1880s. To put its policy into practice, the Government placed restrictions on Jews entering Palestine from 1882 because the restrictions flowing from the policy were not watertight (for example, jewish pilgrims were never barred from Palestine), stupid Abudlhamid, and partly because the European powers refused almost uniformly to acquiesce in the restrictions on the grounds that they ran counter to the privileges they and their nationals enjoyed under the CAPITULATIONS. Today, We see the same policy of capitulations directed at IRAN to serve the interest of apartheid state.

    In November 1881, in response to the Anglo-German group’s approach, the Ottoman Government announced that: “Jewish immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout the Ottoman Empire, excluding PALESTINE.” Toward the end of 1882, Ottoman ministers told Isaac Fernandez, a leading Jewish figure in Constantinople, that the empire did not want to have another national problem in the Empire. However Herzl asked that Palestine should be granted to the Jews with the great power protection but Abdulhamid II, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire rejected it. Herzl must have been relying on the Jewish aristocracy’s wealth who were in control of the British Empire to DEMAND Palestine where was populated by Palestinians and the indigenous Hebrews to European colonists who adopted Judaism many centuries earlier in Europe and had neither connection to Palestine nor to the region. Herzl’s exchange for Palestine was “to regulate the whole finances of Turkey” bribing the empire because they were aware of the empire’s cash shortage.
    He told Herzl that “I cannot sell even a foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people…When my empire is partitioned, they may get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse will be divided.”
    Now, the story of Palestine and how it was stolen is known to everyone. We hope, the zionists and their enablers stop their war crimes activities immediately and let Palestinian has their land back. Therefore, those who still are hopeful for justice for Palestinians will say: One country for all. No one will accept a ‘jewish state’ in the region dominated by Muslims. No country in the region voted for the partition of Palestine. Thus, all say: Israel has no right to exist.

  18. Suthiano said on September 6th, 2009 at 11:30am #

    Max, there is no way for your plans to come into existence…. absolutely no way.

    We are beyond the stage where we, as “dissidents”, can make the changes that are necessary.

    How are you going to get your message out besides sites like this with a relatively small readership? The zionists have a lock on the media in USA, this is not conspiracy theory, it’s just an observation. You can investigate for yourself if you wish.

    WE could all write powerful articles for dissident voice, maybe a couple of kids will read them and become “dissidents”. Meanwhile “Inglorious Basterds” rakes in 20 million at the box office and receives a rating of 88% on rottentomatoes.com

    We already lost the battle for the minds of most of usa… we have insufficient infrastructure to effect the changes, and the elite have all means and resources to continue their effective control of the herd.

    so what’s left to do? I donno… burn down the wh? infiltrate the military? i don’t have the answers… when it comes to the palestine israeli conflict, we all know there will be no solution. The Israelis are proving once again that they can do what they please, which includes disregarding US “requests” and international law.

  19. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2009 at 12:00pm #

    Suthiano I’m not trying to convince anyone of a solution when they are so busy bashing Chomsky. My point is we live in the most destructive war machine in all of “civilization” and all we can do is split hairs about whether Chomsky is a zionist and if so is he interferring with the “US LEFT” (like such a thing exists) from doing the right thing and focusing all of our/their energies on defeating ???? Zionism, Israel, AIPAC… I really don’t know.

    One can be outraged by Isaeli/Zionist, but I find nothing wrong with apply simple moral standards – which is what Finkelstein seems to be suggesting – without wrapping it up in some kind of Zionist/ideology. Human rights is what it is. How we attempt to apply this standard is critical. Much can horror can be unleashed in the name of human rights…but there are ways to ensure work towards those ends without interventionism.

    All that said, my approach to these problems is holistic rather than using the termonology which seems to distract from the underlying issues. This is the major issue with our ability to deal squarely with problems. We turn them into self-described hate-camps rather than putting those energies into something that will produce change, there is this wailing about Zionism. Apartheid is not Zionism. Human rights is not purely a Zionist or Israeli issue. There are human rights issue all over the globe.

    But again I ask the simple question, who has and is raising more havoc in the world than the USA? And to use red herrings, as Deadbeat does repeatedly, that Obama is simply filling a void is just…stupid. Obama is the commander in chief as was GW Bush. He has COMMANDED that the USA escalate and go to war in Afghanistan and stretch that into Pakistan. The 90 killed are the result, not of Chomsky, but of OBAMA’s ORDERS!!! None of this denies the murderous existence of Israel, but it is NOT Israel who is ORDERING war in Afghanistan. Only a racist would think, it seems to me, that Obama is incapable of ordering these troops on his own – without one iota of Zionist input.

  20. Silvia Cattori said on September 6th, 2009 at 12:21pm #

    Great Jeff,
    Thank you so much for your clever response.
    Palestinian need your voice.
    Silvia Cattori

  21. Jeff Blankfort said on September 6th, 2009 at 12:42pm #

    The fact that what we are now seeing is Obama’s war, that he was selected (sic) as president to put a human face on US imperialism and anesthatize what was already a pathetic anti-war movement, does not absolve Chomsky from the instrumental role that he has played in absolving the American Jewish establishment, euphemistically referred to as the Pro-Israel Lobby, from the insidious role that it has played through its outright control of Congress and its penetration of every critical level of government, in order to promote US imperial policy and to ensure that Israel’s enemies become those of America.

    The abject failure of the anti-war movement with regard to the Israel-Palestine issue is intimately collected with the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as this current article by Alexander Cockburn aptly points out:

    What needs to be done is what the Chomsky and Finkelstein line has thus far diverted the movement from doing. That is targeting members of Congress as paid agents of Israel. 54 of them were in Israel recently, 25 Republicans followed by 29 Democrats, led by Steny Hoyer, House Majority leader, who were there to take a stand against Obama’s “stated” milktoast policy of “freezing” Israeli settlements. That and the letters to Obama signed by 76 senators and 330 House members advising Obama not to pressure Netanyahu–that went unreported in our Zionized media–made it quite clear to Netanyahu, as it was to his predecessors, that he can give his middle finger to an American president and get away with it.

    We need to forget about the fact that the whole Zionist enterprise has to go and the crimes it has committed because most Americans have shown they don’t care about that. What they might care about is their elected representatives acting as agents of a foreign government, and it is on that basis that they need to be attacked. That this has never been done can be laid at Chomsky’s door and of those closet Zionists who have dominated the anti-war movement thus far and kept it from acting.

  22. balkas b b said on September 6th, 2009 at 12:46pm #

    i agree that torah or mosheism had been a factor in german paroxisism bwtn ’19 and ’44.
    defeat of germany in ’18 and subsequent imposition of a very harsh diktat at veraailles ’19 on germany, hate for poles, russians, and serbs were also a factor in the genocide of romas, poles, russians, and ‘jews’.

    btw, it is incorrect to state that germans hated slavs. In fact, they did not hate slovenes, croats, bosniaks, bulgarians, slovaks, or even czechs.
    However, they may have looked dwn on all or some peoples i have just enumerated. tnx

  23. kalidas said on September 6th, 2009 at 1:14pm #

    If USA is such a high and mighty empire. The supreme military might, etc., etc., then why can’t this awesome empire JUST SAY NO to the Jewish squatter State even one time? Or to any Jewish interest here in the USA.
    Just once.
    Just once no UN veto.
    Just once no oath of eternal support.
    Just once say NO, you cannot murder Americans in cold blood.
    NO, you cannot commit piracy and kidnap Americans at will.
    And on and on and on.
    What a shocker people detest these pseudo-religious cretins.

    So much for the mighty empire.

  24. balkas b b said on September 6th, 2009 at 1:25pm #

    max, with respect,
    what was it that i said that prompted you to call my statements [actually[nonfacts] “off the wall”.
    In fact, i have not opined; i have stated facts or posited events from memory. Thus i talk almost solely about events and facts.
    Max, it is an old trick to label adduction of facts as opinions or statements and then use the your new labels [probably carefully selected] to prove that i posited opinions and which have no connection to reality.
    and even if i had posited a false to fact event, it still ain’t an opinion but merely an error or a nonfact.

    One of the ruses that MSM used is to retort to my letters to editors in which i adduce facts that contradict a writers ‘facts’ is almost always to explain the whole mess by saying that the writer was expressing his/her opinion.
    And, of course, use personal attacks, generalize; avoiding like plague to particularize just as you have done to me.
    C’mon, max, labeling facts and descriptive statements “opinions” or “statements” which [and i paraphrase] have no connection with reality except an opinion in my head is an ancient subterfuge.
    And why do u say, “..my statements seem to have no reference to anything but an opinion in your head. Why do u label description [in]correct as “statement”? And why say “seen to have”?
    at least you cld have said, In my opinon or said, have no connection!
    I think you need to learn how to use words; you are letting words [ab]use you. tnx

  25. balkas b b said on September 6th, 2009 at 1:42pm #

    correction of ‘label “jew” symbolizes a connection to judeans…’
    The label “jew” does not symbolize a conection to judeans. The label “jew” stands as a symbol for hundreds of ethnicities and connection to a cult.
    Of course, ‘jews’ use the label “jew” to make us believe that they descended from judeans.
    thus as ilan pappe says, ‘jewish people’ is an invention. There is no such people; only a multiethnicity or peoples. tnx

  26. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:39pm #

    C’mon, max, labeling facts and descriptive statements “opinions” or “statements” which [and i paraphrase] have no connection with reality except an opinion in my head is an ancient subterfuge.

    You should know by now that this is Mr. Shields method of argumentation. Unfortunately is only opens the door to questioning Mr. Shields agenda here on DV. An honest is using facts and genuine to persuade listeners/readers. Genuine arguements is how you build trust and soldiarity. When ones seeks to use fallacies to make their case then it opens question to their motives. This doesn’t necessarily mean their motives are “sinister” but sometimes people are so stuck in their position they have to twist and distort their counterparty’s position. This means that these counterparties really don’t want to listen to the other side who are making valid points. What matters is that they “win” the debate in a destructive manner rather than expound upon ideas and logically justify their position.

    I’m not taking any position in your debate with Max but simply agreeing with the techinques you identify within the MSM and their highly effective use of fallacies as propaganda techiques.

  27. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:41pm #

    Max Shields writes…

    Deadbeat don’t see anyone agreeing on your “big oil/left” theory.
    But for you it’s enough that they agree that Chomsky is a zionist (small z). Better luch next time…who knows…you theory may catch on if you say it enough.

    Apparently Jeffrey Blankfort does.

  28. Jeff Blankfort said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:52pm #

    Here, Max, for the edification of others (since apparently have another agenda) is what I had to say about the Iraq war and I have added considerably more evidence to make my case since it was published:


  29. Suthiano said on September 6th, 2009 at 2:55pm #

    “One can be outraged by Isaeli/Zionist, but I find nothing wrong with apply simple moral standards – which is what Finkelstein seems to be suggesting – without wrapping it up in some kind of Zionist/ideology.”

    Max, I am a young man, and a silly man, and I don’t pretend to “hold knowledge”. However, I don’t understand how you can bring up “simple moral standards” in a discussion on religion, without mentioning that most of our “simple moral standards” derive from the “judaic” religion.

    Before I continue, i do agree that “splitting hairs” about chomsky is probably not a relevant task…. that is unless we can do so on a major stage, and I think this is unlikely. This follows from my challenge about influencing people through DV. Chomsky already reaches millions. he already has the “infrastructure” in place. Railing on him on this site will never reach the same level of effectiveness as Chomsky himself.

    To get back to the “Zionist question”, this is what Nietzsche hit on about 130 years ago, and also missed. We live in Plato’s republic. This is a very useful observation of the world. You can disagree with me, but you will be misled. I have been studying plato and the western tradition for the brief years taht I’ve been on this planet. There are classes with control and the classes are linked to evolution. Evolution doesn’t have to be “darwinian” to make sense. Even if “biology” wasn’t a factor, it would be a fact that most children of the ruling class would continue to behave in the same way as those who provided dominant frameworks/paradigms/bilds… and it’s also true to say that this feeling of fealty would be appear to be “instinctual”.

    The “zionists” make up a majority of the “Gold” class. This is an observation not an argument.

    To return to “simple morals”, it is simply a reference to the morality of the simple folk, which can be imposed through the standard means of control. The Germans in WW2 sought to return to what they collectively viewed as their natural state: a German state that could compete with its European counterparts. This was an impossibility because the Jewish elite had already established themselves in France and Britain. Hence the Germans, who viewed themselves as natural allies to the Brits, made several attempts to avoid starting a war with French/Soviets.

    Nietzsche understood how Jews could use morality to achieve a dominance in Europe. This follows from even the most basic understanding of religion.
    All religions are pyramid schemes. The “zionists” who are elite, simply represent the ruling class. Through a manipulation of Christian guilt, this other religion was able to take control of most of the powerful instutions in “christian” countires: IMF, World Bank, U.S. Congress, Canadian Media, British Banks, etc.

    Only a “Chosen people” can justify the existence of slaves. Just read Genesis and there is an division of the peoples of the world into 3 classes: the tent owners, the tent dwellers, and the tent builders… Shem, Japheth and Ham, check it out…

    I lost my “train of thought” a while ago.

  30. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2009 at 3:37pm #

    balkas b b, the only trick (old/new) is up your sleeve. I found the whole post a fabrication if you must have it spelled out.

    Suthiano, at least you’re thoughtful, though dragging Judaism into moral standards is a stretch when one is simply trying to layout some friggin baseline of rationality.

    This conversation on DV gets ever more bizzare, as Jeff Blankfort proceeds to go on about how Finkelstein and Chomsky have diverted a “movement”. What the fuck movement is this fellow talking about, a bowl movement? Come on fella. First there’s got to BE a movement before you can divert it. ABCDEFG…you know how the song goes.

    And your endless “essay” or “blog” or “diary” is about as illuminating as a porks ass. You’re over thinking the obvious and it’s typical of people with too much time on their hands….

  31. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 6th, 2009 at 4:02pm #



    According to statistics released by the Bank of Israel, the projected growth for the Israeli economy is expected to be about 0% in 2009 and 2.5% in 2010.
    This projection makes Israel the only country in the developed world not to have had negative growth in 2009.

    Israel ranks sixth in global economic growth among the world’s top 45 countries. The concern now is that the growth will spark increased interest rates; with some saying it could reach 3% by next summer. Last week, Israel became the first Western nation to raise its interest rates from 0.25% to 0.75%.

    The estimates from the Bank of Israel were mirrored in a report released last week by Bank of America Merrill-Lynch, which wrote “we increased our GDP forecasts for Israel last week to 0.0%, and 2.5% for 2009 and 2010 respectively.”

  32. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 6th, 2009 at 4:13pm #

    How well would your little terror-state do, economically (the only calculus that impresses the golems, their moral and spiritual depravity having rendered them unable to appreciate anything but greed)if you didn’t get several billion a year in tribute from the US tax-payers. How much would you have to brag of if you were not at the apex of global organised crime, in blood diamond trade in Africa, drug-running (particularly ecstasy)human trafficking, trafficking in transplant organs, money laundering and arms trafficking. Israel is, as could have been expected, turning itself into a Mafia state, outside global control, contemptuous of international law, and able to pursue its vast criminality by quelling all criticism with the ‘anti-Semitic’ canard. Not much to boast about really. I’ve often wondered Mebose-why does your type of Jew prefer humanity to hate them, as is surely clear from your arrogance and psychotic indifference to the cruelties inflicted on the Palestinians.

  33. kalidas said on September 6th, 2009 at 4:34pm #

    The synagogue of Satan has a good year.
    We’re all so impressed.
    Especially since we all know how wonderfully charitable the Jews are to the goyim.
    I read about it somewhere..

    “The ultimate expression of anti-semitism is to be debt free.”

  34. United-Socialist-Front said on September 6th, 2009 at 6:52pm #


    The problem of the Middle East like the problem of USA and Mexico is capitalism. Only workers-socialism can bring change and emancipate the millions of exploited middle easterners. You see the real evil people in this whole world are not only the zionists. Well they are evil because they happen to own the means of production. What we need is for the working-classes of the Middle East to rise to power and to control the means of production (The corporations, oil and wealth)

    I might sound too utopian, but that is the way i see it. I mean as long as the oil, and all the powerful stuff in the middle east belongs to a few mafia oligarchs, there will be conflicts, and zionist fascist killings of Palestines for their takeover of their gas and land.


  35. United-Socialist-Front said on September 6th, 2009 at 7:01pm #

    “Especially since we all know how wonderfully charitable the Jews are to the goyim.”

    hahaha, you mean gollum (Smeagol)?

  36. United-Socialist-Front said on September 6th, 2009 at 7:10pm #

    Suthiano: your education is impecable. I am an absolute Marxist and an absolute Nietzschean as well, i believe that both philosophies (even though differnet) can marry at some point. What i mean is what u said about Nietzsche about jews is true, he wrote that Europe was envious of the jewish power because the jews were a an ethnic group and race which had lots of will and hunger for accumulation of wealth (That’s why the jews are the best bankers). So Nietzsche said that Europe as it was very nationalist, wasn’t able to digest the jewish race into its belly so he foresaw the Nazi holocaust against the jewish people. But like you said the zionist capitalist jews are resorting to the Holocaust as a tool for their fascist goals in the Middle East. However i am Christian and I believe in God and in goodness, i believe that good along with historical materialism and evolution of societies will conquer evil in the Middle East. The workers and exploited jews and muslims will overthrow their masters sooner or later.



  37. United-Socialist-Front said on September 6th, 2009 at 7:31pm #



    9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad.

    Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During the weeks before 9/11 these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basements of WTC Twin Towers next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11.

    Fast backward, Hamburg 54 Marienstrasse, july 2000, 22:40. Mohamed Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah (who were later blamed of being the pilots of flight 11, 175 and 93 respectively), who share the apartment hear the ringing of the door bell. Jarrah opens the door, 5 masked men make their way into the apartment with drawn pistols. The 3 Arabs are forced to lay on the ground. Their passports are confiscated, next the 3 men are made unconscious with some liquid and strangled to death afterwards. The bodies are carried out of the apartment into a van and driven off towards a desolate spot at the boarding of the Elbe river outside Hamburg, 1 kilometer north of Borstel and disposed of into the river with a bag filled with stones tied to their feet. The 3 passports are now in the possession of the agents of the Mossad, who carried out the raid on the apartment and 3 Arabs have vanished without anybody knowing that they are dead. Not long after the raid the 3 passports are given to 3 Israeli agents who were selected on having some resemblance with the 3 Arabs just killed. They make for America soon afterwards in the summer of 2000 and start laying a trail at flight schools, posing with the stolen identities from the 3 Arabs killed.

    Years earlier the israeli Michael Goff working for PTech, an Arab owned software company that develops key enterprise software for many government institutions like NORAD and FAA, using his secure channel with another israeli Amit Yoran, somehow manages to give Israeli army computer programmers access to this critical computer code. It was due to this manipulation that the hijackings on 9/11 remained unnoticed by the flight controller of NORAD. Once this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center.

    The hijacking of airliners by remote control had been tested as a dress rehearsal for 9/11 on the Egypt Air flight 990 that crashed into the Atlantic on October 31, 1999.

    Now everything was in place to commit the crime of the century. On the day of 9/11 the Israeli stand-ins for the ‘Arab hijackers’ showed up at the predestined departure airports to make sure they were captured on surveillance camera’s. The crucial point here is that the security at both the departure airports was in hands of an Israeli firm Huntleigh-USA, a subsidiary of the Dutch based but Israeli owned ICTS led by a fellow named Menahem Atzmon. And this is crucial: Atzmon used to be a colleague of Olmert in 1998. So there you have the link between the 9/11 operative level (an airport security firm) and the highest level of Israeli politics. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was that after the Israeli stand-ins were captured on camera, they left the airport via a side entrance and the show could begin. Minutes after the planes became air born somebody somehow was able to send a signal to the planes, causing the control panels to be disabled and the flight destination altered. What happened was that an anti-hijack system was activated (code word ‘home run’) and the regular pilot was put out of control. This pilot will probably have tried frantically to regain control of his aircraft. It is not very likely he will have told his passengers about the new situation since that would only cause panic. The passengers probably suspected nothing and hence had no reason to make any phone calls to their relatives (which were not possible anyway). And while the 9/11 passengers unsuspecting travel towards their immanent deaths, on the ground from a war room Israeli agents carry out phone calls to relatives of the passengers that were still in the air, using voice morphing technology and caller-ID spoofing and thus planted the Arabs-did-it-deception in the public consciousness. The sound samples necessary to carry out the fake telephone calls had been obtained via the israeli infiltration of American telephone networks by Israeli firms like Amdocs and Verint. By the time that the passengers were puzzled as they discerned the New York sky line it was already too late.

    Meanwhile on the other side of the Hudson river the members of the Israeli team that planted the demolition charges were waiting for things to happen. And while the rest of New York experienced in horror the events that were unfolding that day, the demolition experts were celebrating and high-fiving. The plot had worked out magnificently.

  38. balkas b b said on September 6th, 2009 at 7:51pm #

    you’re right i lie a lot. All u have to do is not read anything i write. And please if u do read whta i post spare me an answer.
    and i’ll be happy not to read anything u write.

  39. balkas b b said on September 6th, 2009 at 8:03pm #

    usf, i think you are right.
    It made no sense for saudis to do that terrorist act. Everybody knew that US wld retaliate and kill many muslims and occupy at leas one of the muslim countries. Thanks a lot for the new info.

  40. United-Socialist-Front said on September 6th, 2009 at 9:28pm #

    Here is a poem for you all, not related to this article, but related to the corruptions in our politicians:


    When they turn the pages of history
    When these days have passed long ago
    Will they read of us with sadness
    For the seeds that we let grow
    We turned our gaze
    From the castles in the distance
    Eyes cast down
    On the path of least resistance

    Cities full of hatred
    Fear and lies
    Withered hearts
    And cruel tormented eyes
    Scheming demons
    Dressed in kingly guise
    Beating down the multitude
    And scoffing at the wise

    The hypocrites are slandering
    The sacred halls of Truth
    Ancient nobles showering
    Their bitterness on youth
    Can’t we find
    The minds that made us stong
    Can’t we learn
    To feel what’s right and wrong

    Cities full of hatred
    Fear and lies
    Withered hearts
    And cruel, tormented eyes
    Scheming demons
    Dressed in kingly guise
    Beating down the multitude
    And scoffing at the wise
    Can’t we raise our eyes
    And make a start
    Can’t we find the minds
    To lead us closer to the Heart

  41. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2009 at 10:11pm #

    Suthiano writes …
    Before I continue, i do agree that “splitting hairs” about chomsky is probably not a relevant task…. that is unless we can do so on a major stage, and I think this is unlikely. This follows from my challenge about influencing people through DV. Chomsky already reaches millions. he already has the “infrastructure” in place. Railing on him on this site will never reach the same level of effectiveness as Chomsky himself.

    I beg to differ. Suthiano was probably not around before the Internet achieved the reached the world wide audience it now has. Before the Internet attained this reach there were list servers that were tightly controlled. Perhaps one of the most lively list was PNEWS (“Progressive News”) operated by Hank Roth. Mr. Roth had a nasty tendency to revoke participation of members who would bring up this particular issue.

    The point is, that Dissident Voice and I would add Information Clearing House has provided a forum where critics of Noam Chomsky like Dr. James Petras and Jeffery Blankfort has been able to REACH people with their perspectives and has enhance the a point of view that was often suppress because there were no alternative outlets. It has been through the World Wide Web that I for one was able to become familiar with the writings of Jeffrey Blankfort which then confirm my suspicions of Noam Chomsky the influence that Zionism has on U.S. politics and the culture associated with the Left.

    We owe the editors of Dissident Voice a debt of gratitude for opening up the debate and allow these perspectives to come through.

  42. Shabnam said on September 6th, 2009 at 10:28pm #

    Salbuchi believes:
    Zionism a key factor in the New World Order Elite.


  43. Suthiano said on September 7th, 2009 at 1:46am #


    it was not my intention to criticize those who have challenged chomsky, though I understand how it came across that way. If it wasn’t for these challenges I wouldn’t have the information I do… I meant (as I tried to say) that realistically, our criticsm of chomsky will never reach as many people as chomsky himself.

  44. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:38am #

    I meant (as I tried to say) that realistically, our criticsm of chomsky will never reach as many people as chomsky himself.

    But Suthiano, my point is that the AWARENESS of the false prophecy of Noam Chomsky is much greater today than it was 15 to 20 years ago. Clearly Mr. Chomsky has a vast network that includes “Z-Magazine”, South End Books, and “Democracy Now!” but the Internet has help to level the field.

    15 years ago if you make such an argument you would have been thrown off what was the only real online progressive forum — PNEWS. The suppression was much greater 15 – 20 years ago than it is today. Thus Suthiano, contrary to what Max Shields is trying to promote, we MUST ANALYZE the effect that Chomskyism is having on the Left in order to understand WHY the Left is in such a weakened condition and why solidarity is so badly RETARDED.

    As a matter of course people look to the Left to provide insight and answers to the issues of political economy. When the Left looses credibility it create a political vacuum and as you know nature ABHORS a vacuum. There is a huge political vacuum on the Left and it is a huge factor why political activism is so limp because solidarity is so weak due to distrust. How for example are you going to reach people of color who are extremely sensitive to racism when you have a person like Noam Chomsky who is promoted as a major representative of the Left who essentially defends (via obscurity) a racist ideology. Such a promotion will in the end only result in betrayal. Thus crippling any chance of building a movement. This is what happened to the anti-war movement in 2004.

    Thus Suthiano, we who speak out for FAIRNESS, EQUALITY and JUSTICE must take advantage of whatever opportunities comes our way. This forum and the editors at DV and Information Clearing House has provided us with that opportunity. We owe them our gratitude.

  45. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 3:12am #

    Max Shields writes …
    It does seem, with all due respect, that DB is not interested in solutions as much as to aggitate for and anti-Jew position. He calls for solidarity, but again, with nothing more than a faint suggestion of what that means regarding American racism.

    Max Shields has insulted Jews by labeling them as Zionists. Thus Max Shields is arguing that a stance against the growing influence of Zionism in the United States is “anti-Jew”.

    It is obvious that Max Shields agenda is to nullify any discussion of the growing influence on Zionism within the United States. The stance adopted by Mr. Shields is a “SHIELD” for this racist ideology. Thus this calls into question Mr. Shields own veracity against the “empire”. Also this rhetoric of “empire” is used by Chomskyites to shield (no pun intended) Israel from criticism. This is what Mr. Shields calls “holistic”. Using “holistic” this way is linguistic abuse which warms the heart of any and all Chomskyites.

    Why is the analysis of Noam Chomsky important. Because Noam Chomsky is considered the “greatest living radical”. Movies has been made about Mr. Chomsky and he represents the U.S. Left. Thus an seriously dialectical analysis of Noam Chomsky is vital to understand the trajectory of the Left for at least the past 30 – 40 years. And in 2009 the Left is in a PATHETIC state of affairs primarily because the Left has not adhere to the basic principles of FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, and JUSTICE.

    The key to this is understanding the narrative of the Left and the key to understanding the Left’s narrative is understanding the narrative of Chomsky and the propaganda surrounding him because of his tremendous influence upon the Left’s agenda.

    As I stated to Suthiano, it was virtually impossible to level this critique and engage in this kind of analysis ANYWHERE 15 to 20 years ago. But with the rise of the Internet and the obvious decimation of the anti-war movement, the Left promotion of the “War for Oil” canard and the collapse of the Green Party could not be hidden in this information age.

    Thus more and more people are beginning to become aware of the growing influence of Zionism upon the political economy of the United States but especially its growing influence ACROSS the political spectrum especially the grip it has on the Left.

    Zionist are not fools they understand that the Left is where agitation begins and in order to prevent agitation it must seek ways to inhibit and retard the Left. This is why the Left has been PATHETIC at working with people of color. Racism is a sensitive topic with people of color and the Left’s defense of Zionism (via denials and obscurity) informs people of color that the Left cannot be trusted. On the other hand the Left understand at working with people of color will raise the issue of racism and thereby risking that a light will shine on Zionism exposing it influence on the U.S. Thus to “team players” like Mr. Shields, he’s rather undermine the Left via retarded solidarity to outright diffusion that leaves Zionism unchallenged permit its influence upon the political economy to flourish.

    This is another reason why Mr. Shields supports “Georgism” whereby Mr Shields believes no redistribution is necessary as a corrective to the concentration of wealth and power. Mr. Shields is quite happy to retain the status quo especially since his “religion” has benefited from the existing order. Such perspectives fit hand and glove with Chomskyism. Chomskyism is the bane of the Left and it is worse than the Democratic Party as a suppressant of movements.

  46. mary said on September 7th, 2009 at 3:28am #

    If anyone thought that the most cruel of Occupiers would ever cease expanding their settlement building which Obama/Clinton/Mitchell/Blair and even those members of the PA who collaborate with them, were touting, they were fooled, yet again.

    Their two-fingered salute here

  47. jon s said on September 7th, 2009 at 4:40am #

    As an Israeli I wholly agree with Uri Avnery. Indeed the peace movement in Israel owes him a tremendous debt.
    One response to Jeff Blankfort: Palestinians – and Israelis – can have either peace OR justice , they can’t have both. And the only way to peace is through the 2-state solution, mutual recognition and co-existence. Hatred, of the kind directed towards Israel on this site, is ultimately counter-productive , aside from being morally wrong.

  48. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:01am #

    I enumerate what chomsky says or does not say. I do not CRITISIZE him, but posit facts.
    Positing facts cannot be called criticism; it may be called education.
    But, still, by any other name, the fact that chomsky is for a two state solution and does no recognize our second-dearest right: the right of return for pal’ns may be wiewed as enlightening. tnx

  49. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:08am #

    jon s,
    you are using one of the oldest ruses ever used to obnubilate what is cristal clear: you have labeled our observation what ‘zionists’ like avneri, chomsky, finkelstein labor for as “hate”.
    This trick will not work on me. My and many observer’s labors and facts are education and not hate.

  50. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:26am #

    at one time mosheic cultitsts were hated by ab. 100mn people; now 5-6bn people are angry with the talmudniks.
    And once world plutos abandon them, we won’t find these cultists anywhere!
    Don’t believe when you can look. Believing is not looking and thus also not knowing. And believing can be extememy perilous to the believer. tnx

  51. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:47am #

    hey, kids,
    one cannot disassociate or separate racism [however defined] from meritocracy, ‘education’, ‘sport’, constitution, classful society, etc.
    Racism, however explained, cannot be separated even from people looking dwn on people- commonly known as discrimination.

    Racism-discrimination-oppression-exploitation-murder had been with us for ca. 20K yrs.
    From what i read, redpeople of n. americas were least discriminatory-racist.
    and that phenomenon [serfdom] can exist only in a fascist structure of governance and with priestly goading and massive help. tnx

  52. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:50am #

    Deadbeat, your post are the most hillarious thing I’ve read today. Truly a work of fiction with regard to my positions.

    First, Chomsky means nothing to me. To you he is the face of an American “left”. Does he reach a broad range of people within and outside the USA, no doubt. But let’s not be so quick to make this human more than he is, I’d say far more than he is. Most people have never heard of or care about Noam Chomsky. I was introduced to him as a linguist when I became interested in his linguistical models and as a critic of the behaviorist school of psychology. His politics, like most, touch on some things I agree with and a number of areas I don’t. If there are sheep out there, and there are, who follow whatever someone says, sans critical thinking, well whatchagonna do? That’s how our politics work as well.

    So, I wouldn’t wail away at Chomsky. It does not good to simply see every opportunity to use him as your whipping boy for something far far far bigger than Noam Chomsky.

    What I find most irksome, Deadbeat, is your world view that limits all US empire interventionism as Zionist motivated. You may deny it here, but it’s in nearly everything you post. It’s like “I never said oil wasn’t important” which is a true statement, BUT you never said it WAS important. It’s a weak tactic used to subvert honest debate.

    As far as “Big Oil” I have never posted that big oil was the main instigator of the Iraq invasion. The oil “industry” might have fretted, as they do, about the fragility of oil supply if an invasion were to occur, but that doesn’t mean that their interest in US policy interest aren’t the same, whatever the means for a particular situation. We know for Latin America how American Corporations have been instrumental in low-intensity war-fare where the fragility of pipelines are not at stake.

    So, if Chomsky states that Big Oil wanted the US to invade, I would disagree. However, Big Oil has been the beneficiary of negotiated agreements with Iraq…so they may not have like the high risk of an invasion, but they’re there at the table to make sure those oil reserves are under their control before they are nationalized.

    As to Israel’s role in the Middle East at large (beyond the Palestinians) and specifically regarding Iraq, they may have had plans, I’m sure they have all kinds of nefarious plans of conquest around the region…they are a preditory nation-state with designs exceeding their slice of real estate called Israel. I’m not denying that. But is that the REASON why the US invaded Iraq? Very implausible.

    Here I do think Finkelstein makes a cogent point – the US thought toppling Saddam and setting up a contained occupation would be a “cake walk”. Doing that would have paid dividends in a region which is not friendly to the US interest for total hegemony regarding oil resources. Did AIPAC play some role? Perhaps they did by simply being for it and rallying their constituency behind it seeing a confluence of interest between USA/Israel. Ok.

    Regarding your nonsense about Georgism, your ignorance is immense and should be understood as such. It’s always easy to argue the controversy of economics…no proof needed, no empirical studies suffice. There has never been a successful takeover of land, with “fair” distribution that has been sustained. The mere use of force creates a counterforce. HG provided the basis for rescuing common wealth and assuring distribution without force. It’s worthy of consideration…even though, you Deadbeat never will…but then one day, maybe, Mr. Petras or Mr. Blankfort and you’ll have a little dissonance, and re-consider.

  53. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:57am #

    For long time now; probably 20yrs, i have expected that the christo-talmudic soyuz wld try very hard to utterly destroy palestine and oust all pal’ns from expalestine.

    And no arab land dares or is able to avert this. The ad hoc block has chosen very slow way to obtain its telos. Slowness may have been caused by the fact that the folks in oil countries might react in unexpected ways if US/Israel wld obtain their goal suddenly and quickly. tnx

  54. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:08am #

    Deadbeat, just to be clear, it may be someday, when either Mr. Petras or Mr. Blankfort (writers you seem committed to) present their position on a Georgist approach to distribution, then…perhaps…you’ll re-consider…

    I am not a Marxist nor a liberal democrat, or socialist democrat all of whom are quite comfortable in global economic integration or what we today call neoliberalism. So, we are world’s apart on our political economics and will probably never agree.

    Your Zionist fetish is just over the top and so I do respond to this kind of atonal approach to looking at the world (which doesn’t mean that I’m a follower of either Chomsky or Finkelstein).

  55. Synic3 said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:10am #

    In my humble opinion, those who attacks ALL jews, just because they werer born jews, are presenting zionism and Israel with very valuable gift. Israel and zionists will say: See, where can a jew find safety and acceptance but in Israel!.
    There are jews who reject zionism and Israel out of hand.
    There are jews who want settlement that is based on justice and the right of the Palestinians to return to a completely secular state with equal rights to all.
    There are jews who have an ambivelant mixed feeling about Israel and what it represents and doing.
    We need those enlightened jews on our side and not to drive them to the other side.
    In France and Italy, several months back, there were several anti-semitic incidents that turned out was perperated by zionists.??!!
    Hitler got help and collabrations from some zionist groups, who hoped that fanning antisemitism will drive the jews to immigrate to Israel.
    Do you got the picture.??!!

  56. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:29am #

    Dead Beat: I think that one of the major problems of the world-left, not only the USA left is its perfectionism and sectarianism. I know that Noam Chomsky doesn’t have a conspiracy-theory world view, but more like a Hegelian, class-struggle, marxist world view. And i don’t know why many in the Conspiracy Theory progressive left movement in USA don’t like Noam Chomsky very much. Even the alternative pro-Chavez website “Axis of Logic” (axisoflogic.com) doesn’t post Noam Chomsky’s articles.

    And then we have Venezuelanalysis.com that love Chomsky’s stance, and of course Hugo Chavez is pro-Chomsky.

    And then we have leftist forum sites, that deffend zionism, deffend Israel and hate any anti-Israel critisism like the ultra-leftist dogmatic forum website “Revleft” (Revleft.com)

    So i don’t understand the radical sectarianism in the US-Left, the US left is composed of pro-Israel, zionists and of anti-zionists, of pro-conspiracy theories (9-11, JFK killed by CIA) and of anti-conspiracy theory view like Counterpunch.org, commondreams.org, and revleft.com, and Bob Avakian’s Maoist party rwor.org)

    So i don’t understand why so many leftists are anti-conspiracy theory, and have conspiracy-phobia (Like Michael Parenti said).

    I welcome Noam Chomsky’s world view, but i also welcome the conspiratorial-leftist world view of Parenti.

    I don’t like Alexander Cockburn too much from counterpunch.org he thinks his arguments are God-ordained, and he said that JFK was not killed by CIA, because JFK was part of the elite, and that CIA only kills poor radical rebels who are threat to US Capitalist SYstem. What an anti-scientific possition does Mr. Cockburn has on the world. There are scientific evidence of JFK’s being killed by CIA, and 9-11 being an inside-job.



  57. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:35am #

    balkas: These conspiracy-theorists researchers are real smart, and documented. Man i dont understand, i mean i dont know how can they gather so much scientific-information. Specially Professor David Ray Griffin (One of the leaders of the 9-11 truth movement)


  58. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:48am #

    Max: I think you are generalizing about Marxists and leftists being neoliberals. The only people on the whole-left who are neoliberals, are not even true-leftists, true-socialists. But those of the Socialist-International Organization which is an organization of Social-Democratic Parties that divorced themselves from the Revolutionary-Socialist Movement. And these are Tony Blair, Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, Felipe Gonzalez (Former Spain’s President), Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and many other political parties members of the Socialist-International Organization. But these are bourgeoise-reformists, elitists, who once in power privatize every thing, are pro-NAFTA, and pro-CAFTA, and pro neoliberal globalization like you said.

    But the more radical, revolutionary, populist left in this world hates neoliberalism, so i think you are wrong in throwing in a same bag both authentic leftists with betrayers like the bourgeoise neoliberals Social-Democrats.


  59. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 10:09am #

    I never said Marxists, I said Marx. Marx, contrary to what has transpired subsequent to his writings, was very much in the liberal school of thinking. Neoliberalism is a term defined in the late 20th Century, but it fits (has roots in) with that liberalism of the 19th Century of which Marx was clearly apart.

    Neoliberalism has come to represent US empire interventionism, but that is a means to an end. Neoliberalism is about trade on a global scale and that contrasts to a growing green movement. It means creating a global monetary exchange system for such trade. If you want to understand the alternative to neoliberalism than the green movement would exemplify that, not Marxism. Now there are people who are self-described Marxist that might align with the green movement either because they are not true Marxist or because they buy into a little Marxism and a little green. Certainly neoliberalism has become associated with American trade policies (ala NAFTA/GATT), but again, its roots are not American. They are European. Free market is not neoliberalism in terms of how neoliberalism is practiced. You see it’s all a bit scrammbled by terminology that begins to mean less and less (Alice in Wonderlandish).

    The US may actually have more Marxism in its economy than many other nation-states. We’ve handed over fundamental principles to tired and worn out terminology until it becomes meaningless.

    If I say I’m not a Marxist I mean that it the sense of Marx, not some Marxist talking about some Marxist talking about some Marxist…until we loose all grasp of reality.

  60. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 10:20am #

    wld u please elucidate me about symbolic value of the label “jew”?
    How can a child born to a pole and a lett be a “jew”? How can an ethiopean be ethnically ‘jew’?
    How can the label “jew’ stand as an ethnic symbol for hundreds of ethnicities?
    The label “jew” stands solely as a symbol for the mass of ethnicities who were converted or have accepted talmudic-mosheic ‘laws’.
    A jehovah wittness or a koreshi may be an italian, apache, bulgar, english, french but call self a koreshi, jehovah witness respectively.
    Similarly, a 98% pole is to ‘jews’ a “jew”, nevertheless; and the sole reason for it is the fact that s/he had been converted or joined the cult in question.
    So, ‘jews’ swear allegience first of all to talmud and rabbinate and his/her nationality comes in value after that?
    U approve of this but i do not. I do not hate a pole who’s a human first and then a social being but once he declares s/he’s a catholic or ‘jewish’, we part forever. tnx

  61. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 10:25am #

    Max: I am sorry but the only rational alternative is not free-market libertarianism (which has never been applied by the way) but the real deal is statism, Chavism, Castrism, and a move toward state-control of corporations, and after the stage of state-control of corporations, toward a more participative extreme democracy which is workers-control of corporations.

    But face it my friend, you gotta divorce yourself from Ron Paul, from libertarianism and from free-markets, it doesnt work, it has never worked, it has never been applied in any nation, and in today’s nations who are looking for an alternative and solution to corporate-fascism they are not choosing libertarianist free markets as their solution but statist-capitalism and socialism of the XXI Century (Latin America)

  62. Synic3 said on September 7th, 2009 at 10:26am #

    Many posters here have complained about the current weak situation of the “LEFT”.
    How something can be weak if it doesn’t exist? We don’t have a “left” here in the US. What we have is scattered isolated groups with each group cares sand only cares about specific single issue like race , gender, sexual orientation, hispanics , environment and the homeless etc etc etc.
    The REAL left will be inclusive and cares about all the common people and their struggle against the greed and exploitation of big corporate/money elites and the abuses of the government they control.
    A real left will be calling for jobs with living wages and decent working conditions, secure retirement, universal health care, good education and business and banking strict regulations etc etc ..
    A real left will be striving for a governmnet that represents the common people and their interest and not representing the moneyed class.
    A true left will be national in scope with a nantional headquarter and a national newspaper and election platform and candidates.
    It is obvious we don’t have that “left”.

  63. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 10:40am #

    Suthiano: You are wrong. The USA has a left, but like you said, the problem is not that there is not a left in USA. But the real problem of America’s left, is that it is divided into tiny political parties, bourgeoise-reformists celebrities who are very good at theory, at writting articles, at selling books, but fail miserably at political-activism (Naomi Klein for example).

    And that’s the real problem of the left in USA, that it is too divided into small parties and bourgeoise social-democrat celebrities, and that it is too theoretical, but not politically-activist at all.


  64. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 11:04am #


    Middle and working class american citizens are socialists by tradition (humanists, compassionate, collective, and united (socialist traits), while the upper-class americans are capitalists (Greedy, anti-social, egocentric, and materialists: capitalist behaviour patterns)

  65. United-Socialist-Front said on September 7th, 2009 at 11:33am #


    You know there are 2 types of progressives in USA (The entrists progressives, and the third-party united front progressives). The entrist-socialists say that only option for socialists is to join Democrat Party and kick capitalists out of the Democrat party and turn it into a socialist party

    The non-entrist third party united-front socialists, say that entrism doesn’t work, and that both parties are not fixable

    i believe in the third-party non-entrist theory of USA-socialism. Of creating a third-party socialist front option in USA, because both Democrats and Republicans are not cleanable and savable at all. You can’t fix what’s rotten. You can’t clean and fix a mafia-cartel.


  66. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 11:35am #

    U-S-F writes …
    Suthiano: You are wrong. The USA has a left, but like you said, the problem is not that there is not a left in USA. But the real problem of America’s left, is that it is divided into tiny political parties, bourgeoise-reformists celebrities who are very good at theory, at writting articles, at selling books, but fail miserably at political-activism (Naomi Klein for example).


    I agree with your correction of Suthiano that there is a Left in the USA but where I disagree with you is that these people fail miserable at political activism. I contend they are quite ACTIVE at pushing their ideology. They are the gatekeeper to guarantee LIMITED activity and most of all to LIMIT the scope of ideas via misinformation and disinformation — techniques Chomsky himself identifies in Manufacturing Consent. By the co-opting the rhetoric of the Left as well as their access to “alternative” media and academia they have been elevated into a “vanguard” that has perverts analysis thereby confusing and misleading activist.

    Therefore I contend that the discombobulation of the Left is deliberate and well thought out. If the Left stays in a state of discombobulation then the status quo is retained or so these shills think. Only that the state of the Left’s discombobulation has permitted Zionism rise in the U.S. to go unchallenged and has degraded the Left such that it is ill-prepared to respond to the Capitalist crisis.

    These “Leftist” writers has not only become “famous” and turned into celebrities but also has become well rewarded for maintaining this high degree of confusion and diffusion of the American Left.

  67. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 11:52am #

    Actually it was Synic3 who says the Left doesn’t exist. The Left is badly fractured and this IMO has been deliberate. A Left exist in the values that you enumerated. That is what defined the Left. The problem is building solidarity and trust. This is what Chomskyism disrupts and retards and why it must be confronted.

  68. Shabnam said on September 7th, 2009 at 11:55am #

    Thank you for your contributions exposing the arrogant Zionists who mislead people in order to protect an apartheid state from falling. There are not many people around the world who know Chomsky for his linguistic expertise, however, they know him for his ‘anti imperialist’ stand where recently has came under attack by Herman and Petersen’s exposure of Campaign for peace and democracy (CPD) role as a US GOVERNMENT FRONT where Chomsky has close political cooperation with them. As you know, Chomsky is not famous for his expertise in linguistic, rather he is well known for his stands against ‘US imperialism.’ Now, I don’t know how he is going to be viewed after Herman and Petersen attack on CPD policies where they accuse CPD of expanding US imperialist influence around the world. I guess as long as this helping hand hide the role of Zionism shaping American foreign policy is OK for the arrogant zionsts.
    Arrogant Zionists who are blinded to the facts on the ground, they present the same story as they have given American fools for the past 45 years, meaning Brzezinski is playing the chess game scenario to explain the invasion of Iraq. This picture is so stupid and out of date that no serious person can accepts and buys anymore.
    The Iraq war is basically explained in terms of fight for oil and gas where no one is against but the question remains: Why does the empire choose this stupid path, the most expensive and deathly, to maintain control over the region? There are hundreds other ways much cheaper and safer to achieve the same goal, however, not that many alternative ways available to the Zionist project to be implemented except making the interest of Israel as the interest of the United States using the Jewish Lobby.
    The US foreign policy, as Lieberman, Sharon and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly have aid, are designed according to the interest of Israel.

    Professor Stephen Sniegoski in the following video present his explanation regarding the ROLE OF THE NEOCON, ZIONIST JEWS, in Iraq War not the role of the oil company as charlatan trying to sell American fools. Sniegoski like many others believes that:
    (1) Neocons were the driving force behind the Bush administrations war in Iraq

    (2) Their motivation was based on their belief that American interests in the Middle East are virtually identical with the Israeli Likud party’s beliefs about Israeli interests in the region
    (3) These mutual interests lie in destabilizing Israel’s adversaries and reconfiguring the environment rather than in the traditional American policy of stabilizing the Middle East.

  69. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:00pm #

    United-Socialist-Front, please I am NOT a Ron Paul advocate…and I am NOT a neoliberal advocate…so please don’t mis-apply these terms/people to what I have tried to be very clear about.

    Libertarianism, particular those of the conservative ilk such as Ron Paul, are strong advocates of individualism, which is the basis of neoliberalism, but they are not supportive of American neoliberally induced endless wars, nor are they particularly interested in “mis-guided/disinformed” NAFTA as in lieu of “real” free market that they DO believe in.

    Empire and American foreign policy aside, the Ron Paul Libertarian is not about community, but about hands-off individualism, to the extreme.

    A green movement, which has been evident in many places in the West for a number of decades, is community based and localized. It is not strongly fair trade in terms of “globalization” and finds almost nothing in common with neoliberals except that both think that nation-state monetary systems are not good. Neoliberals tend toward world-banks, whereas greens desire local currency, issued locally for trade within the community to keep the local economy healthy.

    To be clear, by green, I am talking about a movement, not a political party. The Green Party in the US cannot make headway on the national level because it must forgo its very principles in order to have any kind of a showing. And again, the nation-state itself is antithetical to a green movement (not that it denies it, but to be president of the USA is the inverse of what green represents).

    The price paid for Statism is war. While we clammer about universal health care in the US, which is really a fraudulent discussion in an empire gunning for the next intervention, such as system is workable in smaller nations and city-regions. You can’t have guns and butter…as we learned many decades ago.

    But what does the State provide? As realized in the USA, even if it were to be a peace-loving nation, it would quickly demonstrate that such a state, with such a huge scale cannot feasibly provide the kind of connection to people and their needs that are sustainable.

    This is true in China, in India, and to some extent, Russia and the USA. Mass-based programs are void of humanity, and top down, they are prone to control and command – not democracy. You may like that kind of world. I don’t.

  70. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:14pm #

    U-S-F writes …

    I know that Noam Chomsky doesn’t have a conspiracy-theory world view, but more like a Hegelian, class-struggle, marxist world view. And i don’t know why many in the Conspiracy Theory progressive left movement in USA don’t like Noam Chomsky very much.

    The criticism of Noam Chomsky is NOT about whether he agree or disagree with contrarian views about 9-11 or the Kennedy assassination. Some of the more right wing elements point to this as evidence. But this is too speculative to base any real critique of Chomsky. Doing so only muddies the water of what is being discussed here.

    In fact U-S-F, you are wrong if you believe that Noam Chomsky is a Marxist. He is far from being a Libertarian Socialist when his commitment AGAINST a racist ideology like Zionism is so dubious and he essentially has been one of Zionism’s best apologist.

    The point you are missing U-S-F is one of the main reason WHY the Left is so divided has been to DISRUPT any challenge to Zionism. This is the primary reason why the anti-war movement is in a state of disarray and why the anti-war movement broke down. If you need more information just read Alexander Cockburn most recent CoutnerPunch installment.

  71. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:41pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Your Zionist fetish is just over the top and so I do respond to this kind of atonal approach to looking at the world (which doesn’t mean that I’m a follower of either Chomsky or Finkelstein).

    Max once again has to resort to RUDE ad hominem because he has lacks any counter arguments. There should be NO equivocation against racism but essentially that is what Max Shields is doing with his labels. The rise of Zionism in the United States is real and its effect not only advance Israeli Zionism but its disruption of the Left has weakened to such a degree that it cannot respond to the Capitalist crisis.

    Max Shields says he is against the “empire” but one of the way to DEFEAT the “empire” is by confronting both RACISM and CAPITALISM. Both of which Max Shields has demonstrated in his rhetoric that he lack commitment and has no intention of confronting.

  72. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:46pm #

    for mugla
    well done the aussies

    Australian Defense Minister John Faulkner announced on Monday that the Royal Australian Air Force would begin deploying the Israel Aircraft Industry-made Heron unmanned aerial vehicle during missions in Afghanistan.

    The announcement follows an agreement between Australia and Canada, whose armed forces work closely together in Afghanistan. According to the deal, the RAAF will lease the UAV from the Canadians for an estimated US $81 million.

    The Heron UAV operates at an altitude of 30,000 feet, and can remain in the air for up to 40 hours.

    In August 2008, the IAI won a tender with the MDA company to begin supplying the Canadian military with the Heron.

    The Australian Defense Minister added that the Heron would provide its forces in Afghanistan with vital aerial support.

  73. Synic3 said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:46pm #

    To bozhidar balkas vancouver,

    I assume when some one says I am jewish is that he was born to jewish parents. It is not meant to be statement of religious faith or allegiance to Israel. It like someone saying I am Italian.
    There are many atheist jews and many jews who reject zionism and Israel.

  74. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 12:50pm #

    Shabnam you seem to have bought there, “it’s all about Zionism” mantra. Too bad you seemed to not be so easily persuaded by some blogger. There’s a ton out there with a different theory to make just about every one “happy”.

    Of course the US is stupid. It doesn’t give a shit about oil. It wants to cuddle with AIPAC and Zionists. It makes so much more sense to think that Zionists pulled the US military machine into Iraq, rather than a little thing like o-i-l. Only a dumb ass could possiblY think that oil would be of major interest to an empire. Not when you have Zionist luvvydovvies to keep you warm at night. Let’s go to war for the Zionists those sweetie pies…we love them so much that…but of course this makes PERFECT SENSE…oil we can live without but a HUG and a KISS from our Zionist lovers….Never…we’ll do whatever they ask those sweet hearts….PERFECT F>CKN SENSE!!!

  75. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 1:10pm #

    Deadbeat, how is Zionist fetish a RUDE ad hominem?

    You’re being cryptic with this talk about Zionism and its crippling the “left”. First, what left? If there is a left you must identify it. And then you must connect the dots regarding THAT left and how it is not able to deal with the Capitalist crisis.

    Address these or go away, because you never deal with facts, nor do you attempt to do anything but flutter around with these vague statements.

    (One other question: when did the author of this piece – in the piece – ever bring up Chomsky? Also, I found Jeff Blankfort article (not his follow up comments) agreeable – where did he introduce the notion of Iraq and Big Oil?)

  76. Suthiano said on September 7th, 2009 at 1:21pm #

    David Brooks: is an American political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Before the Iraq War, Brooks argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of conservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators.

    Richard Cohen: a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, in 2003 he wrote: “the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.”

    Tom Friedman: is an American journalist, columnist and author. He is an op-ed contributor to The New York Times, whose column appears twice weekly. He has written extensively on foreign affairs including global trade, the Middle East and environmental issues. Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Jeffrey Goldberg: is an Israeli-American journalist. He is an author and a staff writer for The Atlantic, having previously worked for The New Yorker. In “The Great Terror”, the article that Goldberg wrote for the New Yorker in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Goldberg argues that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein is significant.

    Charles Krauthammer: is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and a prominent political commentator. His weekly column appears in the The Washington Post and is syndicated in more than 200 newspapers and media outlets. He supported the Iraq war on the “realist” grounds of the strategic threat the Saddam regime posed to the region as UN sanctions were eroding and of his weapons of mass destruction; and on the “idealist” grounds that a self-sustaining democracy in Iraq would be a first step towards changing the poisonous political culture of tyranny, intolerance and religious fanaticism in the Arab world that had incubated the anti-American extremism from which 9/11 emerged.

    William Kristol: is an American conservative political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, and a former op-ed columnist for the New York Times. Kristol is associated with a number of prominent conservative think tanks: He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005, he cofounded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997 with Robert Kagan. PNAC called for the invasion of Iraq as early as 1999, adding that the American public would not support the war unless there was a “new Pearl Harbour”.

    Kenneth Pollack: is a noted former CIA intelligence analyst and expert on Middle East politics and military affairs. He has served on the National Security Council staff and has written several articles and books on international relations. He previously worked for the Council of Foreign Relations as their director of national security studies. Pollack is married to the well-known television journalist Andrea Koppel. Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war.

    hmmmm, i wonder if this has anything to do with the war in iraq…

  77. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 1:41pm #

    Suthiano So what makes you think these commentators are all Zionists?

    Also, are you saying that commentators run US foreign policy? And if so how?

  78. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:21pm #

    Deadbeat, how is Zionist fetish a RUDE ad hominem?

    Description of Ad Hominem

    Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
    3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
    Example of Ad Hominem

    1. Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
    Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
    Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
    Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

  79. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:24pm #

    You’re being cryptic with this talk about Zionism and its crippling the “left”. First, what left? If there is a left you must identify it. And then you must connect the dots regarding THAT left and how it is not able to deal with the Capitalist crisis.

    I’ve posted numerous link in my response to you over the course of the year and a half you’ve been on DV which you obviously chose to ignore. Here’s yet another one … Alexander Cockburn latest Counterpunch installment.

  80. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:27pm #

    Max Shield I cannot help you if you choose to ignore the why the anti-war movement collasped and other evidence present here and elsewhere. Your agenda is the Chomskyesque denial. You haven’t present ANY EVIDENCE that the war on Iraq is FOR oil.

  81. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:30pm #

    Max (blowhard) Sheids writes …

    Address these or go away, because you never deal with facts, nor do you attempt to do anything but flutter around with these vague statements.

    If anyone needs to do any walking it is you. You don’t present any facts to support your “war for oil” rhetroic which is the dominate ideology of the “Left” these days. Chomsky really exposed himself after the Meishiemer and Walt revelation and he and you have been working very hard to stuff that jini back into the bottle.

  82. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:31pm #

    Max Shields writes …
    (One other question: when did the author of this piece – in the piece – ever bring up Chomsky? Also, I found Jeff Blankfort article (not his follow up comments) agreeable – where did he introduce the notion of Iraq and Big Oil?)

    DO YOUR RESEARCH MAX. Jeffrey Blankfort has been writing for YEARS. And he mention it in several of is past articles.

  83. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:32pm #

    thanks for your response!
    with respect, ancient hebrews were indistinguishable from arabs and other shemitic peoples.
    They are now and where long ago much darker than europeans. Most shemites had darker eyes as well.
    Modern europeans, whose caucasian ancestors converted to talmudic faith [really a cult], appear mostlty blue of brown-eyed with much lighter skin.
    Because they had no connection whatever with any hebrew tribe, they have never [until recently] spoken any shemitic dialect.
    It appears unlikely that rabbis and other fierce adherents to mosheic cult wld ever allow, had they indeed been hebraic, their sheeple to abandon the ‘sacred’ hebrew language.

    Even irish, most indigenes of americas, et al have retained their languages; in spite of the fact that europeans did not want them to retain their langauges.
    So, one is talking about euros with the cult and not ‘jews’. A jew, a catholic, a koreshi, a jehovah witness means a pious person with any nationality or ethicity.
    And cultists are most deluded and thus most perilous for noncultists and selves.
    The cultists, which people call “jews” have proven over and over that in some aspects of their behavior are not that far removed from nazi behavior.
    And nazism also being a cult, one cld not expect anything good from. Expect nothing good from ‘jews’.
    Perhaps one in 10K-100K of these people reject ‘zionism’. In any case, that is my estimate!

  84. Shabnam said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:41pm #

    You are painting other people in the way you want to be in order to strengthen your position. On the one hand, you write “I found Jeff Blankfort article (not his follow up comments) agreeable” on the other hand, you are accusing me saying that “oil is not important.” If you agree with Blankfort then you should agree with me because I agree with Mr. Blankfort premises.
    What I wrote is that the United States could have chosen other designs to reach her goal other than bloody invasion of Iraq. However, this bloody path was Israel’s design since Israel is interested in destabilization and partition of the regional states to make non-Arab allies such as terrorist Kurds. As we know the partition of Iraq designed by Denise Gelb, a neocon pro Israel. The United States do not need to ‘create allies’ since US is the biggest economy and the only superpower, therefore, majority of states in the region want to have a good relations with the United States. The Jewish Lobby has gone through so much hand twisting to prevent US to establish normal relation with Iran, although Rafsanjani during his presidency offer a very attractive oil deal where no head of states could have refused. The Jewish Lobby used its puppets in the government to deny Iran to have normal relations with the United States because it is not in the interest of Israel.
    The war option was basically Israelis’ plan presented as the interest of the in order to get control over the resources. Bush was illiterate and stupid to buy such a design. Bush thought he is following the interest of the United States. In fact this was the interest of no one except Israel where was presented as American’s interest.
    It is a fact that Zionism has a lot of influence over American foreign policy where NO FOOL CAN DENY.
    Whoever does not believe this fact it is better to listen to Israeli leaders to know how foolish one can get if denies the fact that American policy are manipulated by Zionists. According to Haaretz on April 23, 2009:
    [The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office.

    “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions,” Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.

    Lieberman granted his first major interview to Alexander Rosensaft, the Israel correspondent of one of the oldest Russian dailies, not to an Israeli newspaper. The role of Israel is to “bring the U.S. and Russia closer,” he declared.]
    If you reject Avigdor Lieberman’s statement as nonsense, as you have done with many in the past, then read the following statement by Philip Zelikow who was connected to the president and the neocons; however you have to get out of your selfish skin to see anything other than your own position.


    Zelikow’s casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel’s security.
    The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
    Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
    He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
    ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
    ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
    The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.

  85. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 7th, 2009 at 2:52pm #

    deadbeat, labeling what a person says is another fallacy.
    Eg: I have recently stated that chomsky does not call, as far as i know, for prosecution of living and dead ‘zionist’ criminals who perp and have perped crimes against innocent pal’ns nor that he ever recognized the right to return.
    Guess what shield [b99 was using the same trick] said? Well, he called what i wrote “fabrication”
    Thus one can not only attack a person, and ignore what had been said, but one can also call names a given fact or descriptive utterance.
    A descriptive utterance may be evaluated as true or false. And it is ok to say, chomsky had said once or repeatedly [and then give the sources] that he respects the right of return.
    but calling it a fabrication is just meaningless dysphemistic namecaling?
    Thus it is of no use talking to such people. tnx

  86. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 4:10pm #

    deadbeat, labeling what a person says is another fallacy.
    Eg: I have recently stated that chomsky does not call, as far as i know, for prosecution of living and dead ‘zionist’ criminals who perp and have perped crimes against innocent pal’ns nor that he ever recognized the right to return.
    Guess what shield [b99 was using the same trick] said? Well, he called what i wrote “fabrication”
    Thus one can not only attack a person, and ignore what had been said, but one can also call names a given fact or descriptive utterance.
    A descriptive utterance may be evaluated as true or false. And it is ok to say, chomsky had said once or repeatedly [and then give the sources] that he respects the right of return.
    but calling it a fabrication is just meaningless dysphemistic namecaling?
    Thus it is of no use talking to such people. tnx

    I’m in agreement with you bozh about how counterparties frame their opponents arguments. Rather than engage in debate, fallacies are being thrown around in order to divert from the main premise or point that is being made. In the two years that I have particpated on DV I have been very specific in my premise which is that the Left has neglected the growing influence of Zionism upon the political economy of the United States.

    I didn’t just wake up one morning to adopt this perspective. This has been a 30 year process. In fact I was once an admirer and Noam Chomksy and got my introduction to much of the ideology that is considered to be leftist from his writings. However it has been through my engagement with left-wing causes that I realized there is something amiss and the most obvious evidence was the 2003-2004 collaspe of the anti-war movement and the current awful condition of the Left in confronting the Capitalist crisis.

    Any rational thinker is going to ask him or herself why is the Left is such a pathetic condition. Now Mr. Shields ask me to define the Left. What the Left is, is an ideology. An ideology that promotes and seeks fairness, equality, democracy and justice. These are not complicated concepts. These ideas define human progress. The question then becomes in whose interest does it serve NOT to adhere to these values.

    It becomes clear, especially over the past 30 years, that if there is a single embodiment of a voice repesenting and influencing the Left in the United States it is Noam Chomsky. Mr. Chomsky comes off as a “reluctant” phophet but this image is used to pacify criticism. What I can gather is at best Mr. Chomksy hope that U.S. policy can be altered without any restitution to the Palestianians and that Isreal is let off “easy” but most importantly with U.S. citizens recognizing the growing and large influence that Zionism has on the U.S. political economy. This is a huge contradiction especially from a “Libertarian Socialist” point of view. What Mr. Chomsky seeks is change WITHOUT JUSTICE. That is IMPOSSIBLE and therefore has created a terrible divisions on the Left.

    In other words Mr. Chomsky has to choose and he has chosen Zionism over fairness, justice, equality and democracy. This became clearly evident after the Mershiemer and Walt revelations and Mr. Chomsky chose to apologize for AIPAC whose advocacy was intrumental in lobbying for the War in Iraq. Looking at how all three candidates for POTUS kowtowed to AIPAC and other evidence clearly shows a political economy influenced by a racist ideology.

    Chomsky is on the record being against any boycott of Israel. He goes to great lengths to deny that Israel is an aparthied state dispite the “Separation” Wall and laws that favor Jews over Arabs. He goes to great length to deny the influential Project of a New American Century Zionist shrewed thoughout the Bush White House and architecting the war on Iraq. This from someone who is a prolific writer and who minions like Amy Goodman even movie makers cultivating a myth of Chomsky being the “greatest living radical”.

    Clearly Zionism is not the only problem that requires a committed challenge. Capitalism as we are seeing from the economic crisis need to be challenged as well but Chomsky, unlike what U-S-F, believe, has never been a strong advocate of Marx. In fact Chomksy has been more of an advocate of Adam Smith than of Marx. Just read his writings.

    The issue then is what is the result of Chomskyism on the Left? In other words what is the result of Chomskyism on the advocacy of fairness, equality, democracy and justice? It’s been pathetic, devisionary, and retarded. This is what characterises the Left today and why the Left is ILL-PREPARED to confront the Capitalist crisis. For the Left to dismantle the anti-war movement in order to protect Zionism demonstrates the pathetic state of the Left and why exposing these charletans is of utmost importance.

    The struggle today is the same as it was in the 1930’s — a struggle against racism AND capitalism. Zionism is THE most institualized form of racism today. The struggle against white supremacy and Zionism will enable the Left to find solidarity with people of color and will undermine the divide of conquer tactics of the ruling class. The struggle againts Capitalism is a stuggle FOR justice and democracy. Only by confronting racism and capitalism together is IMO the best hope for the future.

  87. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 4:54pm #

    bozh, first, you’re bringing up something I said that was relevant on another topic many days ago. I don’t even remember when you said. If you had a beef with it you should have said something then instead of dredging it up out of nowhere. Just another excuse of Deadbeat to rattle on and on.

    Shabnam I was responding to what you wrote. You seem to want to blend what I posted to you with what I was remarking on regarding Deadbeat. They’re two discrete statements!!!

    Where in the original article does Blankfort mention OIL? Never. It first comes up with johnny one note – Deadbeat.

    My point, and it’s fairly simple is that Zionism is, as we’ve seen, organized mafia and a client of the USA which has given it cover in the UN regardless of its criminality. But the USA is an even bigger thug in the world. The murder and killing of innocents is unmatched by any regime of any political stripe. But all some here care about is the two-bit thug Israel.

    There are plenty of facts to support this. Deadbeat doesn’t seem to care much about USA butchery, only Zionist. And the lack of critical thinking here, the kind of thinking that can discern between these facts and reality on the one hand, and a poster who goes over the top by painting evil as eminating from one location (Israel), is just incredible.

    Denial is EASY, but stop posting if you don’t mean what you say. I’ve never seen so many babies crying about how their posts are interpreted. If I’ve misunderstood IT IS NOT TO MAKE MY CASE.

    An intelligent human doesn’t cry about these things, he shows that what I’m saying has been misconstrued…not weeks after I’ve written it but when I’ve written.

  88. Shabnam said on September 7th, 2009 at 6:01pm #


    No one disagrees with you that “USA is an even bigger thug in the world.” We have written so much about brutality of the United States which is unmatched with any other power in the history of the planet, at least to me. However, our point of disagreement is not over how brutal the US is, rather who was behind the Iraq war?
    Who did want Iraq to be partitioned?

    We know the United States is responsible for the destruction of Vietnam where more than 3 million were slaughtered. The United States invaded Mexico and occupied half of that country at the end of the 19th century. We are familiar with US brutality against people of Cuba. We know about the role of the United State in Iraq-Iran war where killed one million of the Iranian youth. Now, we are witness to US brutality in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere under pretext of ‘war on terror’ which is phony. This much we all agree on and Petras and others have written about US brutality in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in his article after article.
    However, when it comes to the reason behind invasion of Iraq, it seems to me, we differ from each other.
    You can believe in whatever you want, however, you cannot persuade me to accept your explanation which is based on US brutality and empire making. We should look at each case separately to find out what was the motivation behind certain policy. Many scholar and policy makers believe that war in Iraq was pushed by neocon.
    Philip Zelikow who was George Bush advisor believes that IRAQ WAR LAUNCHED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL.
    When someone like Zelikow who was an advisor to Bush, therefore, must have known what was discussed behind the closed door tells the world: Iraq war launched to protect Israel, and then people listen.

  89. Jeff Blankfort said on September 7th, 2009 at 6:14pm #

    Indeed, despite the clumsy efforts of Israel’s defenders within the anti-war movement, the Iraq war as indeed orchestrated by the White House neocons for Israel’s benefit. Although a great deal more information supporting that position has become available as well as a former major AIPAC staffer, Doug Bloomfield, admitting such in the Jewish press last year, an articlethat I wrote for Left Curve I wrote in 2004 makes the case. Check it out.

  90. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 6:36pm #

    Shabnam, ok, so you believe that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to “protect Israel interest”.

    And this belief comes from the fact that neocons were pushing this invasion. Well that’s not news…it’s a downright mundane fact that neocons were pushing this invasion and other global occupations.

    But the Iraq/US policy/conflict did not begin when Bush took office. It began under the first Bush in 1990 and continued throughout Bill Clinton’s 8 years. Neither Bush I nor Clinton have been that connected to the neocon ideologues.

    It is incredulous that the US military would invade Iraq to “protect Israel interest”. Did neocons push the invasion through channels of whatever influence they had? Little doubt there. Is that little cabal interested in Israel’s interest. Little doubt there. But that hardly makes the case that the US invaded Iraq because of Israel’s interest, or because neocons made their pitch.

    Mr. Blankfort (obviously a major contributor to the willing student Deadbeat) keeps sending us to his posts making the case for Israel as reason for US Iraq invasion. Let’s assume Israel had some plan and US simply offered to put a trillion dollars up as collateral to protect Isreal’s interest…(why this is a real stretch!!!), then what? Was the US to take over Iraq and turn it over to Israel as a war trophy?

    We know that whatever wacko thoughts transpired, the results were hardly an Israel with anything of worth gained. Israel has no more territory than what it steals daily from Palestinians.

    What does Deadbeat think about the Palestinian people…I know what he thinks about Zionists and the mythological American “leftists”..but rarely see where he’s got any particular interest in those who are victims of Zionist aggression. Anyway, I digress…

    But, Shabnam, believe what you want. No one’s denying the interest of neocons and their PNAC plans. Soooooo.

  91. Jeff Blankfort said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:04pm #

    Perhaps, Max, you should read the article. The goal was not to obtain more territory for Israel but to eliminate its enemies with Iran becoming immediately next on the agenda. What has prevented that from happening so far are those in the Pentagon and the Intelligence agencies who are aware of the disastrous consequences of such a US (or Israeli) attack for US interests and for the global economy. But the Jewish establishment and not just the neocons have been pushing for a US confrontation with Israel since 1993, long before the arrival of Ahmadinejad and they are the ONLY segment of US society that is doing so and it has been a campaign conducted by every major Jewish organization that dabbles in politics. Their goal, as with the destruction of Saddam’s regime was to eliminate Israel’s enemies and make it the unquestioned ruler of the Middle East with the US at its side.

  92. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:34pm #

    Jeff, if it all began in 1993 perhaps you’d have something…perhaps.

    But this story begins in 1979/80 with the depositioning of the Shah…then came the Iraq/Iran war with the US providing munitions support to Iraq, the Kuwait move, the US Desert Storm invasion…the blockade of Iraq, the regular air raids conducted by US airforce on Baghdad, then the operation Shock and Awe to dispose of Saddam, install a new regime and US bases. All this left Iran as a continued boil on the US arse.

    Was there confluence between this on-going US intervention and Israel? One would have to be more than a tad naive not to think that there was. But to write on about this whole episode as if hatched in Israel with neocons/AIPAC state-side is the kind of conspiracy theory that gives conspiracy theories a bad name.

    It is one thing for the US to give “green lights”, to support war crimes, and another to mobalize the US National Guard, Air Force, Marines, Army to invade and occupy Iraq ALL in the name of Israel’s interest.

    As far as why the US has not invaded Iran…there’s the obvious and they really shouldn’t need to be recounted. Iraq and Iran are extremely different.

    Maybe you should be asking – why has the US escalated in Afganistan and moved into Pakistan? What’s the mission? (You’ll no doubt find an Israel connection…). Some say pipelines. Why not. Why not oil in Iraq – US footprint to ensure oil flows, Saddam was a royal pain, get him out of the way…bam bam bam…over in a week or two and reconstitute the government…happy days are here again..).

  93. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 7:42pm #

    I noticed I made a severe error in my response to bozh. The sentence should have read … but most importantly without U.S. citizens recognizing the growing and large influence that Zionism has on the U.S. political economy

  94. Jeff Blankfort said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:11pm #

    Former president GHW Bush, publicly opposed the war as did James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Gen.Schwarzkopf. For weeks on end, the Zionists in the main stream media were beating the drums for an attack and Wolfowitz was publicly calling for it a week after 9-11. A special office was established by the neocons in the White House to create the intelligence to justify the attack. That’s a fact and not open for debate. The neocons and the hawkish elements of the lobby did not forgive Bush Sr for not taking out Saddam in 1991 and that, combined with his attack on the lobby for pushing for the $10 bn in loan guarantees (which was backed by 85% of those polled after his press conference) turned them against him and insured that he would be dead meat in 1992. Now go an do your homework and read my article as well Mearsheimer and Walt’s and stop presenting tired arguments that don’t refute mine or theirs.

  95. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:46pm #

    What does Deadbeat think about the Palestinian people…I know what he thinks about Zionists and the mythological American “leftists”..but rarely see where he’s got any particular interest in those who are victims of Zionist aggression. Anyway, I digress…

    Max Shields’ perspectives is very useful to examine the dominant and debased rhetoric that permeates the Left. It reflects the awful denial and faulty thinking that is retarded solidarity and keeps the Left in a state of discombobulation. As I stated the Left is not a “mythology” as Mr. Shields refers to it but represents guiding principles – an ideology representing fairness, equality, democracy and justice. My misrepreseting the reason behind the U.S. War on Iraq not only does that create mistrust it fails to mobilize activists and educte the public against the very heart of what is oppressing Palestianian as well as U.S. citizens.

    You cannot wallow in denial and claim to be against injustice.

  96. Shabnam said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:50pm #

    The United States has Iran under watch since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran historically is the natural ally of the United States and the dominant power of the region. Iran and Iraq both came under attack during the Clinton Administration with ‘dual containment’ designed by Martin Indyk for regime change. Thus, the Bill Clinton administration was dominated by members of the Jewish Lobby starting with Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross where directing Palestinian strangulation and changing the language of occupied land into ‘disputed land’ to drag the occupation further until all the land are stolen. At the same time, through sanction they started killing Iraqi population, especially children, and destroying the destruction of Iraq through regular bombardment of the country.

    The neocons were present in Regan administration but did not write the foreign policy of the region according to Israel’s interest. Regan administration sent McFarlane to Iran to investigate the possibility of an opening with Iran but this mission was leaked in one of the newspaper in Lebanon by an Iranian from the government to expose Khomeini is making a deal with Satan where was not went well with a lot of Iranian at the time since Iranian hold US responsible for Saddam invasion of Iran. Later, Khomeini was dead and a lot of things in the US and Iran was changed.

    It was during the Clinton administration where ‘dual containment’ designed by Norman Indyk was in place, targeted both countries, Iran and Iraq. The partition of Iraq started during Bill Clinton administration where was under total influence of Zionists. From then, the policy of regime change came into play and was carried out during Bush administration. By 2003, Iraq was partitioned along religious and ethnic divide and due to rigid sanction made ripen for invasion to remove Saddam.

    We saw the same story with Sudan where campaign of child slavery under the leadership of Charles Jacobs was responsible to make the southern Sudan autonomous. After obtaining the autonomy in the south, the Zionists focused on Darfur, with their campaign of lies and deception, genocide, through ‘save Darfur.’ The purpose of destabilization is to remove Israel enemy and redraw the map of the region.
    The same story is true with Iran, where Zionists are very active in support of Iranian secessionist, like Kurds and Azeri, and are working with both MEK and Monarchist. The neocons such as Michael Leaden, Parle, Timmerman, Daniel pipe and others are pushing for destabilization and partition of Iran according to Oded Yinon “strategy of Israel in 1980s” where has become the empire’s policy as well.

  97. Gary Crethers said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:52pm #

    Greetings, I am not specifically a writer on this subject but I have an active interest in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinian people. There must be justice in Palestine for their to be peace. I am not sure that a strictly political solution is possible. Both sides have strong moral arguments and in the passion of their positions both sides have shed blood and committed crimes that have taken the lives of non combatants.
    The Jews have been battered by empire for centuries, used as pawns and pawn brokers in the wars from the time of Herod right up until modern times. They have been allied with the Romans against Mithridates, with Persians against Rome and were taken in and protected by Muslims when persecuted and exiled from Spain in 1492.
    In the 19th century a movement among Jews arose to find a state of their own, this was part of the same movement of ethnic minorities all over Europe and the world. It has been called the age of nationalism.
    The British played the Arab desires for a national identity independent of the Turkish imperial rule in world war one and made promises to Arab Bedouin nationalists that culminated in the occupation of Damascus near the end of the war. There was an attempt at forming a united Arab government it failed and the Arabs lost out in the negotiations in Versailles as did the Jews. The western powers took what the wanted from the decimated Turkish empire with Britain getting Palestine and Iraq and France getting Syria and Lebanon.
    In the period between the wars Jews migrated to Palestine, there were riots when Arabs felt that there were too many Jews moving in this was exacerbated by the British who were playing the Jewish and Arab interests against one another similar to their own desire to play Muslim against Hindu in India. By dividing the people they could keep power.
    But Palestine was only important to protect access to the Suez Canal and as a route to the Oil Fields in Iraq. There was no inherent interest in Palestine other than the dubious status of having control of Jerusalem. India, the jewel in the crown of empire and the rubber plantations of Malaya were the main interest.
    The second war came and the British Empire was forced to make deals with the Indian Nationalists to keep them from sabotaging the war effort. Britain depended on the manpower and resources of its empire to fight Germany. Nazi infiltrators were in the middle east attempting to arouse revolt against the British. Rommel was in Egypt and in the North the Nazis reached the Caucasus. But they were stopped by British and Russian troops bolstered with American tanks, guns and aircraft.
    After the war many Jews who had fought in the resistance against the Nazis in Poland and Russia and in the Russian and British armies migrated to Palestine. They were well educated in the ways of war and soon the British were fighting a full scale guerrilla war. Their headquarters was blown up and as they were forced to give up India, there was little reason to keep Palestine.
    But as they were leaving they decided to poison the waters. They left both India and Palestine in a divided and volatile state. War broke out in both the former colony of India and the protectorate of Palestine. Hostility between Jews and Arabs over the land was intense and as I said before exacerbated by the British. Their attitude was one that would leave the Israelis dependant on the west for aid. Because of a deliberate policy that insured that they would not make peace with their neighbors the Arabs, the Jews, full of self righteousness after the horrors of World War 2 and the Nazi concentration camps, the lack of support from both the west and the east, they felt that they had earned the right to this land and instead of coming as they had in previous eras in peace they came with a vengeance. They had been brutalized and now they were playing out the same brutality on the Arabs as had been played out upon them.
    In the war the British and Americans new about the camps. They did nothing about them. The Russians helped arm Jews to fight the Nazis but there were also problems as they played the Jewish resistance off against the Polish Catholic resistance. French police turned jews in to the Nazis, America turned German jews away when they were trying to escape Nazi Germany before the war.
    The Jewish people were rightly desiring a place where they could go that was safe. But the ground they sough, the traditional homeland of Israel had been home to Christians, Jews and Muslims under Arab and Turkish rule for centuries. There had been no problems. But when it was a British Protectorate all of a sudden it was a problem. Arabs all of a sudden didn’t want Jewish neighbors, Jews all of a sudden felt they needed to arm themselves and resist both the British and the Arabs. This seems to have been manipulated by the British for the sake of maintaining a control over the Jews migrating from Europe.
    This played out in 1956 when the French, British and Israelis united to attack the Suez Canal. Nasser turned to the Soviet Union. Eisenhower had to force the British and French to back down and replaced the British as the main sponsors of the Israelis. American troops landed in Lebanon. The British pulled out of Cypress and the Russians began a build up of aid in Syria and Egypt. War was inevitable and broke out three more times before the situation more or less stabilized after the 1973 war and the oil embargo.
    Meanwhile the Palestinian people organized and began a long armed resistance. Israel a dependency on the west will never come to terms until it accepts its position not as an outpost of the west in the middle east a remnant of the Crusader state of the middle ages, but accepts its identity as part of the fabric of the middle east.
    One state or two state solution. It must come as the Jewish people heal from the horrific scar of the Nazi experience but also learn that they have been manipulated by the intelligence services of the USA, and Britain in particular for the interest of international capital.
    The future of Israel is with its Arab and Turkish brothers who have historically treated the Jewish people with respect. Not to be manipulated by the interests of the western powers.

  98. Deadbeat said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:58pm #

    sorry for the typo …. By misrepresenting the reasons behind the U.S. War on Iraq not only does that create mistrust it fails to mobilize activists and educte the public against the very heart of what is oppressing Palestianian as well as U.S. citizens.

  99. Shabnam said on September 7th, 2009 at 9:23pm #

    sorry, should be read:

    this mission was leaked in one of the Lebanese newspapers by an Iranian from the government to expose Khomeini’s meeting with members of Satan where did not go well with Iranians at the time since Iranian people hold US responsible for invasion of Iran by Iraq.

  100. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 8th, 2009 at 2:16am #

    jon s, hatred is usually negative and morally objectionable, unless, I would assert, it is hatred of evil. And as Israel, with its brutality, its sadism, its untrustworthiness, its incessant belligerence and its racist arrogance, is evil, I think it morally acceptable to hate it. By ‘it’, I mean, of course the ruling elites who control business, politics and the military in Israel, as nasty a crew of wicked individuals as one could imagine. The bulk of Israelis and diaspora Jews who support this vicious racist abomination one must feel contempt for, while the many Jews fighting the racist brutality of the state established on another people’s land, allegedly in their name, I admire.
    I’m with synic3, in that I fear the justified hatred of Israel risks spilling over into irrational hatred of all Jews. It’s an old Zionist tactic to be so vicious, so arrogant, so mendacious and hypocritical as to deliberately provoke outrage in those criticising Israel’s Nazi-like crimes, in the hope that they may say something that can be construed as ‘anti-Semitism’, whereupon any argument or cogent points made by the critic of Israeli terror, can simply be dismissed.
    I saw today an article by the loathsome Jeffrey Goldberg, where he let drop the inevitability of an Israeli attack on Iran, and the perverted religious motivation behind it. Amongst all the familiar lies mobilised by the Zionists he fawned over,( the world’s most assiduous liars, to be sure), was the admonition ‘Think Amalek’, when describing the bulbous fascist Netanyahu’s attitude towards Iran.
    Now I knew from earlier reading that Amalek is the euphemism applied to those who the Jews (or the fundamentalist fanatics amongst them)intend to destroy, and that this divine injunction includes the extermination of all, including children and sucklings, but I did not realise that Haman was also an Amalekite. One of that interminable series of Judaic religious festivals, where the Jews celebrate the mass murder of thousands of innocents, who were all, of course, just about to murder the Jews, Purim celebrates in raucous partying, the extermination of Haman and 70,000 of his ‘followers’. One hopes that the divine injunction was followed and the babes were not spared.
    But what was really chilling was the observation in one blog, that the Amalekites appear to originate from the region of Persia. This might sound like esoteric musings, but when one recalls that Saddam was attacked in 2003 on Purim, that he had been designated the ‘Haman of our age’ by fundamentalist rabbis, and that similar fundamentalists have organised thousands of Israeli Jewish children to pray for Ahmadinejad’s death (without luck, so far), I think I’d hate to be visiting Iran next February 28th. These Judaic religious fundamentalist zealots are as mad, and as bad, and as dangerous to share this planet with as any Islamofascist, only these ones are armed to the teeth with thermo-nuclear weapons.

  101. bozh said on September 8th, 2009 at 7:20am #

    There’s a reason why i pointed out that one can also call names a fact or a descriptive statement and not only a person.
    Actually, labeling [calling names] opinions, conclusions, wishes [tacit or others], facts, ‘facts’, description of events, conjectures, postulates, etc., appears by far more prevalent than name calling.
    This fallacy is not only more ubiquitous but also by far more vitiating than the fallacy of namecalling.
    Here we have a golden opportunity to use this space for enlightening people with new facts, conclusions, suggestion what cld be done to make life for everybody a bit or much better.
    so, lets do away with ad hominem attacks and even attacks on any utterance.
    One can simply juxtapose own facts and ideas w.o. ever attacking anything people say. Let the free speech go on. Even for ‘zionists’. Which i seldom read or respond to them. tnx

  102. Max Shields said on September 8th, 2009 at 7:22am #

    Deadbeat, once again refuses to answer simple questions and instead blathers on and on about ….who knows.

    I have yet to read a post from Deadbeat that directly supports the Palestinians, takes a stand on one or two state solutions or much of anything regarding justice for the Palestinians. It is not specifics that Deadbeat wishes to discuss. While don’t know what DB thinks, he demonstrates that there is little more than hatred and not much spine regarding putting forth anything remotely close to a thoughtful understanding of really anything. He tosses out racism as if the mere use of the word is enough to cleanse him of it. He talks about a “leftist” and NEVER identifies who he is talking about. I asked DB if he would offer a direct connection between the so-called leftist and how they are hindered by Chomsky in terms of dealing with the Capitalist crisis.

    Not a word. Deadbeat is a phony. There’s no there with this fellow Deadbeat.

    It is all about Zionists (aka Jews). If Deadbeat probed Zionism and it’s agents with any honesty, then he’d be a credible poster. But he doesn’t and from what I’ve read, never has.

    It Deadbeat had an ounce of authenticty with any of his remarks he’d not see the world as Zionist vs ?

  103. bozh said on September 8th, 2009 at 7:32am #

    thanks for your information ab. chomsky’s stand on the wall, boycott of isr., etc.
    I am no longer reading what chomsky writes. I am boycotting him.
    He’s a ‘jew’; thus wedded to ‘zionism’, mosheism, talmud, mishnah, ‘jewish’ cultisheness.

    Since his children and grandchildren may have also accepted ‘jewish’ cultishness, he, appears to me, has made a turn against justice or had always been that way but hidden it from us; using his fact findings ab. israel as a cover for real aims: destruction of palestine and ongoing oppression of lower classes in US and elsewhere. tnx

  104. bozh said on September 8th, 2009 at 8:10am #

    gary c,
    at around 130 ad, the people called “judeans” which appears as a melange of philistines, hittites, amorite, amonites, jebusites, yehudim, benjaminim, edomites, moabites, et al either ousted or killed most followers of the- to them- odious cult: mosheic ‘laws’.

    few of these cultists probably escaped for dear life and in order to be able to practise their cult. Speaking aramaic like all other shemites, they migrated to egypt, n. afrika, and shemitic lands.
    Since everywhere they were very few in numbers they had to marry noncultists and thru proselytizing increased their numbers.
    These cutists can still be found in asia and are called mizrahim, but by now totally non-judaic
    European cultists were mostly khazars and other caucusus people ca. 9th century. Spreading northward and westward and marrying blue- and brown-eyed slavs, they significantly changed their looks.
    However, there is no shred of evidence to link in any way these cultists with the melange of people we call “judeans”.
    Thus, i conclude, that a cult shld not ever be rewarded with a state of their own anywhere on this planet and, a fortiori so, in palestine. tnx

  105. Synic3 said on September 8th, 2009 at 11:21am #

    Gary Grethers,

    Why the Arabs and the Palestinian people have to pay for the sins of Europe. By your admission the jews lived in peace and harmony among the Arabs and Muslims for centuries and were accepted and found refuge and peace among the Arabs when more of them fled the Spanish inquistition.
    What right a Russian or polish jew , who might not have a single drop of semitic blood to say that his so called ancestors left the land more than 2000 years ago and now he is entitled to come back and evict the people who were living there for thousands of years and using the atmost brutality and sadism to drive them out and make life unbearably miserable of them.
    Many of current day Palistenians are Jews who stayed in Palestine and converted to Islam and Chritianity.
    I sense you are trying in vain to find a moral , ethical and legal justification for the creation of Israel but you fail miserably because there are none.
    I don’t know whether you are sincere but misguided or a clever sophist??!!

  106. Deadbeat said on September 8th, 2009 at 12:28pm #

    This is my final post in response to Max Shields. Mr. Shields has had a very bad last two weeks due to the publishing by the editors of DV articles by Dr. James Petras followed by long time anti-Zionist and the one critic who has done more than anyone to exposed the Zionism of Noam Chomsky — Jeff Blankfort.

    Mr. Shields has exposed his true agenda here at DV — to meld with the Left and then act as a gatekeeper in order to restrict discussion and activism and to keep the Left discombobulated.

    A discombobulated Left is ineffective. Not only against the racist ideologies of Zionism and White Supremacy — issues of deep concern among ALL people of color but a dysfunctional Left is ill-prepared to deal with Capitalist crisis. The Left is so fractured that it cannot coalesce around an ideology that can capture not only people’s imagination but it cannot advance their collective interests in solidarity. A united Left is a threat to Zionists like Mr. Shields.

    Mr. Shields exhibits the traits of the so-called “Leftist” betrays those values and eventually became neo-cons. When the Civil Rights movement became more militant and especially when African American radicals took positions in support of Palestine, Jews who were allied in the movement had a choice to make. Jews, like Joesph Lieberman and Ben Wattenberg, chose to become neo-cons. This is why it is said that a neo-conservative is a “Liberal(Leftist) mugged by reality”. The reality is that when challenged, Jews like Mr. Shields will choose Zionism over Justice.

    I also find it hard to believe that Mr. Shields claims to have done any work with the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers had a fierce stance AGAINST Zionism and supported the Palestinians struggle. The Panthers in their writings recognized the growing influence of Zionism on U.S. policy as far back as the late 1960 and clearly someone of Mr. Shields ilk would have no choice but to betray solidarity in order to protect Zionism and the privilege it garners him.

    But why is Mr. Shields perspective important? And why is observing his behavior important? Because Mr. Shields represent the DOMINANT strain on the Left. He represents the kind of discourse and the level of BETRAYAL that activists with good intention are going to face as they attempt to organize not only to resist capitalism but also to resist U.S. imperial policy. There cannot be any resistance to U.S. policy without bring Israel into question and that means having to confront Zionism not only in Israel but also WITHIN the United States.

    Thus the real place today where activism ends is not with the Democrats as Mr. Shields would have you believe. It is well before you even get to the Democrats. It is among the Left that has become the gatekeepers for Zionism.

    In order to confront this problem, means that activist MUCH have an ideological FOUNDATION. Thus what does it mean to be ON THE LEFT?
    Simply, it means judging issues from the standpoint of FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, DEMOCRACY, and JUSTICE. It is obvious that Mr. Shields doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians. Since Mr. Shields lives in the United States, his clear and unambiguous insistence to deny and his insistence NOT to confront the rising influence of Zionism in the United States means that he’d rather benefit from the privilege that Zionism accord the group he find kinship — a small minority group of Zionists possessing inordinate power wreaking havoc not only to the Palestinians but also to American citizens and the rest of the world.

  107. Deadbeat said on September 8th, 2009 at 12:41pm #


    Don’t thank me. Thank folks like Jeffery Blankfort, Dr. James Petras, Joel Koval and other “Jewish” anti-Zionists writers for their agitation. They could have stayed comfortably within their group but has chosen justice over privilege. Thank the editors at DV for giving them a forum and allowing us to have this exchange.

    As I stated in my reply to Suthiano, 15 – 20 years ago you could not even have this kind of discussion in a forum like this. The only active forum was PNEWS who moderator was a “Leftist” Zionist like Max Shields is. Raising this issued got you suspended. I only became aware of Jeffrey Blankfort 5 years ago yet he’s been writing for decades.

    Thus this forum, by permitting an exchange of perspective is helping to get the truth out about Noam Chomsky and helping activist analyze the pathetic condition of the Left and what must be done in order to build solidarity that can challenge this system before things get even worse for society and yes Don Hawkins — the planet as well.

  108. Max Shields said on September 8th, 2009 at 3:07pm #

    What makes you’re posts vacuous is just how made up they are.

    There is something deeply disturbing with your attempts to distort.

    But the good news, if I read you right, is that “This is my final post in response to Max Shields.”

    Let’s face it Deadbeat, Mr. Shields is really the only reason you visit this site. So, this could mean the end of Mr. Deadbeat…and so good riddens Mr. Deadbeat…have a good life…and say goodnight to Noam for me as well.

  109. B99 said on September 8th, 2009 at 6:43pm #

    Shabnam – Your contribution of Sept 6th is a good historical accounting. I won’t take exception here to any of it except that Palestine at the turn of the 20th century had a significant Christian population. What the people of the region had in common was their Palestinian identity and possession of the country. It is for this reason, and not for reasons of being of a particular religion, that the land should not have become a ‘Jewish State.’ but instead a Palestinian one, whose inhabitants are Muslim, Christian, Secular, and Jewish (both the natives and early Jewish pilgrims). But not Zionist colonists.

  110. United-Socialist-Front said on September 8th, 2009 at 9:22pm #

    Jeff Blankfort said on September 7th, 2009 at 8:11pm #

    I would go further than you. Even Bush-II was opposed to the War on Irak. I read that in the book “The Power of Israel in the United States” by James Petras. Petras claims that the zionist elements of The Republican Party forced Bush and Cheney into waging the war on irak.


  111. United-Socialist-Front said on September 8th, 2009 at 9:24pm #

    DeadBeat: What you mean is that Max Shields is like a centrist (Social Democrat) like Felipe Gonzalez (Former Spain President) and Tony Blair (UK ex-president) and not a revolutionary-socialist like Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez?


  112. Deadbeat said on September 8th, 2009 at 9:33pm #

    U-S-F writes …

    DeadBeat: What you mean is that Max Shields is like a centrist (Social Democrat) like Felipe Gonzalez (Former Spain President) and Tony Blair (UK ex-president) and not a revolutionary-socialist like Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez?

    No U-S-F. I mean that Mr. Shields is like a provocateur who mission it is to maintain a discombobulate Left.

  113. United-Socialist-Front said on September 8th, 2009 at 9:54pm #

    Max: I am sorry but as long as corporations are under the private sector there will be imperialist-wars. You said: “The price paid for Statism is war.” This is a bit wrong, because the war-corporations are not owned by the state, they are privately owned. So if a progressive humanist party wins an election in USA and takes over the government, the best option would be to nationalize the weapon factories, in order to have complete control over them, and that way the US government can stop waging wars. But as long as corporations are strong and in the private sector, they can control the decissions of the US government, and that’s why we have a “Corporate state” (A state owned and controlled by corporations). You have to realize and be aware that the evil wolf in this movie of US Imperialism are the private-corporations not the US government. The US government doesn’t make and build weapons, doesn’t decide the wars. The ones who are the intellectuals deciders of the wars are the war lobbies, AIPAC, the Military Industrial Complex, not the politicians or the burocrats of the US government.

    Here is an article about Marxism and the state



    Written by Phil Mitchinson Thursday, 21 July 1994

    Standing between the working class and the socialist transformation of society is a colossal state machine. Where did it come from? What purpose does it serve? can it be reformed, or must it be done away with altogether? What should replace it, indeed should it be replaced at all? In the first place what is “it”?

    In their writings on the state, Marx and Engels set themselves the task of demystifying it, of conquering the idea that the state is some kind of eternal being, in order to strip away the magical shroud in which capitalism has cloaked it.

    Today the bosses dress up their attacks on workers rights, the right to strike etc., in the name of the Law with a capital “L”, or Democracy with a capital “D”. When the police and the government defend the “right” of a scab to break a strike, they do it in the name of his “democratic right to work”. When a million and one obstacles are placed in the path of workers taking action, it is in the name of legality. When huge sums were confiscated from the printers and the miners, it was all dressed up as obedience to the Law. As if the law or democracy, the courts or the police, are all independent entities removed from the issues and conflicts involved.

    Surely, they say, the Law is a set of fair rules which everyone must obey. In reality we all know there is one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.

    In the crudest way, with judges dressing up in wigs and robes (and isn’t it the same in Parliament) they perform absurd rituals to draw a mystical veil over their real purpose.

    By dressing up in costumes, spouting a few Latin phrases and calling it the law, the ruling class believe we will all stand in awe, fearing to break the natural order of things, God’s word or some such mystical nonsense.

    Yet the law wasn’t written in heaven it was written on earth and to serve a purpose. In whose interest is it to limit the number of pickets allowed at a factory gate, or to deny workers the right to join a union as at GCHQ, to make it illegal for whole sections of workers to go on strike, or to rewrite laws which previously gave workers at least some health and safety protection.

    The law isn’t a system of “fair rules”, it’s just like any other aspect of the state – a means of coercion by which one class in society, the ruling class, the minority, maintains its rule over the majority, the working class.

    To sweep away this supernatural fog which surrounds the state, we must first deal with the idea that this machinery has always existed. In fact, for nine-tenths of mankind’s existence on the planet there was no state.

    Historical Stage

    There is a vulgar view of history which states that things are as they always have been and always will be. Capitalism has always existed, and so has the state, the impartial observer and referee in society.

    In truth, capitalism is an historically recent stage in our development, and the state, although older, was certainly unknown in early tribal society.

    In order for society to advance from its primitive communist, tribal beginnings, to the rational and harmonious self organisation of society which would be socialism, it has already been necessary to pass through all kinds of convulsions and revolutions, and we aren’t there yet. We have had to pass from one form of class rule to another, one form of property ownership to another, one kind of state suppression to another, in order to lay the economic, cultural and scientific basis for a genuinely classless society.

    In those earlier classless societies, which make up 9/10ths of mankind’s existence to date, there could not be a state, there couldn’t even be “civilisation” because man lived on a nomadic basis. They were an armed people with no need for special groups of armed men, no need of a special coercive force or state to keep one section of the population oppressed.

    This was not lawless anarchy, crimes and misdemeanours were dealt with democratically by the community, and of course there were “leaders” as in all human societies, people with authority, respected by the community, but no special force to impose their will, only a voluntary respect for the elders.

    As Engels wrote in his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, “The shabbiest police servant of the civilised state has more “authority” than all the organs of gentile society put together; but the mightiest prince and the greatest statesman or general of civilisation might envy the humblest of the gentile chiefs the unforced and unquestioned respect accorded to him. The one stands in the midst of society; the other is forced to pose as something outside and above it.”


    When man began to settle in specific territories it was possible to develop the productivity of his labour, not just by hunting or taking what nature provided, but by planning, the sowing of seed, the development of tools and technique. As a consequence they began to develop a surplus above their own immediate needs. For the first time a section of the population was freed from the day-to-day struggle for existence, a class was created which could “employ” the labour of others to sustain it. Now there could be accumulation, the manufacture of tools could be developed, as could primitive agricultural techniques, and of course the military means for defending the settled areas against incursion from nomadic tribes.

    For the first time society was divided into classes, and there developed the “haves” and the “have nots”, which in the first instance were the slave-owners and the slaves.

    The new ruling class of slave-owners was free to devote its time to an enormous flourishing of human achievement in art, science, architecture, philosophy and mathematics. This was the basis for the development of the ancient societies of Greece and Rome which we associate with great cultural and scientific advance.

    These slave-owners were, of course, a minority and as such required special bodies of armed men to keep their slaves in chains, and so the state was born of the division of society into classes.

    The new state was distinguished from the old gentile order in that it was no longer held together by blood ties but divided its subjects on a territorial basis. Citizens were now required to carry out their public rights and duties according to where they lived regardless of their tribe or gens.

    The other distinguishing feature of this new state was the creation of a public power which no longer coincided with the population organising itself as an armed force. “Special bodies of armed men” came into being because an armed population divided into opposing classes, would have led to interminable conflict.

    Engels in his Origin of the Family, describes the state as “a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable opposites which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these opposites, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power seemingly standing above society that would moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”.”

    In his masterpiece on this subject, State and Revolution, Lenin summarises the origins of the state as follows, “The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises where, when, and to the extent that class contradictions objectively cannot be reconciled. And conversely, the existence of the state proves that class contradictions are irreconcilable.”

    So this system of police, courts, army, civil service and so on aren’t eternal protections against anti-social and criminal behaviour, but were created in their basic, crude, initial form as a special machine for the suppression of the majority by the minority – the slaves by the slave-owners.

    With each succeeding form of class society, this state machine was taken over and perfected as the instrument of the new ruling class – the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument for the exploitation of labour by capital.

    In all the bourgeois revolutions which brought the capitalists to power, in Britain in 1649 or France 1789, the new ruling class took over the old state apparatus and perfected it as an instrument for the suppression of the new exploited class, the working class.

    Surely the bosses cry, this is all socialist paranoia. Do we really believe the bankers and directors of big monopolies sit around in their gentlemen’s clubs inventing this great apparatus to keep us in check. Leaving aside the question of what these gentlemen discuss in their clubs, they certainly could not have dreamed up, such a scheme as the modern state, they wouldn’t have the imagination. No, it devolved through revolutions and changing social conditions over centuries.

    Paris Commune

    In all these earlier revolutions, this state machine was seen as the principal spoils of the victor. Marx and Engels, however, explained that the task of socialism would be entirely different. And here we see, as in all the works of Marx, there is not one ounce of utopianism. He didn’t dream up the tasks of the workers in relation to the state, but drew instead on the practical conclusions of the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871.

    Whilst praising the heroism of the Communards “storming heaven”, Marx re-examined his theory in the light of their defeat. In fact the only correction Marx felt it necessary to make to the Communist Manifesto was on the basis of that revolutionary experience.

    In the preface to the June 1872 edition Marx and Engels say that the programme “has in places become antiquated” and go on to quote from Marx’s book The Civil War in France, “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for their own purposes.”


    Amazingly, this came to be crudely misinterpreted by many leaders of the labour movement as an argument in favour of slow gradual change, piecemeal reforms, by which the state could be improved in the interests of the workers. The leaders of the German labour movement, for example, demanded a “free people’s state”. Marx ridiculed this idea “What do you mean a free people’s state – the state is an instrument for the suppression of the working class nothing else!”

    The state in so far as it is a state will be there to suppress the people, and in so far as it becomes an instrument of the people it ceases to be a state.

    Lenin took up this idea when the leaders of the European socialist and Labour parties held up their hands in horror at the Russian Revolution, prattling on about abstract democracy, democracy with a capital D. “There is no such thing as “democracy”,” he said “there is bourgeois democracy or there is workers’ democracy…Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with mediaevalism, always remains…restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical and a snare and a deception for the exploited and the poor.”

    Even our own Parliament is just such a snare of course, where we choose every few years which members of the ruling class will represent (read repress) us for the next few years.

    What Marx actually meant in saying “the workers can’t simply lay hold of the ready made state machine” he clarified on many occasions. In a letter to Kugelman, for example, he writes, “If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to the other, but to smash it and this is the preliminary precondition for every real people’s revolution on the continent.”

    In Britain today, where Parliamentary traditions go back furthest, who really makes the decisions? Not the government or the cabinet, but the bosses of the banks and the big monopolies, the currency speculators and the stockbrokers – and who elected them? For that matter who elected the judges, to whom are the police commissioners accountable? Who elected the press barons, who, not content with telling us who to vote for in the general election, are now telling us who to elect as Labour leader.

    Of course Marxists are the first to defend all the democratic rights which the workers have conquered through struggle, and fight to extend them – the right to strike, to organise, to free speech, many rights which even now are being eaten away.

    More than that, Marxists would argue to use Parliament, the council chamber, even the courts where possible to defend or advance our rights – but these elements of the state machine are not the goal itself, they are a means to an end.


    In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explain that the democratic gains of the workers are “just a certain amount of rights, for the exploited class to go some way towards the goal of fighting for a change in the class system for a new society, but that is all.”

    “The state” Engels added later “is a machine for the oppression of one class by another and indeed in a democratic republic no less than in a monarchy…In a democratic republic wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely, by means of the direct corruption of officials; second by means of an alliance between the government and the stock exchange.”

    The capitalists themselves prefer democracy as a cheaper and more malleable system, but as the ex-Tory MP Ian Gilmour once explained , for the bosses too this is only a means to an end, if it threatened the continuation of capitalism the ruling class would not hesitate to end it. In the early 1970s, in Britain, Brigadier Kitson and co. prepared a coup in case the Labour government attempted to implement the socialist measures in their programme. More recently we have the Gladio conspiracy of the security forces throughout Europe preparing for future military takeovers.

    Look at the way the South African state aided and abetted the reactionary Inkatha movement, or the military coups throughout Latin America and Africa in the 70s and 80s. Look at the way every tentacle of the state machine was employed against the miners in the strike of 84-85, the courts sequestrating funds, the police and the army on picket lines and demonstrations, the blatant lies and distortions of the media.

    How could the workers possibly “lay hold of” and use this state machine. Surely this nails the arguments of reformism, the idea that society can be changed gradually, slowly but surely over generations. Capitalism hasn’t perfected this colossal machine in order to allow itself to be reformed out of existence.

    The task of Marxism is to lay bare the truth about the state and the danger it represents to the working class, but also to explain what should replace it and how.

    Marxism has nothing in common with anarchism which preaches that all authority and organisation is inherently evil – this is just mysticism.

    Without some form of state how could the trains run on time, how could the harmonious development of the economy, of society that socialism represents be planned.

    Workers’ Democracy

    While the capitalists need a state to maintain class rule, the workers need one precisely to end it. (On the basis of modern science such a period could be short lived as the workers lead the whole of society towards socialism.) Since any state only exists for the suppression of one class by another, the workers state, workers democracy, would be the rule of the majority over the minority, just as bourgeois democracy is the rule of the minority over the majority.

    The first task of such a regime would be to appeal to workers throughout Europe and internationally to join forces in putting an end to the anarchy of capitalism and begin building a socialist society. Its first act should be the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, taking the ownership of the means of production out of private hands and converting them into state property, under the democratic control and management of the workers themselves.

    A government with such a programme would of course be sabotaged from the beginning by the state. Equally such a programme could inspire millions of workers to come to its defence and carry its programme out in practice, taking over the factories and the banks.

    In so doing, the workers begin to do away with themselves as a class, to do away with all class division in society, to do away with the state as a state. As Engels wrote, “The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production.”


    Again there is not a single ounce of utopianism here. Marx didn’t invent some new perfect social order in his head, but studied the birth of a new society from within the old. The aim of the socialist transformation is to put an end to class divisions, to create a society where Marx’s aphorism “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” could become a reality. That requires the development of an economy of superabundance, entirely possible on the basis of modern science and technique, once we’ve done away with the anarchy of the market.

    The building of such an economy requires conscious planning and organisation of “production, distribution and exchange” as the old Clause 4 of the British labour Party use to put it.

    The government of people must be replaced by the administration of things. This would be the remit of the new workers state, which from the beginning would be only a semi-state, withering away of its own accord in one sphere after another.

    All administration might not be abolished over night, but bureaucracy could be. The working week could be cut immediately to 32 hours, without loss of pay and then to four 6 hour days and beyond, not only eradicating unemployment, but providing everyone with the necessary time to participate in the running of all aspects of society. In Lenin’s words “when everyone is a bureaucrat, no-one is a bureaucrat.”

    The old liberal dream of cheap government would become a reality by doing away with the two most greatest expenditures. Firstly, state functionarism – such administrative tasks would be reduced to what they really are, stripped of power and prestige, they would be bookkeepers and technicians paid workers wages.

    All officials would be elected and moreover subject to an immediate recall. All parties, except the fascists, would be allowed to organise. The enormous waste of resources on the “special bodies of armed men” to keep us in our place would also become unnecessary. Crime, security and so on could be dealt with by society without this colossal state machine.

    The state, then, has not existed for all eternity. There have been societies that did without it , that had no need of it. At a certain stage of economic development which necessarily involved the split of society into classes, the state arose because of this split. Today this class division in society is not only no longer a necessity, but is now a hindrance to the further development of humanity. The task of the socialist transformation of society, is to free us from this ball and chain. Then as Engels explained, “Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong – into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”

    Before Marxism can conquer the state, however, it must first conquer the labour movement. To grasp the nature of the state, to bring its history, its character, its role to the attention of the workers is the duty of Marxism, the theoretical expression of the workers movement, the guide to action.

  114. mary said on September 8th, 2009 at 10:52pm #

    “This way, you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.” – Arye Mekel, deputy director-general for cultural affairs for Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

    Naomi Klein on Brand Israel at the Toronto International Film Festival.

  115. mary said on September 8th, 2009 at 10:55pm #

    “This way, you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.” – Arye Mekel, deputy director-general for cultural affairs for Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

    Naomi Klein on Brand Israel at the Toronto International Film Festival.


  116. Suthiano said on September 9th, 2009 at 1:15am #


    max writes to us
    dead beat,
    you visit because of max shields,
    max shields
    in the 3rd person

    deadbeat writes


    U-S-F writes …

    DeadBeat: What you mean is that

    Max Shields is like a

    centrist (Social Democrat)

    like Felipe Gonzalez (Former Spain President)
    and Tony Blair (UK ex-president)


    not a revolutionary-socialist

    like Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez?

    No U-S-F. I mean that Mr. Shields is

    like a provocateur who mission it is to maintain a

    discombobulate Left.


    Sometimes it’s so discombobulating. am i right or wrong? i’m left so i’m right, and right is wrong, so i have to be here, on the left, left of left.

    I can’t tell who amonst you bittering crew
    like twittering fools,

    is an agent of the government and who wants to be one come some shift.

    does it matter?
    sharks as shields and
    so i’m
    off the beat. hop
    to my own
    feet. run down the street

    past the debate.

  117. Suthiano said on September 9th, 2009 at 1:18am #

    *bittering is an unintentional slurring of bitter bickering

  118. Deadbeat said on September 9th, 2009 at 2:39am #

    Before Marxism can conquer the state, however, it must first conquer the labour movement. To grasp the nature of the state, to bring its history, its character, its role to the attention of the workers is the duty of Marxism, the theoretical expression of the workers movement, the guide to action.

    And in order to do that there has to be unity and solidarity and that is what is missing from the Left.

  119. kalidas said on September 9th, 2009 at 7:32am #

    I knew that.

  120. Lance Watson said on September 9th, 2009 at 8:57am #

    United-Socialist-Front ….. and what about Palestine? Check out
    Gilad Atzmon – Tribal Marxism for Dummies


    The recent DV article, Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby
    by M. Shahid Alam


    and the contribution of blogger Joseph Anderson will add to the debate. Also see Joseph Anderson’s own DV article, The Left and the Israel Lobby


  121. United-Socialist-Front said on September 9th, 2009 at 11:23am #




    Read the following article in this link. It talks about the real danger that USA is facing: The Tea Party terrorists. They are neo-nazis, and even The South Poverty Center is warning about the danger of these far-right nazi militia groups aiming to overthrow Obama.


    This morning, right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin joined the ABC roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Asked what the conservative opposition strategy is going to be this coming month while Congress is in recess, Malkin said there is a growing “tea party movement — these counterinsurgencies amongst taxpayer rights groups” — that is fomenting opposition to Obama’s health care plan.

    Malkin claimed the Obama administration has “vastly underestimated just how grassroots this movement is.” Lawmakers are going to face “townhalls-gone-wild,” she added. Watch it:


    The term “counter-insurgencies” does reveal the mentality of conservatives in opposition to Obama. Like Bill Kristol has said, the right wing is bluntly stating that it is going “for the kill.” Malkin has previously declare her hope that Obama fails…

  122. United-Socialist-Front said on September 9th, 2009 at 12:15pm #

    deadbeat: u are right !! even the poor immigrants living in USA are individualists. Or at least they arrive at USA with a collective altruist world-view, but after a couple of years in USA, they change from an altruist, compassionate individual, toward a greedy, egocentric, narcissist individual. And i think that it is the social-system of USA which turns people into greedy, narcissists anti-social beings which is a block to what u said about the requirement of a humanist, loving, friendly mentality in order for a socialist mentality to advance in USA

    But like u said as long as people are evil, unfriendly and social-phobics like all americans are, we won’t have a rise of a left in USA


  123. United-Socialist-Front said on September 9th, 2009 at 12:21pm #

    dead beat: Oh i forgot, i am not blaming people for being so antisocial in America, for being so violent. I am realist and i apply the political-realism of Nicholas Machiavelli, Nietzsche and “The 48 Laws of Power” to the USA society, and in this society you can’t be too good, too friendly and too compassionate. USA is a very violent and harsh society and people have a very logical reason for being pro-gun, antisocial and violent.


  124. United-Socialist-Front said on September 9th, 2009 at 12:24pm #









  125. B99 said on September 9th, 2009 at 12:44pm #

    All those commentators Suthiano mentions are indeed Zionists – even arch Zionists. They are all, in fact, Jews and are part of the preponderance of Jews in the US media. That would not be so bad if they were not all Israel-Firsters. No Arab is allowed regular commentary in the US media – and certainly would not be allowed to do so if he/she were Arab/Muslim/Palestine-Firsters – or even Justice-Firsters. Instead, the pro-Israel position is depicted as the civilized norm.

    The ubiquitousness of Zionist Jews in the US media is both a response to and a strong influence on our two leading political parties – both of whom trip over themselves to lick Israel. There will be no alternative mainstream media views with regard to Israel/Palestine unless the unity of congress is broken. Only then will other views be permitted in the media. When congress marches as one on any issue – so too does the corporate media.

    Suthiano So what makes you think these commentators are all Zionists?
    Also, are you saying that commentators run US foreign policy? And if so how?

  126. bozh said on September 9th, 2009 at 12:48pm #

    usf, yes,
    to kill people 5-10k miles u must first of all raise mad people. And to rule them, u must make less mad but i bit more deluded.
    It is like pavlov dog or a pit bull delibarately made mad to do a few good bites or even kill a child.
    I need a trainer, too; i am almost good and wld like very much to become a thief or a madman.
    I have prayed to god to make me a thief or best terrorist but she’s not listening. tnx

  127. B99 said on September 9th, 2009 at 1:11pm #

    Gary – I have not read further but according to your first post you apparently you posit the European Jewish claim to Palestine as every bit legitimate or more so than that of the indigenous population of Palestinians. We should be clear on this. Palestinian ancestors are called Canaanites, Phoenicians, Philistines, among others. They did not materialize in recent centuries out of thin air, nor migrate from elsewhere. The existing population of Jews in the region were also indigenous and lived in relative harmony with Muslims and Christians. The effort by 19th century Zionists to create a Jewish ‘home’ in this already inhabited land was in no small measure due to the ultra-nationalism extant in Europe, a ‘home’ to be populated with the masses of unassimilated Jews of Eastern Europe. None of this is the doings of the Palestinians. And as nefarious as was British Statecraft, political Zionism among assimilated Western Jews emerged from a position of strength, not from a position of oppression or weakness.

    Britain’s only moral duty after the War was to get out and leave the region to pursue its own political path, independent of outsiders. In this it failed – and betrayed the Arabs, most cruelly, the Palestinians. BTW, another imperial reason for British presence in Palestine was to overlook the Suez Canal. So for the Brits, the ideal solution was to colonize Palestine with Westerners – the Zionist Jews. Here we see a confluence of interests similar to what we have today between the US and Israel.

    I believe you have too generous a view of the goals and practices of Israel. As guilty as Britain was and the US is – so too are the Jews. The movement to create a state for Jews in Palestine should not be viewed with such sympathy. Zionism must be viewed from the standpoint of its victims.

  128. Lance Watson said on September 9th, 2009 at 1:20pm #


    Max Shields seems to have a thing about wailing and flailing and powerlessness. Here is his contribuution to the blog of the recent DV article, Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby
    by M. Shahid Alam cited above.

    …….But wailing about AIPAC and Zionism (and I definitely understand the horror they have strongly influenced and its effect on the Palestinians specifically) does not provide a solution. AIPAC has a degree of power in large part because it is a perfect match for the plutocratic powers that be.
    The greater challenge is building the power to off-set that of war and imperial empire.
    I don’t think Americans are of a single mind regarding any US policies. They know what they’ve been told – there is no Amerikan gene. Like all empires, the US Empire is falling under the stress of its own success. It is collapsing. The economic “crisis” will pass as a crisis but it will not bring back the US economy as we’ve come to know it. People adapt or else… The political system is not equipped to deal with the collapse and is making every effort to save it using the same old spend/debt paradigm that got us here. But this is all so well documented that it hardly bears repeating.
    The focus, I contend is how we deal with this reality. We cannot simply wish it away or through the force of “optimizing” return America to some previous hayday. I’m concerned about the military industrial complex and the 10s of thousands of nuclear warheads we have pointed hither and yon; and the 800 bases. Israel is but a pimple on the ass of a rat when it comes to this situation. And I say that with more than respect for the Palestinians who have been tortured by this pimple in their midst.

    Compare this the strident contribution by Joseph Anderson

    ………The left — especially the sectarian, highly ideological left — has never held or shared any real political power in the United States, and that’s why the left doesn’t have any practical knowledge about how it works. All the left has are abstract theories, often from over a century or more old (long before modern political lobbies, especially in an electoral system), on *supposedly* what Marx or Mao or somebody said “wasn’t possible”.
    So, the left can be all-too-easily beguiled and misled by people like Chomsky et al about the Isreal lobby, it’s power, or how it works in the modern American/Western political system/s.

    Dear Professor Alam:
    I was enticinglyreading your article, “Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby”, at Dissident Voice, January 31st.
    I hope that you also will note my article, _”THE LEFT AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY”_, origninally published at DissidentVoice (and, thus, also available online), that also deals with this Chomsky (Finkelstein, Bennis, Lerner, Zunes et al) line of _Israel lobby denial_ argument.
    (And while I don’t know anything about him, a Stephen Sniegosky has written an excellent article, available online, “ISRAEL-LOBBY DENIAL”, as represented by Stephen Zunes. And there have been excellent articles, also available online, by ex-CIA analysts, Kathleen & Bill Christison.)
    Chomsky, as a Zionist apologist (or Jewish tribalist, as some anti-Zionist Jews have called him), or “anti-occupation *Zionist*” (as I call him/them), has been the leader in running a smooth disinformation (and censorship) campaign about the Israel lobby (typically using his status and monopoly power over a given microphone, and especially, on the radio, with the help and protection of people like Amy Goodman). Indeed, as Jeffrey Blankfort, a longtime friend of mine might say, Chomsky’s (and other national lecture circuit Jewish “progressive/leftst” icons’) job is to work on the *left*.

    (See online: “Gnome Chomsky — A Great Little Poem”
    http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133840/index.php .)
    Any number of national “progressive/leftist” icons, most of them Jews, like “academic martyr” Norman Finkelstein (who’s moved to right-of-center *since* his termination from DePaul University, although with one “progressive WASP”, Stephen Zunes) have been engaging in more than a decades-long disinformation campaign about the Israel lobby. *None* of them declare themselves to be anti-Zionist. Indeed, Zunes openly *declares* himself to be a Zionist. The intriguing question about Finkelstein is, why Norman Finkelstein sacrifice his university career only to *then* become a Zionist apologist?
    Chomsky and the rest are smart enough to figure that Israel already directly occupies some 85% of historic Palestine (and then some in Lebanon and Syria), controls about 95% of the resources (even under remaining Palestinian land), and 98% of the economy, so let the Palestinians have their hypersquiggly (in the West Bank) and, at least, *trifurcated* (3-part), bantustan, so-called “Palestinian state”, and call it “fair & square” and a day!: when it comes to the Palestinians, what, after all, in reality, would be “independent Palestinian state” but merely 3 *words*, to be as much ignored as anything else when it comes to Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinian people?
    And then the ethnic cleansing of 1967+annexed Israel would be *COMPLETED* as the Israeli Palestinians (still at least 20% of Israel itself) would be dispossessed and expelled (Israel’s government has already stated this) if there is ever a so-called “Palestinian state”. The Palestinian people, originally from an *the vast majority* to still probably just over *50%* the population of historic Palestine, would be relegated to only about 15% of the remaining land — while Israel keeps all the best land at that.

    So, in fact, CHOMSKY, Finkelstein, Bennis, Lerner, Halper, Avnery, Zunes et al actually WORK — ON THE *LEFT* — TO *PROTECT* ISREAL AS A ZIONIST STATE. And, as such they also work — on the left — to OPPOSE ANY *PRACTICAL* NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE AGAINST ISREAL (economic, academic and athletic boycotts, divestments and sanctions — Chomsky used to openly brag that he opposed this — this time against Israeli apartheid) to at least put Israel’s atrocities in check, and would even deny the very terms of practical analysis of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians (if you can believe it, like *Zionism*, let alone *apartheid*, *racism*, and, otherwise, certainly not 1-state or *re-unified* Palestine).
    Indeed, it’s sad that there has been so much *CENSORSHIP* ON THE *LEFT* that this subject has been taboo for decades, and that the taboo had to be nationally breach by two *establishment* academics (Mearsheimer & Walt) who’s real and primary goal (like former Cold Warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski) is to improve U.S. imperialist foreign policy in the Mideast; global justice, in general, and justice for the Palestinians, in particular, are incidental issues for them.
    And, it seems, none of them — certainly not Chomksy — ever holds Zionist, Israel lobby, and Israeli Jews *directly* responsible for their share of the oppression, misery, and otherwise death cause by Israel itself in historic Palestine, in particular, Israel’s neighboring states, and the Middle East in general (like championing the war in Iraq, and probably Afghanistan, and a mightily pushing for attack on Iran).

    So, while they would seem to be harsh critics of Israel — SAYING A LOT THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT *JUSSST ENOUGH* FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL *LIES* TO MISLEAD LEFTISTS — they all say that it’s only the *WASP’s* in the “monolithic” ruling class (exclusive of any Jews) in the *U.S.* who are *really* responsible: in other words, “The *Devil* made us [Jews] do it!” — or, as I paraphrase them, “Israel is just folllowing orrrders”, and *where* have we heard *that* excuse before? This has always struck me as a racist argument: that Jews can’t be directly responsible for anything immoral — only WASP’s can (”as the puppets of the hapless, ignorant Jews”).
    And how can Chomsky — the self-declared “Anarchist” — support a Zionist/Jewish state *anywhere* — but especially where another people were already living? How can Chomsky — the self-declared “Anarchist” — support “Israel’s right to exist within its 1967 borders”, with a *foreign* ideology, in a *foreign* state (declared only some 60 years ago), with a *foreign* government, in a *foreign* (somebody *elses*) land, Palestine, where a *foreign* people have exclusivist, superior rights? Anarchists are not supposed to believe in classes of any kind or borders, let alone an ideologically “Jewish”/Zionist class/construct and state border vis-a-vis a non-Jewish class (the Palestinians) and state (a so-called “Palestinian ’state’”) border.
    Finally, only white racism — even among white progressives and in the Western (especially, U.S.) left — could ever support what should be the *BLATANTLY RACIST* ideology of *ZIONISM*, the state of Israel at all, let alone as a Zionist/Jewish state “within its 1967 borders”, that alone a state on *80%* of the land (and now it’s probably 85%, not counting parts of Lebanon and Syria) where another people already inhabited. Only white racism could accept talk about “Jews ties to the land” from *2,000* years ago, being superior to Palestinian ties to the land from only 60-70 years ago, continuously stolen by Israel, *up to the present*!

    Don’t forget (although I know you can’t put everything in one article), the Israel lobby is not only composed of political lobbying organizations, but, Zionist enforcement, disciplinary and intimidation organizations (like the overtly right-wing “CampusWatch”, which primarily engages in academic censorship and intimidation; but even the JCRC’s and the like), and indeed, Zionist *spy* organizations (like the JDL, which supplied information on progressive activists not only for Israel lobby organizations, and undoubtedly to “law enforcement” agencies, but also on then anti-Apartheid activists to the then white South African Apartheid government, and *certainly* to “law enforcement” agencies, and which is documented online from credible sources).
    Finally, the Israel lobby behaves like no other lobby, in that if you oppose gun control, or oppose the abolition of Roe vs. Wade, or oppose nuclear power generation expansion, etc., *none* of those lobbies will will engage in *personal* intimidation, ideological enforcement, systematic spying, direct censorship, economic terrorism, personal smear tactics, and political disciplinary action — especially if you have pubilc status — and pervasive control over the left.
    So, no matter how smooth they _talk a good game_, I have NO USE for anyone (let them go do their own thing) who doesn’t first openly and publicly declare themselves, in this struggle, to be an anti-Zionist, because however good they sound, they’re only working for their own undisclosed/closet racist agenda .
    As an African American friend of mine who traveled throughout Israel once said, “There’s a reason there’s a very tiny “PEACE NOW!” movement in Israel, but not a “JUSTICE NOW!” movement.

    All this sounds hard to believe about ole Chomsky et al? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time in history that white intellectuals (and, especially, colonialists) engaged in lofty lectures about “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and “the people”, but who turned out to be highly, formally, “educated” RACISTS.

  129. Shabnam said on September 9th, 2009 at 1:51pm #

    Who was behind 9/11?

    “If we act like cowards we will be treated like cowards.”
    – Dr. Steven E. Jones, discoverer of super-thermite in dust from the pulverized World Trade Center


    Eight years have passed since the terror atrocities of September 11, 2001, heinous false-flag terror crimes which took the lives of thousands of innocent people and led to drastic changes in the United States and around the world. Although the terror attacks have yet to be properly investigated and prosecuted by the federal government, we now have scientific evidence that proves that the official explanation is nothing but a pack of lies, a massive deception foisted on the public by corrupt government officials and the controlled media. Most significantly, this deception was promoted by officials and media owners who knew it to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, oversaw the destruction of many tons of structural steel – crucial evidence from the crime scenes.
    On one hand, the government and media have intentionally pushed a fabrication that a band of Islamic terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, causing the complete destruction and pulverization of two 110-story towers and a 47-story building in lower Manhattan. Using this deception, the federal government and its agents have created a police state in the United States and forced Americans and other Western nations to participate in an utterly fraudulent “War on Terror,” waging illegal wars of aggression and occupation in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. Untold thousands have died in these illegal wars of aggression.
    Peres is the creator of Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and I suspect that it was at his “nuke” complex near Dimona in the Negev Desert that the nano-thermite used on 9-11 was designed. It should be noted that Israel’s illegal nucear arsenal was built by Peres, the current president of Israel and Capo di tutti capi, or head of the international Zionist crime gang based in Tel Aviv. The super-thermite used on 9-11 was developed for years prior to September 11, 2001, at Israel’s Nuclear Research Center – Negev near Dimona, and in affiliated Israeli universities and institutions.

    Israeli scientists simply took American and European nano-technology for energetic films and tweaked them to suit their purpose to pulverize the World Trade Center on 9-11.

  130. Deadbeat said on September 9th, 2009 at 8:59pm #


    Thanks for posting these articles and especially Joesph Anderson’s response. We had the pleasure and opportunity to correspond here on DV. The posting of these articles and having this open forum is kudos to the courage of the DV editors. This kind of analysis and criticism of the Left are vital if there is going to me any real change in the USA and in the world.

  131. Deadbeat said on September 9th, 2009 at 10:53pm #

    U-S-F writes ….

    But like u said as long as people are evil, unfriendly and social-phobics like all americans are, we won’t have a rise of a left in USA

    I never made such a statement. What I have said is that the Left is too fractured due to the provocateur within its ranks. In fact I think you need to read some of Joseph Andersons’ remarks that Lance posted. That pretty much reflects my view.

    What I am saying is that these provocateur because of their desire to mislead activist in order to protect Zionism has weaken the Left to such a degree that it is extremely ineffective especially now when its leadership is vital to confront the capitalist crisis.

    U-S-F I would advise reading the article that Lance posted by Gilad Atzmon. I read it today and it is excellent especially since you are Marxist and to get an understanding how these provacateur has perverted Marxism.

  132. Lance Watson said on September 9th, 2009 at 11:54pm #

    Amy Goodman, a leftist zionist does hasbara PR for zionism.

    The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers
    by James Petras / January 2nd, 2009

    …Because of the unconditional support of the entire political class in the US, from the White House to Congress, including both Parties, incoming and outgoing elected officials and all the principal print and electronic mass media, the Israeli Government feels no compunction in publicly proclaiming a detailed and graphic account of its policy of mass extermination of the population of Gaza.

    Israel’s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza. Israel’s totalitarian vision is driven by the practice of a permanent purge of Arab Palestine informed by Zionism, an ethno-racist ideology, promulgated by the Jewish state and justified, enforced and pursued by its organized backers in the United States.

    The facts of Israeli extermination have become known: In the first six days of round the clock terror bombing of major and minor populations centers, the Jewish State has murdered and seriously maimed over 2,500 people, mostly dismembered and burned in the open ovens of missile fire. Scores of children and women have been slaughtered as well as defenseless civilians and officials….

    Israel’s Hanukkah Massacre & Judaism’s Culture of Death Taken from zionists out of the peace movement


    The Jewish holidays of Purim, Passover, and Hanukkah are part of the “culture of death” and “victimization” that permeates Judaism and much of modern Jewish life, as noted by Idith Zertal in Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood (2005; pp. 1-2). … The Maccabean civil war at the root of Hanukkah started when Mattathias, a priest and father of Judah Maccabee, killed another Jew [sic] for coming “forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice” to Greek gods. According to I Maccabees 2:
    When Mattathias saw it, he burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him on the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar.

    Israel has given its Gaza assault the codename “Operation Cast Lead.” Where did this rather poetic title come from? Most people don’t know that it actually comes from a poem. Specifically, a Chanukah poem by Israel’s national poet, H.N. Bialik. The operation began on Shabbos, the sixth day of Chanukah. According to Eli Isaacson, a spokesman for the IDF, the codename comes from a line in “For Chanukah” referring to “a dreidel cast of solid lead.”

    Reporting from israel and the occupied territories on Democracy Now this morning Goodman states”

    ……In Israel and the Occupied Territories, an Israeli human rights group is echoing Palestinian figures on the number of Palestinian children killed during Israel’s US-backed assault on the Gaza Strip. The Jerusalem-based B’Tselem says Israeli forces killed 252 Palestinian children, nearly three times the number claimed by the Israeli military. B’Tselem says its workers conducted meticulous research, gathering death certificates, photographs and testimony for each of the victims. The study lists children as those sixteen and under. A report in May by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights said 313 children were killed under the age of eighteen. Overall, well over half the nearly 1,400 Palestinians killed were civilians. B’Tselem also says the Israeli military carried out a minimum of 2,360 air strikes on Gaza during the three-week assault.

    A new report released today reveals the true extent of child killings by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip during its 23 day offensive on Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.

    Here is the relevant section of The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights report:

    ……The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights PCHR) is publishing War Crimes Against Children in response to the unprecedented number of children killed by Israeli forces in its latest operation; a total of 313 children under the age of eighteen. Containing numerous eye witness testimonies, the report brings to light Israel’s widespread targeting of unarmed civilians, including children, throughout the offensive.

    ‘Operation Cast Lead’ was the biggest Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip in nearly 42 years of occupation. 1,414 Palestinians were killed, and PCHR investigations have found the overwhelming majority, 83 per cent, were civilians. One of the cases in the report is that of 18 month old Farah al-Helu, who was killed on 4 January. The al-Helu family had been told to evacuate their house in Zaytoun, eastern Gaza, but while they were attempting to flee, Israeli soldiers opened fire on them. Farah was shot in the stomach and bled to death two hours later.

    War Crimes Against Children exposes the abject failure of Israeli authorities to uphold international humanitarian law, which provides protection for children in armed conflict and the lack of adequate precautions taken to distinguish between civilians and military targets. The report also details indiscriminate shelling of homes and schools where internally displaced people were sheltering, the psychological impact of the offensive, and the alarming scale of physical injuries inflicted on young people…….

    Note, Goodman states:

    …..A report in May by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights said 313 children were killed under the age of eighteen. Overall, well over half the nearly 1,400 Palestinians killed were civilians. …..

    By quoting the percentage of the number of civilians killed after the figure for the number of children killed presented by PCHR creates the impression that the 50 per cent she cites is endorsed by PCHR . The report states:
    …….PCHR investigations have found the overwhelming majority, 83 per cent, were civilians…….

    There is a considerable difference between 50 percent and 83 percent and, in the absence of any context or background,it seems her remarks are designed to affect our perception of the carnage perpetrated by the zionist.

  133. Lance Watson said on September 10th, 2009 at 8:41am #

    2 Views on Norman Finkelstein’s putting Zionism off limits in the debate


    “Conquer All the Violence”: Three Questions for Norman Finkelstein

    WRITTEN BY Michelle J Kinnucan

    Well, Norman G. Finkelstein has thrown down the gauntlet for a “public brawl” by his decision to make public his resignation from the Gaza Freedom March coalition. Finkelstein says, vaguely, he resigned because: “During the week beginning August 30, 2009 and in a matter of days an entirely new sectarian agenda dubbed ‘the political context’ was foisted on those who originally signed on and worked tirelessly for three months.” Apparently, two Palestinian activists, Omar Barghouti and Haidar Eid, living in the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, had the incredible gall to insist that the US-based, Code Pink-backed International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza should deviate from the standard Left Zionist American line by clearly acknowledging “that Palestinians have for over six decades been denied their basic rights that they are entitled to under international law, including the right of return, and the fact that Palestinian civil society has adopted Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as one of its main civil resistance strategies against Israel’s occupation and other injustices.”
    The coalition’s newly adopted “Statement of Context” does indeed mention the Right of Return and BDS. This crossed one or more of Finkelstein’s red lines. Now, I’ve read at least three books by Norman Finkelstein and I’ve heard him speak on two occasions. Additionally, I’ve watched debates and interviews with him and read some of his shorter online writings. Finkelstein has shown real courage and made important scholarly contributions to understanding Zionism and the Jewish state. It is unfortunate then that even as he has repeatedly been a victim of Zionists, Finkelstein is himself functionally a Zionist of the Left-liberal persuasion.

    He does untold harm to the Palestinian people and the justice and peace movement by peddling his ‘softer’ but disguised Zionism to his adoring fans in the cloak of “the international consensus,” etc. This makes him much more dangerous to the Palestinian solidarity movement than people like Netanyahu or Dershowitz because so many folks are unable or disinclined to see past the impressive surface to the heart of Finkelstein’s pro-Zionist discourse. As Malcolm X once said, “I’d rather walk among rattlesnakes, whose constant rattle warns me where they are, than among those … snakes who grin and make you forget you’re still in a snake pit.”…….

    Exclude Censorship, not Zionism, from the Debate
    written by Saja

    Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Friday September 26, 2008 to a predominantly Muslim audience at the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn, Michigan. I’d liked a few things I’d read by and about him. His style was engaging and he had generally good things to say – that is, until he started giving the audience practical tips. He said that while his PhD dissertation was about Zionism, we should not get into “ideological conversations about who is a Zionist.” What mattered was focusing on stances on torture and house demolitions. He also advised that Palestinians be “reasonable” and consider compensation instead of their full rights.

    I challenged him on this point during Q&A in that opposing occupation without condemning Zionism is like opposing slavery without condemning white supremacy, and that we American taxpayers and participants in the genocide of Palestinians (whether intentionally or not) should have more humility than tell Arabs whether or not to discuss the ideology behind their dispossession. Otherwise, we would look like gatekeepers on the discourse.

    Finkelstein became angry insisted that we not engage in “Starbucks discussions” about Zionism! He referred to Chomsky as an example of someone who should not be considered an enemy in spite of their Zionism. Then he deferred to the Palestinian academic sitting next to him who said he agreed with Finkelstein; that Arab nationalism was no longer useful; and that he even supported a Kurdish state! It was unclear why he supported Kurdish nationalism, the existing mode of which divides a war-torn Iraq and serves imperialism, but not Arab nationalism….

  134. Lance Watson said on September 10th, 2009 at 8:57am #


    Why I resigned from the Gaza Freedom March coalition:

    The original consensus of the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza was that we would limit our statement to a pair of uncontroversial, basic and complementary principles that would have the broadest possible appeal: the march to break the siege would be nonviolent and anchored in international law. I agreed with this approach and consequent statement and decided to remove myself from the steering committee in order to invest my full energies in mobilizing for the march. During the week beginning August 30, 2009 and in a matter of days an entirely new sectarian agenda dubbed “the political context” was foisted on those who originally signed on and worked tirelessly for three months. Because it drags in contentious issues that–however precious to different constituencies–are wholly to the narrow but critical goal of breaking the siege this new agenda is gratuitously divisive and it is almost certain that it will drastically reduce the potential reach of our original appeal. It should perhaps be stressed that the point of dispute was not whether one personally supported a particular Palestinian right or strategy to end the occupation. It was whether inclusion in the coalition’s statement of a particular right or strategy was necessary if it was both unrelated to the immediate objective of breaking the siege and dimmed the prospect of a truly mass demonstration. In addition the tactics by which this new agenda was imposed do not bode well for the future of the coalition’s work and will likely move the coalition in an increasingly sectarian direction. I joined the coalition because I believed that an unprecedented opportunity now exists to mobilize a broad public whereby we could make a substantive and not just symbolic contribution towards breaking the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza and, accordingly, realize a genuine and not just token gesture of solidarity with the people of Gaza. In its present political configuration I no longer believe the coalition can achieve such a goal. Because I would loathe getting bogged down in a petty and squalid public brawl I will not comment further on this matter unless the sequence of events climaxing in my decision to resign are misrepresented by interested parties. However I would be remiss in my moral obligations were I not humbly to apologize to those who, either coaxed by me or encouraged by my participation, gave selflessly of themselves to make the march a historic event and now feel aggrieved at the abrupt turn of events. It can only be said in extenuation that I along with many others desperately fought to preserve the ecumenical vision that originally inspired the march but the obstacles thrown in our path ultimately proved insurmountable.

  135. Lance Watson said on September 10th, 2009 at 9:08am #

    Max Ajl writes


    Why Norman Finkelstein Resigned from the Gaza Freedom March

    A prefatory word. Norman Finkelstein had my highest regard. Unsparing in his judgment, pulling not the slightest punch in his rhetoric, universal in his morality and religious in his adherence to fact, I respected him and his work enormously and thought his dismissal from DePaul and his (still) lack of an academic post pathetic–the output of a system manned at every level by cowards and fools. A friend pointed out that Finkelstein’s fate was probably “inevitable,” and suggested he was in that sense looking for it. Perhaps true, but not so much an indictment of the man as of the system he decided to crash into, kamikaze-like. Maybe the analogy is over-drawn–in that respect Finkelstein has been self-effacing, speaking of his foreknowledge of the consequences of his actions. He’s obviously aware that the US is not a totalitarian state. The crashing kamikaze was his academic career and not his life. Anyway, that’s enough overwrought prose about my intense admiration for Finkelstein and the choices he’s made.

    A member of my I-P organizing committee e-mailed me yesterday to say that the undertaking was going forward with endorsements based upon a “Statement of Context.” Situating the march with respect to this statement of context was, apparently, the condition for Omar Barghouti and Haidar Eid [and fuck the pretense to omniscience; didn’t know who he was before today] to endorse the march. Fair enough: they’re the Palestinians, we’re the Westerners. They set the terms for our solidarity. That, I’m with. Norman Finkelstein has left the march because of the conditions set for this endorsement. He didn’t leave quietly and amicably. He left and made a statement. That statement was harsh. That statement was public. It didn’t have to be. But a public statement invites a public response. There will be a public response, I imagine. My statement. But a few words. About this phrase, “it is almost certain that it will drastically reduce the potential reach of our original appeal”: is this self-fulfilling prophecy, since Finkelstein, who had intended to barnstorm to raise awareness of this mobilization, will no longer be expanding the “reach of our original appeal”? I’m relatively new to this stuff, but wasn’t it important to first get near-unanimity from Palestinian civil society on the principles underlying the march and thereupon move forward on that foundation? And seriously: what Americans or Westerners would leave a coalition because of a “statement of context,” or wouldn’t join because of it? I’d be “remiss” if I didn’t point out that in the e-mail traffic of the last few months concern about the statement of principles wasn’t NF’s priority except as a diversion from organizing and mobilization. But now it’s “sectarian,” so much so as to cause resignation. Cue self-serious tone: it’s not a happy moment for me when someone I admire so much crashes so hard to earth.

    The original consensus of the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza was that we would limit our statement to a pair of uncontroversial, basic and complementary principles that would have the broadest possible appeal: the march to break the siege would be nonviolent and anchored in international law. I agreed with this approach and consequent statement and decided to remove myself from the steering committee in order to invest my full energies in mobilizing for the march.readers can probably guess what I think of Finkelstein’s

    During the week beginning August 30, 2009 and in a matter of days an entirely new sectarian agenda dubbed “the political context” was foisted on those who originally signed on and worked tirelessly for three months. Because it drags in contentious issues that — however precious to different constituencies — are wholly extraneous to the narrow but critical goal of breaking the siege this new agenda is gratuitously divisive and it is almost certain that it will drastically reduce the potential reach of our original appeal.

    It should perhaps be stressed that the point of dispute was not whether one personally supported a particular Palestinian right or strategy to end the occupation. It was whether inclusion in the coalition’s statement of a particular right or strategy was necessary if it was both unrelated to the immediate objective of breaking the siege and dimmed the prospect of a truly mass demonstration. In addition the tactics by which this new agenda was imposed do not bode well for the future of the coalition’s work and will likely move the coalition in an increasingly sectarian direction.

    I joined the coalition because I believed that an unprecedented opportunity now exists to mobilize a broad public whereby we could make a substantive and not just symbolic contribution towards breaking the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza and, accordingly, realize a genuine and not just token gesture of solidarity with the people of Gaza. In its present political configuration I no longer believe the coalition can achieve such a goal.

    Because I would loathe getting bogged down in a petty and squalid public brawl I will not comment further on this matter unless the sequence of events climaxing in my decision to resign are misrepresented by interested parties. However I would be remiss in my moral obligations were I not humbly to apologize to those who, either coaxed by me or encouraged by my participation, gave selflessly of themselves to make the march a historic event and now feel aggrieved at the abrupt turn of events.

    It can only be said in extenuation that I along with many others desperately fought to preserve the ecumenical vision that originally inspired the march but the obstacles thrown in our path ultimately proved insurmountable.

  136. Lance Watson said on September 10th, 2009 at 9:30am #

    The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza formed after Israel’s 22-day assault on Gaza in winter 2008-09.
    To mark the one-year anniversary of the Israeli attack the coalition is mobilizing an international contingent for a nonviolent march alongside the people of Gaza on Jan. 1, 2010, in order to end the illegal blockade.

    Gaza Freedom March Coordinating Committee (CC)
    This committee is charged with making strategic and policy decisions related to the march.

    Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, and has helped organized five trips to Gaza since February 2009.
    Abie Dawjee is the director of a media centre based in Durban, South Africa. He organized a plane-load of humanitarian aid to Iraq during the sanction years and also led a group of South African Human Shields into Baghdad at the start of the war . He is an activist for Palestinian human rights.
    Felice Gelman works on Palestine issues with WESPAC Foundation. She is on the board of the Friends of the Jenin Freedom Theatre, and recently organized a New York area delegation to Gaza.
    Mirene Ghossein has served on various human rights and cultural organizations in both Lebanon and the US. She is a member of Adalah (Arabic for Justice) NY, the Middle East Committee of WESPAC Foundation, and Alwan for the Arts.

    Abdeen Jabara is a Michigan-born lawyer, former National President of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1986-1990), and long time activist for Palestinian human rights.
    Dina Kennedy is a member of American Palestinian Women’s Association and a U.S. coordinator for Free Gaza.
    Ehab Lotayef is a Montreal-based writer and engineer, and a veteran activist in the struggle for Palestinian rights.
    Nancy Murray is president of the Gaza Mental Health Foundation and a long time activist for civil and human rights
    Oruba Rabie is a Palestinian-American graduate student at New Jersey Institute of Technology and a writer for the “Arab Voice” newspaper.
    Ann Wright is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, former U.S. diplomat who resigned in opposition to the Iraq war and co-leader in 2009 of three CODEPINK delegations to Gaza and one delegation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    Gaza Freedom March Liaison Committee (LC)
    This committee consists of the chairpersons of the various working committees.

    Ali Glenesk is a fourth year UC Berkeley student concentrating in Arabic and Global Poverty and was a lead organizer of the May 2009 40-person student delegation to Gaza. Glenesk is the contact person for the Gaza Freedom March Student Coordinating Committee (SCC).
    Ali Mallah is vice president of the Canadian Arab Federation in Ontario, a member of the steering committee of the Canadian Peace Alliance and a founding member of Trade Unionists Against War and the Coalition to Stop War. Ali is the contact person for the North American Muslim/Arab Community Outreach Committee.
    Nadia Hijab is a syndicated columnist, author, public speaker and media commentator. She has served as co-chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and is a past president of the Association of Arab American University Graduates. She is on the International Outreach Committee for the March.
    Sayel Kayed is a Palestinian-American and an active member of American Muslims for Palestine. He helped organize the last Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza, July 200
    Gael Murphy is the cochair of the legislative committee of United for Peace and Justice and a cofounder of CODEPINK. Murphy is the contact person for the Elected Officials Outreach Committee.
    Pam Rasmussen is on the steering committee of PeaceAction Montgomery and was an International Solidarity Movement volunteer in the West Bank. Rasmussen is the contact person for the Peace and Justice Outreach Committee.
    Alan Stolerov is professor of sociology and labor studies at the Lisbon University Institute in Portugal and a veteran activist organizing solidarity with the Palestinian people in Portugal. Stolerov is the contact person for the European Outreach Committee.

    The coalition conceives this march as part of a broader strategy to end the Israeli occupation by targeting nonviolently its flagrant violations of international law from the house demolitions and settlements to the curfews and torture



    Amnesty International has called the Gaza blockade a “form of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, a flagrant violation of Israel’s obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.” Human Rights Watch has called the blockade a “serious violation of international law.” The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Richard Falk, condemned Israel’s siege of Gaza as amounting to a “crime against humanity.”

    Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has said the Palestinian people trapped in Gaza are being treated “like animals,” and has called for “ending of the siege of Gaza” that is depriving “one and a half million people of the necessities of life.”

    One of the world’s leading authorities on Gaza, Sara Roy of Harvard University, has said that the consequence of the siege “is undeniably one of mass suffering, created largely by Israel, but with the active complicity of the international community, especially the U.S. and European Union.”

    The law is clear. The conscience of humankind is shocked.

    The Palestinians of Gaza have exhorted the international community to move beyond words of condemnation.

    Yet, the siege of Gaza continues.

    Upholding International Law

    The illegal siege of Gaza is not happening in a vacuum. It is one of the many illegal acts committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories it occupied militarily in 1967

    The Freedom March also draws inspiration from the civil rights movement in the United States.

    If Israel devalues Palestinian life then internationals must both interpose their bodies to shield Palestinians from Israeli brutality and bear personal witness to the inhumanity that Palestinians daily confront.

    If Israel defies international law then people of conscience must send non-violent marshals from around the world to enforce the law of the international community in Gaza. The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza will dispatch contingents from around the world to Gaza to mark the anniversary of Israel’s bloody 22-day assault on Gaza in December 2008 – January 2009.

    The Freedom March takes no sides in internal Palestinian politics. It sides only with international law and the primacy of human rights.

    The March is yet another link in the chain of non-violent resistance to Israel’s flagrant disregard of international law.

    Citizens of the world are called upon to join ranks with Palestinians in the January 1st March to lift the inhumane siege of Gaza.

    ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????

  137. Lance Watson said on September 10th, 2009 at 9:59am #

    Playboy Interviews Malcolm X – Pg 5


    MALCOLM X: Yes, sir. I turned the things I mentioned to you over to them. And I had a good working system of paying off policemen. It was here that I learned that vice and crime can only exist, at least the kind and level that I was in, to the degree that the police cooperate with it. I had several men working and I was a steerer myself. I steered white people with money from downtown to whatever kind of sin they wanted in Harlem. I didn’t care what they wanted, I knew where to take them to it. And I tell you what I noticed here–that my best customers always were the officials, the top police people, businessmen, politicians and clergymen. I never forgot that. I met all levels of these white people, supplied them with everything they wanted, and I saw that they were just a filthy race of devils. But despite the fact that my own father was murdered by whites, and I had seen my people all my life brutalized by whites, I was still blind enough to mix with them and socialize with them. I thought they were gods and goddesses–until Mr. Muhammad’s powerful spiritual message opened my eyes and enabled me to see them as a race of devils. Nothing had made me see the white man as he is until one word from the Honorable Elijah Muhammad opened my eyes overnight.

    PLAYBOY: When did this happen?

    MALCOLM X: In prison. I was finally caught and spent 77 months in three different prisons. But it was the greatest thing that ever happened to me, because it was in prison that I first heard the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. His teachings were what turned me around. The first time I heard the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s statement, “The white man is the devil,” it just clicked. I am a good example of why Islam is spreading so rapidly across the land. I was nothing but another convict, a semi-illiterate criminal. Mr. Muhammad’s teachings were able to reach into prison, which is the level where people are considered to have fallen as low as they can go. His teachings brought me from behind prison walls and placed me on the podiums of some of the leading colleges and universities in the country. I often think, sir, that in 1946, I was sentenced to 8 to 10 years in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as a common thief who had never passed the eighth grade. And the next time I went back to Cambridge was in March 1961, as a guest speaker at the Harvard Law School Forum. This is the best example of Mr. Muhammad’s ability to take nothing and make something, to take nobody and make somebody.

    PLAYBOY: Your rise to prominence in the Muslim organization has been so swift that a number of your own membership have hailed you as their articulate exemplar, and many anti-Muslims regard you as the real brains and power of the movement. What is your reaction to this sudden eminence?

    MALCOLM X: Sir, it’s heresy to imply that I am in any way whatever even equal to Mr. Muhammad. No man on earth today is his equal. Whatever I am that is good, it is through what I have been taught by Mr. Muhammad.

    PLAYBOY: Be that as it may, the time is near when your leader, who is 65, will have to retire from leadership of the Muslim movement. Many observers predict that when this day comes, the new Messenger of Allah in America–a role which you have called the most powerful of any black man in the world–will be Malcolm X. How do you feel about this prospect?

    MALCOLM X: Sir, I can only say that God chose Mr. Muhammad as his Messenger, and Mr. Muhammad chose me and many others to help him. Only God has the say-so. But I will tell you one thing. I frankly don’t believe that I or anyone else am worthy to succeed Mr. Muhammad. No one preceded him. I don’t think I could make the sacrifice he has made, or set his good example. He has done more than lay down his life. But his work is already done with the seed he has planted among black people. If Mr. Muhammad and every identifiable follower he has, certainly including myself, were tomorrow removed from the scene by more of the white man’s brutality, there is one thing to be sure of: Mr. Muhammad’s teachings of the naked truth have fallen upon fertile soil among 20,000,000 black men here in this wilderness of North America.

    PLAYBOY: Has the soil, in your opinion, been as fertile for Mr. Muhammad’s teachings elsewhere in the world–among the emerging nations of black Africa, for instance?

    MALCOLM X: I think not only that his teachings have had considerable impact even in Africa but that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad has had a greater impact on the world than the rise of the African nations. I say this as objectively as I can, being a Muslim. Even the Christian missionaries are conceding that in black Africa, for every Christian conversion, there are two Muslim conversions.

    PLAYBOY: Might conversions be even more numerous if it weren’t for the somewhat strained relations which are said by several Negro writers to exist between the black people of Africa and America?

    MALCOLM X: Perhaps. You see, the American black man sees the African come here and live where the American black man can’t. The Negro sees the African come here with a sheet on and go places where the Negro–dressed like a white man, talking like a white man, sometimes as wealthy as the white man–can’t go. When I’m traveling around the country, I use my real Muslim name, Malik Shabazz. I make my hotel reservations under that name, and I always see the same thing I’ve just been telling you. I come to the desk and always see that “here-comes-a-Negro” look. It’s kind of a reserved, coldly tolerant cordiality. But when I say “Malik Shabazz,” their whole attitude changes: they snap to respect. They think I’m an African. People say what’s in a name? There’s a whole lot in a name. The American black man is seeing the African respected as a human being. The African gets respect because he has an identity and cultural roots. But most of all because the African owns some land. For these reasons he has his human rights recognized, and that makes his civil rights automatic.

    PLAYBOY: Do you feel this is true of Negro civil and human rights in South Africa, where the doctrine of apartheid is enforced by the government of Prime Minister Verwoerd?

    MALCOLM X: They don’t stand for anything different in South Africa than America stands for. The only difference is over there they preach as well as practice apartheid. America preaches freedom and practices slavery. America preaches integration and practices segregation. Verwoerd is an honest white man. So are the Barnetts, Faubuses, Eastlands and Rockwells. They want to keep all white people white. And we want to keep all black people black. As between the racists and the integrationists, I highly prefer the racists. I’d rather walk among rattlesnakes, whose constant rattle warns me where they are, than among those Northern snakes who grin and make you forget you’re still in a snake pit. Any white man is against blacks. The entire American economy is based on white supremacy. Even the religious philosophy is, in essence, white supremacy. A white Jesus. A white Virgin. White angels. White everything. But a black Devil, of course. The “Uncle Sam” political foundation is based on white supremacy, relegating nonwhites to second-class citizenship. It goes without saying that the social philosophy is strictly white supremacist. And the educational system perpetuates white supremacy.

  138. kalidas said on September 10th, 2009 at 10:52am #

    There’s no such thing as sayanim.
    There’s no such thing as sayanim.
    There’s no such thing as sayanim.
    (or Kol Nidre)

  139. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 10th, 2009 at 11:02am #

    We know what finkelstein is against but we do not know, as far as i know, what he’s for. What one is for appears by far more important than what he says he’s against.

    We know that chomsky like all other ‘zionists’ is for a two state ‘solution’ or separated counties for pal’ns and against the right to return.
    If finkelstein thinks like chomsky, et al, then i can see why he’s not for inclusion of a protest against ‘zionism’; which is the root of the problem.

  140. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 10th, 2009 at 12:04pm #

    the real problem is to do with cabbage and its multilayers hiding insects

  141. Shabnam said on September 10th, 2009 at 12:18pm #

    [Finkelstein became angry insisted that we not engage in “Starbucks discussions” about Zionism! He referred to Chomsky as an example of someone who should not be considered an enemy in spite of their Zionism. Then he deferred to the Palestinian academic sitting next to him who said he agreed with Finkelstein; that Arab nationalism was no longer useful; and that he even supported a Kurdish state! It was unclear why he supported Kurdish nationalism, the existing mode of which divides a war-torn Iraq and serves imperialism, but not Arab nationalism.]

    All zionists like Chomsky, Finkestein and other pro ‘jewish state’ support partition of Palestine and the regional states. The zionist enablers push for Israe’sl plan in a ‘clever’ way and support the following:

    – two states solution
    – no right of return
    – creation of a terrorist state of ‘kurdistan’ where is one of the reason
    behind the Iraq war to help Apartheid state.


    They attack Arab and other groups nationalism but supports jewish nationalism and Kurdish nationalism, which is racist, and violent, like zionism. Kurds are fully cooperating with zionist’s agenda against the neighboring countries and people of Iraq to help Israel and in return to expand their tribe. They are trained by the terrorist state of Israel and closet zionists of the West are totally silent on terrorist activities of Kurds who have become Israel’s PAWNS.

    Chomsky also supports independent Kurdistan where majority of the population in the region are against Kurdish collaboration and cooperation with terrorist state of Israel. We warn these zionists to fu*k off from Middle Eastern politics and ask people of the region to be united against the common enemy, zionism and their enablers.

  142. Max Shields said on September 10th, 2009 at 1:49pm #


    I agree with your point about the two-state solution as a means of achieving Israel hegemony in the region. The only two-state solution is one that allows Israel to dominate. The region does not, ecologically provide for two states. If there were to be another, Palestinian, state, it would be unsustainable. You simply cannot divide the rigion into two viable sustainable states.

    Right of return for all Palestinians is a must.

    Understanding this, is a true test of Palestinian justice, and justice of all indigenous peoples.

    If there are those, here on DV, who either push for a two-state, or who simply offer no solutions, but repeatedly throw ad homenums at Chomsky, and now Finkelstein, then I question their motives.

    I have always found Chomsky very weak on the issue of a just solution. But, on DV, we seem to have gathered not cogent solutions for the people who have been devasted by the Israeli/Zionist war machine, but character assasination…whether Chomsky deserves it or not it is completely out of proportion to his role.

    What Chomsky has to offer, that is an understanding of US imperialism, can be gotten elsewhere. There is no need to keep repeating one’s hatred for the man.

    Offer some level of compassion and empathy for the indigenous people of the region…whether Westerners should be intervening with “solutions” is another issue. But if we listen to the Palestinians I think we’ll find that right of return is NUMBER ONE.

  143. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 10th, 2009 at 3:56pm #

    It is possible to fail in many ways…while to succeed is possible only in one way.

  144. Shabnam said on September 10th, 2009 at 6:11pm #

    Thanks for your comment. You are right about two state solutions and the right of return. I hope other people come to the same Position as you have. Our region has been devastated and needs less interference and more unity to serve the interest of all in the region. The destabilization project MUST STOP. One of the mechanisms for destabilization is the use of minorities and different religious groups. I have nothing against Chomsky or Finkestein. In fact for so many years, I was the follower of Chomsky because I did like what he had to say about imperialism. We hold American imperialism responsible for keeping the Shah in power or toppling Mosaddeq in a coup with MI6 involvement in the plot. However, things have changed after the demise of the Soviet Union but Chomsky’s analysis has almost remained the same. I was not informed on Palestinian dispossession in the past, however, I was surprised to hear from the American ‘left’ that Palestinian movement is ‘nationalist movement’ and we are looking for Socialist movement, therefore it should not divert our attention from socialism. They claimed we have to fight for Socialism since socialism can free everyone including Palestinians and bring justice. We have seen what has happened.
    You should understand that people are not after Chomsky or Finklestein per say, rather they are following their political discourse and actions since these people have big impact, especially Chomsky, on heart and minds of the ‘left’ leaning people in the Middle East. The ignorant Iranians do not know many political writers but almost majority of Iranian ‘left’ know Chomsky. They accept anything Chomsky said much challenge, like me in the past. Thus, it is important to show that the Zionist forces exert a lot of influence on American foreign policy decision making in the region. A lot of ignorant Iranians do not know ‘genocide’ in Sudan is fabricated by ‘save Darfur.’ They raise a question like why people do not go after Sudanese government; instead they go after Israel to defend Palestinians? Iranian fools are more comfortable to associate with ‘power’ and are willing to accept lies by power rather to educate themselves about the truth. So, words of people with influence have strong impact on others. When Chomsky and people like him go around and call the Iranian elections ‘fraud’, without that much evidence, then I feel I must do something to control the damage. How Chomsky did come to this position? Where is the evidence? Chomsky is not stupid to be manipulated by a charlatan, Akbar Ganji, one of the opposition who arranged hunger strike in front of the United Nation where Chomsky joined him and other Iranian monarchists and professional whores to protest against ‘fraud’ in the elections and to support the phony ‘green wave.’
    The following link is a good article; I have just spotted today, about what had happened that led to the protest. I think this article tells the truth and the writer, like me, believes that calling the election


    ‘Fraud’ is nothing but hoax.
    I am disappointing with Chomsky not only on his rejection of Israel Lobby’s influence on American politics but also by his support for an independent Kurdish state. This has a potential to bring more bloodshed to the region for decades to come and no one will be the beneficial except Israel. Chomsky is always talking about Turkish government as responsible party for oppression of the Kurds, however, when it comes to Palestinian situation he hold US imperialism as the main factor and treats Israel as a client that is following the order.
    Chomsky and others should be very careful with partition of Iraq where no one, I mean no one, wants. Chomsky was against partition of Yugoslavia, correctly, and formation of an independent state for Cassava. Why does he support an independent state of Kurdistan?
    People should read what Kurds and Azeri are talking about. They are fighting over which territories belong to them while the Iranian government is fighting against all riots to maintain orders.

  145. B99 said on September 10th, 2009 at 7:43pm #

    Of course the ecology of the region provides for two states, or three or four. There is no reason that the several states cannot cooperate on environmental issues. That’s what members of the EU do everyday. What is required is a just peace – that’s the only way that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine will cooperate with Israel on water issues and environmental protections. That’s a far quicker way to get there than to wait for some mega-state to emerge.

    The Right of Return is of course is inalienable. As it stands, no one speaks for the refugees – the displaced Palestinians – neither Hamas nor Fatah speaks for them.

    Slamming Chomsky and Finkelstein ad infinitum is useless and retrograde. Chomsky – and to a lesser extent Finkelstein serve several purposes. One, they bring attention to the Palestine issue – two, they move American Jews to the left on the issue – and that’s very important – and three, they are a deep reservoir of meticulously researched info.

    The genocide in Darfur is real. The many thousands of refugees in Chad did not go there by choice. That Jews and Israel have jumped on the issue for propaganda purposes does not mean it did not happen.

    The Kurds were agitating for a state before either me (and I’m no kid) or even Shabnam had heard of Kurdistan. They have the same right of self-determination as any people. That the Israelis were able to capitalize on this desire is the fault of the Arabs, Turks, and Persians.

    All this stuff on here about the US being behind 9/11 is patent nonsense. All that kind of talk makes DV a site for cranks and jokers.

  146. Deadbeat said on September 10th, 2009 at 10:55pm #

    B99 writes …
    Slamming Chomsky and Finkelstein ad infinitum is useless and retrograde. Chomsky – and to a lesser extent Finkelstein serve several purposes. One, they bring attention to the Palestine issue – two, they move American Jews to the left on the issue – and that’s very important – and three, they are a deep reservoir of meticulously researched info.

    Both Chomksy and to a lesser extent Finkelstein have used their high profiles to divert the American public attention away from the influence of Zionism on the American political economy. Thus is does go to directly to political power and influence that effect U.S. policy. Therefore it is contradictory to say that Finkelstein & Chomsky are bringing attention to the plight of the Palestinians while apologizing for AIPAC. That contradiction doesn’t line up especially since the power and influence of AIPAC and the Israel lobby has grown over the past 30 years. Therefore to dismiss such criticism as “retrograde” misses the influence and persuasion that Chomsky most especially has had on the Left in order to divert attention away from a very serious problem and contradiction. The condition of the anti-war movement today is a testimony to what you call “retrograde”.

  147. Deadbeat said on September 10th, 2009 at 11:00pm #


    Thanks for posting these critiques which addresses the seriousness of the “retrograde” state of politics on the Left.


  148. dino said on September 11th, 2009 at 12:37am #

    DB.you are not interested in justice because you are interested in making a huge injustice to Chomsky.In my view what you say is pure stupidity and also the thanks which you address to everyone who helds your opinions.And also the idea that Chomski,by cunning,paralysed the “left movement”.Take,for experience ,a young man and give him all what Chomsky wrote on Middle East and take an other and give him what you and your friends wrote on issue and check who is really better informed and who is really readier to strugle for justice.BTW i want to quote a sentence from your idol Blankfort:” I consider Zionism to be a mental illness which makes otherwise decent folks behave like Nazis or Afrikaners. — 1 January 2006?Making his style of accusstion on Chomsky, one could say that Blackfort wants to cove r the general behavior of Jewish people marking only its behavior regarding Palestine but out of it they are “decent folks”

  149. Jeff Blankfort said on September 11th, 2009 at 12:53am #

    Just happened to see this, and yes, I do consider zionism to be a mental illness, a severe and dangerous form of nationalism when allowed to flourish without restrictions, and yes, I have over the years seen numerous people, friends and friends of my parents, basically decent and progressive, go insane when Palestinies would be spoke of in a positive manner. I was not referring to Chomsky because he only goes ballistic when criticized from the left and he clearly has shown sympathy for the Palestinian plight. That he has been opposed to doing anything serious about arresting that plight, such as stopping US aid to Israel or supporting boycott, divestment and sanctions, might make some question how deep that sympathy actually is, but
    I’ve already had my say about Chomsky and I’ll leave it at that.

  150. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:34am #

    Dino writes …

    DB.you are not interested in justice because you are interested in making a huge injustice to Chomsky.In my view what you say is pure stupidity and also the thanks which you address to everyone who helds your opinions.And also the idea that Chomski,by cunning,paralysed the “left movement”.Take,for experience ,a young man and give him all what Chomsky wrote on Middle East and take an other and give him what you and your friends wrote on issue and check who is really better informed and who is really readier to strugle for justice

    Dino you need to do more research and READ Chomsky’s own WORDS on his stance against the “Jewish” state. He is AGAINST any boycott of Israel and he EXCUSES AIPAC and essentially ignore the rising influence of Zionism on the U.S. political economy. Thus Noam Chomsky who possesses iconic status – much greater than yours truly, has a VAST forum to PERSUADE activists. Activist like you, dino, who hinges on Noam Chomsky every word to such a degree that you cannot think for yourself. That you, dino, seem to be bereft of a grounding ethics that guide your thinking. You in fact needs a Zionist to do your thinking for you — how sad.


  151. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:51am #

    And also the idea that Chomski,by cunning,paralysed the “left movement”

    The Left is SO FAR BEHIND that the Left cannot construct a decent response to the Capitalist crisis. You have Richard Oxman devising a hair-brained scheme whereby celebrity and iconic “Lefties” are need to give the idea “credibility”.

    Yet today an ordinary citizen MADE A BOLD MOVE to encourage CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE by initiating a debt revolt. This lady is making a sacrifice and is taking a huge risk. The yawning lefty celebrities are taking no such risk and advocate no such risk. In fact Chomsky is not one to confront Zionism head on as he is an admitted Zionist.

  152. dino said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:06am #

    DB,is totally false,i’m not fixed in Chomsky opinions.I’m thinking that Ahmadinejad is a progresist ,an a valuable fighter against US and Israel imperialism and i wrote it long before the dispute around Chomsky began.I see a certain order of priorities and first is to remind every day what the “Western” prepare ,by lies ,for Iran .The second is Gaza inhuman siege and the desire to see a comparison between Gaza and ghetto warsha made by a serious historion,serious and courageous,after it the check points in West Bank and the “peace process”,and the last Noam Chomsky and his inconsequence.

  153. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 4:15am #

    I see a certain order of priorities and first is to remind every day what the “Western” prepare ,by lies ,for Iran .

    You see dino what you don’t seem to understand with your attack on me is that in order for the West to “prepare” activist much know who is on their side. If you have read Shamnam commentaries you would know that Noam Chomsky is NOT on the side of Ahmadinejad. He is a signatory of HOPI that has dubious alliances with Iranian exiles that support a regime change in Iran. HOPI was admonished by another British progressive organization because of their questionable advocacy. So Chomsky seems to be against the side you are on yet you chose to attack me? You need to figure out dino who side YOU are on.

    Also my focus on Chomsky is due to my understanding of American politics and that I can effect change in America. By affecting change in the U.S. is the best way that I can effect change in the world. One way is by analyzing the Left and understanding that unfortunately the current condition of the Left is actually retarding solidarity and retarding change. The next step it to investigate WHY?

    The why points to the division within the Left and a major reason for it being so divided is that the Left has FAILED to adhere to a set of principles. Noam Chomsky who has achieved such iconic status on the Left is a major reason for why the Left doesn’t adhere to the set of principles that should be associated with the Left — fairness, equality and justice. You can be both a Zionist and support justice and equality. Noam Chomsky is a Zionist. I am not placing this label on him this is what HE calls himself and his advocacy has help to keep activist (his followers) from confronting this racist ideology head on. How can someone who embraces a RACIST ideology be the ICON of the Left in the United States. What is amazing is the visceral reaction that Leftist exhibit when this fact is expressed.

    Why does the Left defend someone who is essentially telling the world he is a racist? Go figure.

  154. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 4:17am #

    Contradictions dino. That’s the problem. You must resolve the contradictions.

  155. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 4:36am #

    B99 “Of course the ecology of the region provides for two states, or three or four.”

    While I agree with much of what you stated, starting in the second paragraph of you last post, this use of “of course” is what I find so lacking in anything more than a nose in the air answer to the viability of a two-state solution.

    As it is the region cannot support – just look at the conditions of the Palestinians – I’m not talking about the air raids and vicious attacks, I’m talking about what the Israelis take in order to sustain the state of Israel. This leaves the Palestinian people with less and less. The state of Israel is extremely dependent on oil supplies, and irrigation/water that they consume at much higher rates than the Palestinians are allowed to.

    In its natural form, there would be a significant migration out of the region, particularly if the Palestinians had right of return. The whole dynamics of the region would change radically.

    This is not a simple case of carving out two countries from a finite region.

    Geopolitically, the argument takes centuries to resolve (forget the European analogy). But nature will trump geopolitics and so, not in our life times, perhaps, but within the 21st Century the region will collapse and what will exist will be closer to what existed prior to the intrusion of Zionism.

  156. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 4:56am #

    Naomi Klein and Durban

    September 10, 2009 By Joel Kovel
    Source: Mondoweiss

    (August 28, 2009) “Minority Death Match,” Naomi Klein’s feature story in the September Harper’s, is about the two ill-fated United Nations-sponsored Durban conferences on racism—in 2001 at the South African city, and in Geneva earlier this year—and what tied their failings together: the interrelations between Blacks and Jews, the manipulations of Zionism, and US presidential politics. It’s a typically sharp Klein piece, excoriating in its rendition of the betrayals by the great, including our Barack Obama, hard at work putting distance between himself and his black brethren.

    But there’s a problem. About midway in her article, Naomi turns to the disaster that took place in Durban-2001 and assigns blame for what went wrong. She concludes that a lot of the fault lay in the insertion of the “Zionism is racism” claim by Islamists into what was intended to be an event focussed on anti-black racism and the cause of reparations. This allowed the Israel lobbies in America and Europe to run wild with charges of blood-libel and other kinds of anti-semitism, thereby giving the US a pretext for withdrawing and throttling the rising cry for reparations. The fact that the conference ended just before 9/11/01 also had a great deal to do with this, as Naomi admits. But her main idea is that the reparations cause got side-swiped by the anti-Zionism cause although the former had all the legitimacy, the latter, none. For Klein, “The original Durban conference was not at all about Israel [as Zionists have charged]. . . ; it was overwhelmingly about Africa, the ongoing legacy of slavery, and the huge unpaid debts that the rich owe the poor.”

    I find this claim way off the mark, empirically, logically, morally and politically.

    • empirically, I have seen images of people marching at Durban in support of the anti-Zionist cause. Some were Neturai Karta, Orthodox anti-Zionist Jews, who came all the way from the United States for the purpose.
    • logically, it is nonsense to claim of an issue this immense, subtle and interrelated, that it is all one way or the other.
    • morally, it is wrong to prioritize amongst victims of injustice. The reparations movement is noble and worthwhile; but so is the Palestinian quest for justice.
    • politically, the UN, however flawed, cannot afford to either ignore or foreground any valid claim of collective racism. Naomi might have meant her judgment to be tactical, in that

    Africa, the continent plundered of black human beings as well as resources, can be seen as a natural setting for the reparations issue. But Africa is also home to many millions of Muslims and a smaller number of Jews (including Ethiopian Jews) caught up in the rift set going by Zionism. …

    Naomi Klein starts off and ends strongly. In the middle, however, her article runs into trouble, as the following passage reveals:

    There was one hitch. Six months before the meeting in Durban, at an Asian preparatory conference in Tehran, a few Islamic coutnries requested language in their draft of the Durban Declaration that described Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories as “a new form of apartheid” and a “form of genocide.” Then, a month before the conference, there was a new push for changes that were sure to grab international headlines. Some references to the Holocaust were placed in lower case, pluralized (“holocausts”), and paired with the “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine.” References to “the increase in anti-Semitism and hostile acts against Jews” were paired with phrases about “the increase of racist practices of Zionism,” and Zionism was described as a movement “based on racism and discriminatory ideas.”

    There is a strong argument to be made that Israel’s legal system­ which has different laws and even roads for Israelis and Palestinians living in the West Bank, and which grants and denies citizen rights based largely on religious affiliation the international definition of apartheid (a few years later, former president Jimmy Carter would use the same term to describe the segregation in the occupied territories). But taken as a whole, this proposed language­ by attempting to downplay the significance of the Holocaust and diluting the clauses on anti-Semitism ­carried an unmistakable whiff of denialism. …

  157. b99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 6:22am #

    The region is only viable in the long run with close cooperation on water issues – that’s the life blood. That cannot be done without a just peace between several parties. But it does not require that there be one state. It DOES require the cooperation of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria – because that’s where the headwaters of the Jordan River are (with the exception of the Dan River originating in Israel.) But there is no way they are going to become one country with Israel. Even if the WB alone (with or without Gaza) was to become one state with Israel, that still does not address the issue of the headwaters. Only peace and justice can enable cooperative agreements as to equitable use of water. Requiring one state in the region only delays a political solution – hence political independence must be separated from environmental issues.

    An independent Palestine in the WB and G must have guarantees over its water supply, most of which is rain-fed into its aquifers. That’s its last chance at insuring water goes to Palestinians and not removed for Jewish settlements or to Israel.

    There are no large scale oil supplies in these states to speak of. Israel’s oil is guaranteted by the US. The Palestinians have no such guarantee and cannot expect to have one in a merged state solution. Oil is not really the issue in the region.

    Nature will likely trump politics in the long run – but political independence for Palestine is not dependent upon it, nor can it wait for it to be the deciding factor.

    As for my nose in the air – who gives a shit? It’s not the issue so why go there?

  158. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 8:43am #

    DB, you are the most negative poster I’ve come across. Not cynical, just plain negative. You are a “kick the can down the road” kind of poster. The most you offer that seems productive, is a kind of vague notion of “solidarity”. But mostly you waste your time bashing various Jews in the name of some kind of exposure of their hidden Zionist agenda.

    Even if that is true it is totally negative and not one little bit of it means a damn to the circumstances of Palestinians.

    The solutions will not be defined by Naomi Kline, or Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein. These are NOT the ones stopping fundamental changes in Palestine.

    Most of the people who read Chomsky, are fairly bright and they are much more discerning than you give them credit…and if not…they are sheep that can and would be “led” by just about anyone…

    I don’t think Chomsky is a leader. And I don’t get the sense that he cares to be viewed as such.

    It is this totally obsessive focus you, Deadbeat, have with Chomsky and other Jewish intellectuals and your notion of a rather “dumb left” that follow blindly every word Chomsky utters. If you think in some area, Chomsky is a fraud, fine. but enough is enough. He’s not posting here, and the original article on this thread NEVER even mentions his name.

  159. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 9:41am #

    B99, I am definitely not suggesting that there can be an Israeli-centric one-state solution. To the contrary. As a corollary to that, there cannot be a Israeli-centric two-state solution. Given all we know about the land, how it is occupied, the Zionist push which is central to the very existence of the state of Israel makes a two-state totally impractical.

    Could there be an Arab multinational solution for the Palestinians? While I don’t think you are proposing this entirely, it brings the question back to whether the Palestinians will regain their land and the associated resources or simply find themselves as clusters within other regional nations, forever “outsiders”. They will not by negotiating with Israel achieve a fair shot at a self-sufficient state. And it is not me, but the Zionist who are the problem. Israel is a Zionist state and they are the wall (symbolically and literally) to any sustainable solution for Palestinians.

    That state cannot coexist in the region. It is by its very nature a predatory state, defined and settled as such to push the Palestinians out without remorse. To demonize the Palestinians into a genocidal oblivian. That is the Zionist manifesto. It is not a negotiable presence.

    Have the Zionist regimes played cat and mouse to appease a world public? Absolutely, but all the while they have continued to move forward with their mission.

    That mission is not sustainable, but it will not end with a quiet two-state solution as if two enemies finally declared peace. This is NOT Europe (continent with thousands of years of history and disruption behind it). Settled in ways that are extremely remote to the Palestinian problem.

  160. balkas b b said on September 11th, 2009 at 10:04am #

    folks, do not believe but do perceive [look-see]
    And what have many, most, or even all people not espied to date?
    Well folks, here it is: If ’67 conquest entitles christo-talmudic to parts of that conquest, what makes us think that it does not entitle the conquerors all that had been conquered?

    Yes, dear folks, all the conquered lands belong to christo-talmudic crowd.

  161. Shabnam said on September 11th, 2009 at 11:21am #

    [What is required is a just peace – that’s the only way that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine will cooperate with Israel on water issues and environmental protections. That’s a far quicker way to get there than to wait for some mega-state to emerge.]

    A just peace requires everything in Palestine to be shared by all parties, as Yehudi Menuhin always said, thus, it is feasible when one state for all establishes.
    How could you establish two fu*king states where 2/3 of Palestinian water has been stolen from the owner? Why Israel steals more water than she needs? Israel not only kills the indigenous population but also by stealing water, a vital element of life, diminishes the viability of life in the occupied territories for Palestinian to force them out of their ancestral land. Another reason behind stealing water is that Zionism means EXPANSION; therefore, she has to control resources through terror and destruction of indigenous population life.
    Much of the West Bank is under illegal Israeli occupation. The water reserve in the West Bank is also under illegal Israeli occupation, and Israel is stealing water from it. The Israeli military is in charge of the occupied Palestinian territories sold all of the water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Israeli National Water Corporation in 1982. So, the Israelis have stolen water that doesn’t belong to them.
    Palestinians only have access to 90 liters of water per day per capita. The Israelis get 284 liters per day per capita. The World Health Organization says the minimum requirement for a healthy nation should be at least 137 liters per day per capita. There are 314 wells in the West Bank where produce 38 million cubic meters for Palestinian consumption. On the other hand, there are 27 wells in Israeli settlements, which produce 14 million cubic meters for Israeli occupiers. This means that 5% of the wells draw over 30% of water for Israeli settlers where should be there in the first place. Israel has no plan to remove these terrorists.
    Through connecting the Palestinian water network with that of Israel’s main network, Israeli authorities have total control of water supplied to the Palestinians. Israel is in control of 81% of all water resources. Therefore, Israel has usurped over 26.4 billion cubic meters of Palestinian waters since it occupied the West Bank in 1967. The estimated value of the stolen water is 621 million US dollars.
    Furthermore, Israel has begun to divert water from the Jordan River basin to a man-made lake about 1.5 kilometers from the Jordan Valley near Jiftlik, north of Jericho. This man-made lake has a capacity to hold 4 million cubic meters of water.

    Israel did not honor its obligations under the Water Agreement it signed in Taba, between Palestinian side and Israeli side, on 28 September 1995. Article (4) of the Taba Agreement obligate Israel to transfer all authorities and special responsibilities related to water, 13 wells and stations that were under the administration of the military government, and sewage to the Palestinians. Till now Israel refuses to honor its obligations. It also controlled the origins of Jordan and Yarmook rivers in the occupied Golan Heights and the springs on Mount Hermon.

    How do you want to establish two fu*king states solution when there is a Zionist regime in place. The United States has not been able to stop these terrorists from building more settlements or give back their resources, in order to sustain life in the occupied region. Your solution of bringing other Arab states is not acceptable since Israel is stealing from the neighboring countries as well. It is Israel duty to cooperate with others since they were not invited to the region especially since they have no relation to Palestine what so ever. They came through capitulation of the regional states, demise of an ottoman empire, and maintain their presence through terror and occupation. The Zionist entity and its power extension in the western capitals, including Russia, help the Zionist bast*rds to carry out their plan even further. Therefore, it is necessary for all the people of the region to be united against zionist murderers and support the right of Palestinian to have their entire land back. Palestinians are the one who should determine whom they want to live with, and not the Zionists and zionist enablers who are misleading the fools to buy more time for these criminals to complete their project.
    B99 stop this nonsense right away.

    [The genocide in Darfur is real.]

    There has been killing in Darfur where originated over scarce resources not because Sudanese government had a plan, like zionist entity, to kill population of ‘non-Arab’ as Zionists have claimed. Mahmoud Mamdani, a Zionist puppet, has established that there was no ‘genocide’ in Darfur as ‘Save Darfur’ claims. Where did you get your information?

    The reason behind Zionist war in Iraq is to partition the country and create pawns like the Kurds. As I have said earlier, Kurdistan was part of Iran for centuries until early 16th century where Ottoman Empire invaded Iran and occupied territories where today is located in Syria, Turkey and Iraq. We never allow an independent Kurdistan to serve the zionist murderers, thus, whoever encourages such a plan we will view as an enemy because this plan is IN NO ONE INTEREST EXCEPT ISRAEL to establish ‘greater Israel’ because Israel needs access to oil from North of Iraq to be independent in terms of energy and we will not allow that to happen and tell all the closest Zionists to watch your mouth or perish from our region.

  162. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:13pm #

    DB, you are the most negative poster I’ve come across. Not cynical, just plain negative.

    Max Shields you are the most Zionist poster I’ve come across. Not cynical just plan Zionist.

  163. b99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:17pm #

    Shabnam – Max wrote about the pending ecological crisis in the region with a one-state solution as the answer. I’m saying that if you want to settle the ecological crisis, it will NOT come from a one-state solution but MUST come from cooperative agreements between S,J,L and Izrael as well as the Palestinians. The headwaters of the Jordan River are overwhelmingly outside of Israel. The only group cooperation on use of this resource and other waters that can be agreed upon is when a just peace comes to the region – that is when Palestine becomes a state. The Arab states will agree to cooperation if this happens. This is the only solution to the ecological crisis because Israel will not dissolve itself out of existence – and you cannot will it so. In sum, environmental agreements necessary to the entire Levant await a secure peace/justice treaty between Israel and Palestine. Such agreements cannot await Israel’s dissolution as it won’t be in our lifetimes.

    With regard to water theft, fully 40 percent of Israel’s water supply comes from aquifers under the WB (the Tananim Aquifer in particular). Last I looked, and this was several years ago, about 85% of West Bank water is provided to Jewish settlers or removed to Israel – about 15% is consumed by Palestinians on WB. This is obviously theft and obviously illegal. The only way Palestine can end this is with a firm peace treaty whereby Israel purchases water from Palestine at whatever price Palestine sets. Waiting for Israel to dissolve is too late. (Besides, in a unified state the Jews will continue to provide Jews with water at the expense of the Palestinians – the same Jim Crow they operate right now.)

    The origins of the Yarmouk are in Syria and Jordan. Israel does not control them until they reach the occupied Golan Heights.

    There is killing in Darfur that the Sudanese government either encourages or permits (of its OWN Citizens, no less!). There are masses of refugees in Chad living under extreme duress. This more than meets the UN definition of genocide and is the same one I use to accuse Israel of genocide.

    It does not matter who Kurdistan belonged to in ancient history – it only matters what they want now. Why do you not accept self-determination on the part of the Kurds? Including the Palestinians but excluding the Kurds renders your arguments about Palestine null and void. It renders your arguments merely Persian-centric. Instead of pushing Kurdistan towards Israel, the Arabs and Persians need to be establishing good relations with it. In that way, Kurdistan will behave correctly regarding oil. And let’s not forget that Iran supplied Israel with oil for decades.

  164. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:18pm #

    Mr. Shields why are you so protected of Zionism as it distorts the U.S. political economy. The best way that you can help the Palestinian is by confronting Zionism in the U.S. You cannot effect the policy in the Middle East but you do have power to effect policy in the United States. So by protection Chomsky and the other “Leftist” defenders of Zionism you sir are placing yourself in the same camp of diverting activist from challenging the racist ideology known as Zionism.

    The only conclusion Mr. Shields is that you’d rather defend/protect Zionism rather than confront it. Therefore you are one sir that need to be scrutinize because you sir are clearly not advancing the ideas of fairness and justice but supportive of racism and division.

  165. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:38pm #

    Oh silly me now I know my Mr. Shields labels me as “negative” it has to do with my critique of Richard Oxman’s silly plan to “take over California” (TOSCA). His plan to run a write-in candidate like Gary Coleman to run in the 2010 gubernatorial election. Mr. Oxman calls for no money, no sacrifice and no civil disobedience. He wants the same “big name” leftist “icon” to give his plan credibility.

    I already wrote a point-by-point critique of why his plan is woefully inadequate and Mr. Oxman failed to provide adequate arguments to support and defend his strategy. However Max you and lichen took that as a signal and an opportunity to engage in tag-team ad hominem especially since you lost so much face this week in this Jeffery Blankfort thread.

    I found Mr. Oxman engaging in the same kind of distraction that Chomskyites are famous for and the fact that Mr. Oxman seem to need the Zionist Noam Chomsky imprimatur to give his idea credibility raise question about the veracity of his strategy.

    What I did however was not only offer a critique but I also OFFERED A SUGGESTION for a BETTER approach. One grounded in Civil Disobedience — A DEBT REVOLT.

    This link in fact was posted on COUNTERPUNCH. Who I guess Mr. Shields think much be negative as well.

    I suggest that Oxman to marshall the good will of these leftist icons to develop strategies to PROTECT DEBT REVOLVERS especially since they are taking HUGE RISKS of their long term security. What risks are the YOU taking Max? You and Chomsky and the other closet Zionists on the Left are a bunch of provocateurs who real agenda is to maintain a fractured Left and to divert any real confrontation of Zionism in the United States. Which is why it is up to people who are non-icons to put their asses on the line in order to effect real change. Totally the opposite of the lameness that Oxman is proposing.

    You live in the United States Max and you talk a good game on DV but in the end you reveal yourself to be a bullshitter.

    Essentially Mr. Shields what I posted to DV is INSPIRING and POSITIVE. Your defense and lack of confrontation of a racist ideology
    IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY is the most negative and depressing thing to watch here on Dissident Voice.

  166. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 1:58pm #

    Deadbeat, only a non-reader would make the claims you make.

  167. lichen said on September 11th, 2009 at 2:05pm #

    I’m sure that the DV trolls, pro-war/pro-Israel/free market fundamentalists do find it inspiring to hear deadbeat constantly lambast and attack “the left” and say that every movement, every action is wrong and useless because it was not first formulated by his ego. I’m sure he is their hero, but for the rest of us, no, HE is the distraction, with his my-way-or-the-highway, angry specificity that naturally lends itself to no solidarity, no movement, no progress.

  168. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 2:38pm #

    B99, I’ve not been entirely clear. I’m not advocating state-hood for anyone. I understand that’s the way the world has spun for several centuries, but nation-states are problematic.

    Why do nations exist? I understand where this notion of “we all need a nation” comes from. Tribes, settlements all circle around some form of community, but nations are questionable, because they rarely if ever promote community. In fact, nation-states, while providing some appearance of stability, usually lean toward a centralization of power, a concentration of wealth (either in capital, land or power). It then justifies its existence through antagonization and fear.

    Taken to its limits, nation-states become empires and desire to expand their control over as many resources as possible.

    There are nation-states which have limited themselves and are relatively peaceful (not without internal mischief, to be sure) such as Switzerland, or the Netherlands. Again, their histories are varied. Small states, barely more than city-states tend to be more responsive to a culture and polity of the people.

    Nation-states have come under great scrutiny and criticism as a sustainable means for organizing the human species. So, Palestinians should be able to move back to the settlements and lands they once relatively peacefully farmed and to be able to fish and trade in peace; but that doesn’t mean we need to add another nation to the map; though the tendency is to do that – such as we recall during the 60s when the map of Africa seemed to change daily with newly configured states. And for the most part it has not bought peace and sustainability.

    So, while I think the two-state argument is not a solution, I’m not advocating for a state. If some sort of state, a home for Palestinians and others, is formed so be it, but we should not, in my opinion, think so unimaginatively that we cannot see a future whereby that region becomes a model of sustainable living, rather than merely a state squabbling with its neighbors, usually for the benefit of a tiny few.

  169. Shabnam said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:02pm #

    Your are really fearful to lose your apartheid regime of ‘jewish state’ like Chomsky . Your just solution is piece of wishful thinking to buy time for Israel. How do you expect the puppet Arab state, because of capitulation by Zionist entity and its financial backer who RUN THE WORLD and political cloud who are ruling every fuc*king western capital to cooperate with Palestinian to make a viable state? If all the state boycotts Israel then we will have different situation. You will say I am sure; there is no way that to happen. I say the same thing about your wishful suggestion where goes not only nowhere but it is does not give Palestinian a VIABLE STATE.
    {With regard to water theft, fully 40 percent of Israel’s water supply comes from aquifers under the WB (the Tananim Aquifer in particular).}

    West Bank is Palestinian and has been occupied by Israel, therefore, 40% of Israel’s water supply coming from stolen land where according to International Law is ILLEGAL.
    Palestinians are forced to purchase some 35 million cubic meters of potable water from the Israeli water company, where steals Palestinian water, at more than half a dollar for the cubic meter.


    [The following water resources are stolen by Israel. Lake Kinneret (a.k.a., the Sea of Galilee) provides over a third of Israel’s water. Another third comes from two aquifers—large, geographical areas of subterranean catchment where water accumulates. These aquifers, a body of a permeable rock that contains water in all its pores and can sustain producing wells, lie beneath the Gaza strip and the West Bank: precisely the territories Israel seized in the 1969 war.]

    Under international law, West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories, and the Geneva Conventions forbid moving people into an occupied territory. That’s precisely what Israel’s settlement program did. Israel then proceeded to siphon the water of the West Bank away from its native Palestinian population, to the new settler population.
    At the present, Israelis receive five times more water per person as Palestinians. On average, Israelis get 92.5 gallons per person per day, while Palestinians in the West Bank get 18.5 gallons per person per day. The minimum quantity of water recommended by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Health Organization for household and urban use alone is 26.4 gallons per person per day.
    Water resources is only one reason that Israel is not going to let the indigenous population live on their ancestral land. The Zionist regime must be disappeared from the face of earth first and then the international community through the UN must force one state solution, shares everything in a peaceful state, to bring just peace in Palestine. The rest is nothing but wishful thinking by Zionist enablers where it goes nowhere. They must forget about building a ‘jewish state’ at the heart of Arab land. They should take their ‘jewish state’ somewhere else, eitherGermany or to New York. Our region has suffered enough.

  170. balkas b b said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:15pm #

    Imo, at this stage of panhuman development, being ethno-centric may be OK.
    However, being muslim-centric, christo-centric, or talmudic/mosheic-centric appears a one of the worst ills to have befallen us.

  171. balkas b b said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:32pm #

    Exposing “jewishness”, of which ‘zionism’ is only a part, as dangerous and vile cultishness anywhere, and not just in US, appears morally and legally obligatory.

    On a living level, a person who calls self “jew” or “jewish” is wedded to the slaughter of amalek or children in gaza. A “jew” is connected to mosheic ‘laws’, talmudic and mishnahic ‘teachings’, israel, occupation, ‘settlements’, delay of peace, hatred of the goyim, etc.

    I do not care about what this multiethnic melange with the worst set of beliefs says; i only care what they do and don’t do.
    Yes ‘jews’ believe but do not perceive [look]. And the fourth shoah is surely coming! tnx

  172. Deadbeat said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:56pm #


    Admittedly I am not knowledgeable about religion nor knowledgeable of religious history. So I cannot judge “jewishness” or any other religious characteristics or generalizations. I do know that orthodox Jews are vocal critics of Zionism but how that fits into the overall history I have no idea nor can or will remark on such things.

    What I am familiar with is judging issues from the point of view of fairness, equality and justice. And both racism and capitalism are unjust. That is what defines my views and position.

    Overall I do appreciate reading contrasting views on the subject of religion.


  173. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 11th, 2009 at 6:14pm #

    Shabnam, your figures concerning Israeli water theft and the apartheid regime in water allocation are cogent. But according to David Goldman, who writes under the nomme de folie ‘Spengler’ at Asia Times, the Palestinian problem could simply be solved by reducing all aid to the Occupied Territories and Gaza. With that talent for arithmetical calculus that the Jews are famous for, Goldman compares the standard of living of Gazans and West Bankers, in comparison to the Arab ‘two-legs’ in general, and concludes that the Palestinians only stay put, and make such a nuisance of themselves, not out of love for their homeland (which, after all, as I’m sure Goldman believes, belongs to another, higher, type)but because they are living high on the hog, so to speak. So, reduce all that Western cossetting, and they’ll all bugger-off ‘elsewhere’, and hey presto, no two-legged animal problem anymore for Eretz Yisrael. It’s called Jewish humanitarianism, I believe. Maybe even that nauseating Rightwing favourite ‘tough love’.

  174. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 8:47pm #

    Shabnam, you are all bluff and no *real politik.* You and what army is going to vanquish Israel? You’d be better off convincing your fellow Iranians to play their cards close to their vest lest they find they themselves under the Israeli gun, so never mind your magical solutions to Palestinian’s Israel problem. Or better yet, since you have Israel running the world why don’t you advise Iran to kiss up to it. I mean, why should anyone of us resist the Jews who have run the British Empire, nay, the entire world, since Baron Rothschild’s day or likely earlier?

    So you are telling me that water theft is illegal? Is that like stating the obvious. or what?! Did I need to say that?

    To be truthful, control over WB water resources is the MAJOR reason Israel occupies the WB. Water, for Israel is a Casus Belli, and it has bombed or otherwise destroyed water works in Jordan (East Ghor Canal), Syria/Jordan (the Maqarin Dam), and Lebanon (Wazzani water diversions for irrigation), among other foul deeds.

    But you say it is YOUR region? Hey pal, you, like me, are an outsider. Anybody who wants to keep the Kurds as vassals of Iran cannot be trusted with judgments of ANY people in the region, and surely not the Palestinians. You’d have them all dead to satisfy your need to keep the region pure and free of Westerners. To date, the Palestinians say to you: thanks, but no thanks.

  175. Shabnam said on September 11th, 2009 at 9:41pm #

    B99: you have shown your true Zionist face meaning arrogant behavior who are trying to post many ‘clever’ comments to silent others with your nonsense, two states solution and to sell Israel’s project meaning partition of Iraq and creation of Kurdistan that we never accept. All of Kurdistan for many centuries was part of Iran and Kurds ARE IRANIANS. The Zionists are trying to steal Palestine for the past 100 years and yet have not been completely successful. Today, due to improvement of communication, Internet, racist Zionists are hated more than ever around the world and their crimes have been surfaced more than any other time in the history of the planet which is going to mobilize and unite them against this vicious group where has already done. Your cheap shot at Iranians is so petty that does not deserve any answer. However, I must tell you that in the past not many people knew that jewish aristocracy were in charge of the empire, at least for the past 3 centuries due to their control of money supply where was gained through stealing of other people resources, usury and lies and deception. The Zionist’s extension in the major capitals around the world has expanded their influence and interest forward on the expense of other groups. Therefore, it is necessary for people to be united in every single continent against Zionist’s interest and their servants including Kurds, the Zionist’s pawns.

  176. deceschi said on September 12th, 2009 at 2:50am #

    The fact that Arabs and their anti-Zionist supporters around the world are neither willing nor even able to recognize Israel as a state for a people proves that it’s not about land and justice but about Zionism itself and the very existence of Israel as Jewish state. It’s amazing to read the critical comments about Avnery – one of the most critical Israeli about Israel – (or Chomsky) because it shows in a inequivocal way the implied twisted equation Israel=Zionism=Jews buzzing in your “pro-Palestinian/Arab” but first of all anti-Zionist minds. Your way to think and to argue speaks for itself, that means actually neither a way of thinking nor of arguing. It’s so clear: when you speak about land and rights for Palestinians you means in reality Zionism as a whole, that means not 1967 but 1948 and even before, that means not West Bank or Gaza, but Israel, that means not all Israelis but Israeli Jews. Who is here rationalising what, please? Stop make you laughable with your “land peace justice” claims. It would be much more honest and clear if you would speak out the little ill-conceived wretched truth behind the so called pro-Arab/Palestinian “humanitarian fight”. You’re disqualifying yourself as partner for every serious discussion about progress and peace, and Israel and Jews are doing right not to trust you.

  177. Deadbeat said on September 12th, 2009 at 4:03am #

    lichen writes … yet another ad-hominem.

    Look lichen you are not very good at Internet debating. Rather than ground your arguments with facts you falsely believe that the “appeal to emotion” fallacy is persuasive in a forum for dissidents. Most dissident I know are grounded in reality and that means facts, evidence, and logic.

    Thus let me help you lichen improve your debating skills. Here is a link to the Nizkor Project. It should help you improve your debating skills.


  178. balkas b b said on September 12th, 2009 at 8:49am #

    ‘Zionism’ can and shld be labeled “land theft” and, of course, in many aspects, much different than an US theft of land-resources.
    Of course, ‘jews’ and their defenders are quite willing to render ever greater complexity out of the above-posited simplicity.
    I guess, in roiled waters, one can catch more fish.

    Second ruse employed by ‘jews’ is to speak [or think] of ‘zionism’ as existing of itself and for itself, detatched from palestinians and ‘jews’; “jewishness”, its cutltishness, mosheic ‘laws’

    and of course, always positing the biggest lies one can think of. Don’t bother with tiny ones, for people wld not believe them.
    As bush had proven!

    And the fourth ploy is to simply omit salient facts while at the same time posit only facts or ‘facts’ of peripheral value and which preclude obtainment of an elucidation.
    But the goal is always the same: we must not get to the bottom of this! tnx

  179. mary said on September 15th, 2009 at 12:04am #

    Mulga The Australians for Palestine website is reporting that SBS Broadcasting have directed their journalists not to use term “Palestinian land” to describe the occupied territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. (link below)

    SBS Corporation describe themselves thus in this blurb –
    ‘The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is Australia’s multicultural and multilingual public broadcaster. SBS is unique. Its radio and television services broadcast in more languages than any other network in the world.

    Sixty-eight languages are spoken on SBS Radio. Programs in more than 60 languages are broadcast on SBS Television, and Online, SBS New Media provides text and audio-on-demand services in more than 50 languages.’

    As you often tell us about the embedded Zionism within the Australian media, especially the Murdoch variety, are you able to tell us more about SBS and whether the Zionist tentacles have got a firm grip there as it would appear? Not so multicultural as they make out?


  180. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 15th, 2009 at 1:43am #

    mary, the scenario is invariable. Some Zionazi hears a journalist, somewhere, talk of Palestinians as human, or their land as ‘Palestinian land’ and the whole screeching pack descends like a swarm of shrieking locusts. Letters, ‘phone calls, e-mails etc, often hysterically abusive, in the face of which few Australian journalists have the guts to act defiant. You’ve seen it here with golem mebosa threatening me, amongst others, as putative victims of Judaic revenge.Moreover, you just know that if the Judaic power-brokers mark you as ‘unco-operative’, then employment opportunities in the mainstream media become zero.
    What is more the Zionists are the entryists par excellence. The ABC is like a little yeshiva these days, and I don’t doubt that SBS is the same. Of course drawing attention to the vastly disproportionate representation of Likudick Jews in the media is verboten, absolutely forbidden. So bit by bit, they are taking over. I’m as big a paranoiac as the next man, but when something happens before your eyes, how do you pretend that it just is not so?
    As far as I’m concerned Jews are just like everyone else. They are not ‘Chosen People’. Amongst them some are good, by my reckoning, and some evil, and most somewhere in between. But I find it sinister and regretable that, while many groups, Aborigines and Moslems for example, are almost unrepresented in the media, politics and business, that Jews, 1% of the population, are so vastly over-represented. I find it interesting to say the least, that at least half the ten richest individuals and families in this country are Jewish, and that no-one ever mentions this fact, not even to admire their business acumen. And what makes this situation worse is that this tiny tribe, through insistent political interference, ensure that the policy of this country is slavishly obeisant to one of the vilest racist regimes on the planet, Israel, and we turn a blind eye to Israel’s crimes. No, in fact, we fully support them. During the Gaza onslaught local politicians fell over themselves to lick the areses of the child-killers. This is a detestable situation but one which may never be mentioned. Where it all ends, just how total the control they are seeking, beggars the imagination.

  181. mary said on September 15th, 2009 at 4:03am #

    Thanks Mulga. You have a good way with words.

    As my brother said, after I sent him the same link ‘I would like to see the reply if any. I refer to the whole of ‘mandate’ Palestine as Palestine – as you know. Please write to Mr Birch and say that statehood for Israel depended on observation of UNGA 194 ‘we believe’. The Zionist war against the mandate and the native population was an aggressive war and was therefore a supreme war crime. It was NOT a defensive war as per Nuremberg. Ask the relatives of the 92 Palestinian and British blown up in 1946 in the King David Hotel, or those of the booby trapped corpses of the British sergeant and corporal.

    PS I picked this up along the way. If you magnify it, you can read that a figure of 600,000 German Jews is mentioned. If that figure is correct, how come 6m died in the Holocaust?

    http://www.biblestudysite.com/judea%20declares%20war%20-800px.jpg Headline in 1933 – Jews boycotting German goods.

    PPS I have noticed that M. Ritchie (who now uses capital letters to scream at us) insults you by calling you Mugla and implying you are female. I have also noticed the threats. Others are joining him for support I also notice.

    He (I assume he is male as there are many references to football when you google the name) suggested the other day that he and I ‘go back a long, very long way’. Quite ridiculous and quite creepy as I had never heard of him before having the misfortune of ‘meeting’ him on this site, unless, that is, we met in a previous existence!

  182. b99 said on September 15th, 2009 at 5:51am #

    Shambnam – Kurds are only Iranians if they are citizens of Iran. Kurds are not Persians and are not looking for Persian overlords. Kurds in Iraqi-Kurdistan are on their way to independence, something they have sought for most of the last century. It does not matter AT ALL that they were once under Persian rule, or Ottoman rule, or British rule. They want out. You have no more right to own Kurdistan than any other state. Better make friends with them or lose them to Israel.

  183. b99 said on September 15th, 2009 at 6:11am #

    deceschi – For what it is worth, I recognize Israel. Not because the establishment of Israel was morally correct, not because some Jews trace ancestry there in ancient times, but ONLY because it is now decades old and most Israeli Jews were born there. One cannot force people to leave their country (but you also must KNOW the same right has to apply to the Palestinians, both internally and externally displaced – that’s THE LAW).

    I too, like everyone else here, think zionism must be viewed from the vantage point of its victims – and from there it is clear that zionism is racism. There was no moral right to establish a state for European Jews on Palestinian soil. So it is not surprising that you will find almost all others here who would agree with that. Your right to a state there was only that of might and power, made legal through a bankrupt world political system. But now – like the US and dozens of other colonized turfs, it is a de facto right. But given this gift, you have not the right to another square inch of land. And so yes, it is 1948 we are discussing here. The Palestinians Israel evicted from 1947 – 1949 have every legal and moral right to return to their country. The Palestinians Israel evicted in 1967 have every legal and moral right to return to their country. The Palestinians internally displaced within Israel have every moral and legal right to return home. And Israel has NO right to colonize outside of its pre-67 borders – no more right than ANY other country in the world.

    Verstehen sie? So where do you stand on the right of Palestinians to establish a state in what’s left of their homeland? And what are you doing about it? You have to come clean here on whether you believe in *Israel uber alles* as does Mebosa, or that you are someone who recognizes that there is another side to this equation.

  184. deceschi said on September 16th, 2009 at 2:20pm #

    b99: your arguments are well-known and reflect the claims of the Arabs of “Palestine”, called since 1964 the “Palestinians”. I’m not against a Palestinian state a priori, as you apparently (sic!) are not against Israel, and if the circumstances would be different, probably the majority of the Israelis would agree with me too. But the circumstances are those that are, the Arab-Palestinian claims and attitudes are those that are (read again your comment and you find in very sythesis what I mean), so why the hell should Israel make any kind of unilateral concessions to the Arabs? There is no basis for it, as you have very eloquently exsposed with your own positions (which are indeed a good concise resumé of the Arab position and the so-called Arab “peace plan” …).
    With regard to your claim that Israel must respect the legal and moral rights of all the Palestinians (all this big theatre about international laws that Israel should comply with and never defined borders behind which Israel should withdraw) I have to say in response that the Arabs/Palestinians their part have never considered international law binding when it came and still comes to attack and harm Israel. So what?? Those claims are only a tricky strategy orchestrated by the Arab Muslim countries to debilitate Israel’s self-defence and self-determination internationally, nothing more. And are, until evidence of a decisive change of policies toward Israel, so far worthless.
    As a matter of fact, it is actually the Palestinian and Arab Islamist intrasigence, the ill-concealed patiently cultivated wish to destroy Israel and to reconquer finally (sooner or later) that tiny piece of land they pretend belongs to them alone that makes peace a far dream, a illusion. Therefore, it’s not time yet for a Palestinian state, and if the trend continues like it was till today, it will never be time for such a entity. Not because of Israel, but because of Palestinians and their fellow brethren.
    Capito? Alles klar? Tout compri?
    Of course not. No chance.

  185. B99 said on September 16th, 2009 at 2:51pm #

    Si, capito.

    The Palestinians called themselves as such since the first decade of the 20th century – possibly earlier – that is, many decades before the concept of an Israeli was created out of whole cloth.

    The circumstances ARE of course, different than what Israelis think because Israelis are lied to via commission and omission by the state and the media on an ongoing basis. The truth is that Israel OWES the Palestinians – that’s why it needs to do unilateral concessions. It was the Jews who ethnically cleansed 700,000 plus Palestinians from their country in ’47 – ’49, and again in ’67. The Palestinian claim and attitude is pretty much one of retribution and justice – and why not? – what self-respecting population would walk willingly into the desert and give up their country? There is no need for concessions on the part of the Palestinians as their entire country is either lost to them or occupied. What’s left – to kiss Israeli feet? There’s nothing to concede. What ‘big theatre’? It’s the law. What laws should the Warsaw ghetto Jews have abided by in defending against the Nazis? Should a raped woman refrain from scratching at his eyes?

    The origin of the problem has little to do with the Arab countries. They have and will continue to fall in line. The removal of Palestinians and their replacement with a foreign population is a Palestinian problem first and foremost. They have been a willing peace partner since Arafat offered the olive branch or the rifle in 1974 and have been explicitly on board with a two-state solution since the 1980s. Israel rejected that and continues to do so because they want the land – free of Palestinians – and then they want peace. They can afford to have this policy because they have the support of my country. If that support ever ended, Israel would come to the peace table -to talk, not to delay. And that just may happen.

    So I would say you are being disingenuous. You know the Palestinians were violently removed, yet you pretend to expect them to accept that, and further pretend that their anger has no cause other than some irrational need to destroy Israel. Hey, the proof is in the pudding. The settlements are the proof that Israel has no intention of a two-state solution, it has nothing to do with Palestinian behavior. In fact, the worse they ‘behave’ the better for Israel.

    But thanks for coming clean. I kind of knew your talk of moderation was a rather facile one.

  186. deceschi said on September 17th, 2009 at 2:22pm #

    You take words and concepts in your mouth that you actually don’t seem to understand very well. There are indeed quite many mistakes of historical and conceptual nature in your argumentation. It’s not surprising me at all, as I have enough knowledge of the distorted view of the Palestinian and anti-Zionist position. But at least you refer honestly to the single issues I pointed out. (That means we can maybe argue about some concrete things and avoid to ignore the other part through pure ideological invective.)

    About your points:

    At the beginning of the 20th century there were Arabs and Jews living under the Ottoman Impire, both living in what indeed was named “Palestine” since antiquity. After 1922 the name “Palestinians” was also used by the British to call all inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine, that means both Arabs and Jews. Only in the first PLO-Charta of 1964 the Arabs of Palestine were called explicitly “Palestinians”. But never before for the Arabs of this region alone. At the most, they identified themselves as Southern Syrians.
    The claimed Israeli unilateral concessions you are speaking about, which are the core of the Arab-Palestinian policy the lowest since 1994, are unfounded in many ways. Israel owes not the Palestinians, at least not more than Palestinians and Arab owe Israel.

    Firstly: Palestininas claims are based on the assumption that the land belong “legally” to the Arabs since many centuries. But if we give a look to the demographics we see that the Arab population doubled from 200’000 to more than 400’000 only during the 19th century, mainly due to Arab immigration waves from neighbouring regions. In Madatory Palestine the (illegal) Arab immigration even increased at an exeptional rate because of the improved economic conditions there, considerably better than in other surrounding countries. Between 1922 and 1947 the muslim population in Palestine doubled from nearly 590’000 to estimated 1’135’000 people. The most of them immigrants or sons of recent immigrants. These figures are not inventions, but historical facts.

    In the second place: In 1947 came the civil war between Arabs and Jews – the Arab Palestinians didn’t accepted the UN partition plan – , a civil war which after Israel’s declaration of indipendence in1948 degenerated into the first Arab-Israeli war, and not because of Israel. The same day five Arab countries attacked Israel in the explicit aim to annihilate the new-born state. Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The only reason they didn’t succeed was because Arab leaders were disunited.
    The Arab exodus during the war was the result of the war itself. There were indeed removal of Arab Palestininas, but many fled because they had simply fear of the war activities or because they expected to return home as soon as the Jews were beaten and “thrown into the sea”. These are facts, not the well-known Arab and anti-Zionist distortions. The first war (the original sin) was initiated by the Arab countries, that’s why the Palestinian issue is indissolubly linked to the attitude of the Arab world toward Israel.
    Besides: law is law for the Arabs and Palestinians too. But hundreds of suicide attacks against Israeli cities and people and 10 thousand of rockets against the Southern communities of Israel aren’t lawful at all, even if Palestinians swore it’s only resistance and nothing else.

    But you state already Arafat “offered the olive branch or the rifle in 1974”. Is this another of the anti-Zionist jokes? In his speech before the UN General Assembly November 13, 1974 asserts the old best-known anti-Zionist stererotypes that still today are trite and retrite are been repeated as rhetoric mantra agaist Israel. One little passus from that anti-Zionist libel: “The Palestine liberation Organization has also gained its legitimization . by representing every faction, union or group as well as every Palestinian talent, either in the National Council or in people’s institutions. This legitimacy was further strengthened by the support of the entire Arab nation, and it was consecrated during the last Arab Summit Conference, which reiterated the right of the Palestine Liberation Organization in its capacity as the sole representative of the Palestinian People, to establish an independent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory.” (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat's_1974_UN_General_Assembly_speech, number 63.)
    This speech is considered by the Palestinians a important milestone in the international legitimisation of the PLO and its diplomatic struggle, that never excluded the armed (terrorist) struggle in order to “establish an indipendent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory.”
    Palestinians were never interested in a two-state-solution, but in one-state-solution – the Arab state of Palestine, well integrated in the Arab Islamic Empire. Good examples are the infamous bloody Second Intifada – after beeing very close to a peace agreement with Oslo 2 – and the experience of the Gaza strip, transformed in a nest of terrorists after the Israeli unilateral (sic!!!) withdraw from all the area. And you want me now to believe that Israel should give up the settlements of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) in order to get finally peace from the Palestinians and the Arab world, without any kind of recognition or concession from Palestinian and Arab side in retourn? Is this truly your serious opinion?

    Please, try first to come clear with yourself and your Palestinian friends before raising accusations and staking unrealistic claims toward Israel and Jews. This theatre is somehow pathetic and will lead nowhere.

  187. bozh said on September 17th, 2009 at 5:12pm #

    In talking about seniority rights of a people as a whole, one is really chasing a nonissue. It makes no difference when muslims or jews [hebrews] came to US or palestine.
    Which people have more seniority, whether it be 7K or 100 yrs, appears irrelevant, both legally and morally, to the purpose of determining which people shld possess and govern it.

    Even so, there is no shred of evidence to even show let alone prove that the inhabitants of palestine prior to euro invasion starting ’22 are not descendants of amorites, amonites, perizzites, hivvites, hebrews, moabites, edomites, jebusites, hittites, etal.
    In short, a melange of shemitic tribes, speaking dialects of a shemitic tongue who followed mosheic law, jesus, and mohammed; living in relative harmony until another multiethnecity from europe destroyed these people and expelled them from their habitat. tnx

  188. B99 said on September 17th, 2009 at 5:56pm #

    Not quite, deceschi – At the beginning of the 20th century Palestine was overwhelmingly Arab Palestinian. The Jewish population was quite small – the decendents of those Jews of the Roman era and later who chose to stay and a small but growing number of East European Jews. But Jews made up a minute fraction of the total population. The area was considered Palestine and the people Palestinian long before the British arrived – at least considered so by the literate classes of Palestine. Al-Falastina was an Arab language newspaper of that first decade and they were not trying to invent a name. By 1964, the use of that name was at the very least, near 60 years old – and inasmuch as nationalism had been growing in the region for several decades prior to the 20th century, as elsewhere, it is likely that Palestinians considered themselves as such at an even earlier date. No matter though! If they called themselves Palestinians, Canaanites, Syrians, Arabs or whatever – they were the people living there when the European colonization began. Yes, Palestine can be considered to have been part of Greater Syria – that is something that cannot be ruled out again in the future – though nationalism has a way of dividing people, not uniting them.

    Immigration within the Ottoman Empire was legal – they were not outsiders in a legal sense – they were Ottoman subjects. Population figures of the Ottomans are notoriously poor, as they did not takes accurate counts of people, especially as people evaded detection in order to avoid conscription and taxes. Furthermore, there is no evidence of great waves of Arab immigrants – there is, however, a feature that all fertile regions enjoy – in migration during the growing season, often followed by out-migration after harvest. There really is no evidence of great population change due to immigration – Palestine’s population grew as did virtually all populations did in the 19th century. Once again, no matter – these were the people on the ground – and their ancestors had been there since time immemorial.

    In-migration in the Mandate era was not particularly substantial either, for the same reasons as under the Ottomans. Besides, the Palestinians do not recognize the British mandate as legitimate rule. It was an occupation. Most of Palestinian population growth was natural, once again as was the case elsewhere. And once again, no matter, the Palestinian Arabs and a few non-zionist Jews were the natural native inhabitants of this country.

    In the second place, the UN partition plan was a General Assembly Recommendation- and like all such resolutions, can be rejected by either party, meaning that the resolution would be rendered null and void – which it was. The Palestinians were within both legal and moral right to reject the partition of their homeland. The US came to understand this subsequently as they changed their position on that now pointless resolution.

    The ‘Arab-Israeli War’ began in November 1947 when the Jews began their well-thought-out plan to remove the Palestinians to the desert. The Jews quickly began massacring Palestinians – the famous, Deir Yassin, of 4/48 was BEFORE the Jews declared statehood – but was only one among many village massacres carried out by the Jews of the natives. The Arab forces arrived too little too late to carry out a rescue – they were out-manned, outgunned, dispirited and working at cross purposes. You are correct taht the Arab forces were disunited. They did however, largely keep to the letter of the UN resolution (with some exceptions) fighting the Jews on land that had been reserved for the Palestinians. The same could not be said of the Jews – they took not only land ‘reserved’ for the Jews, but advanced into Arab assigned land. But for Abdallah’s forces west of the Jordan, the whole of Palestine was lost to the foreigners.

    The Palestinians fled because of the massacres and because word of the massacres traveled quickly. This has been established since the late 1960s, and now we all know about Plan Dalet, which plan was to carry out ethnic cleansing of the native population. “A miraculous cleansing of the land’ in the words of Chaim Weizmann – maybe the first such usage of the ethnic cleansing term. Thus perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the native population was violently removed. There was no war – only genocide. The one exception to this is that a small number of wealthy Palestinians left Palestine for their second home in Beirut or elsewhere. These were infinitesimal numbers however.

    So the original sin is that of the Brits – not recognizing the sanctity of their promise to the Arabs to keep the region free of foreign hegemony. Palestine, like the rest of Arab SW Asia, was to be free and independent. The Brits betrayed them. This first war began with the well-planned and comprehensive Jewish massacres of Palestinians – the Arab quasi-states came to the rescue too late to be of assistance.

    The meager attacks of Palestinians on Israel are merely a pathetic effort of an essentially unarmed people to not go quietly into that good night. They will have to be put on trains and executed en masse to put them to rest. The homemade rockets are paltry compared to the forces that Israel expends upon the Palestinians – Israel being perhaps in the top three or four military mights of the world. Besides, Israel made sure to attack when the rockets stopped, as the rockets serve Israeli propaganda.

    Arafat, as the Palestinian leader, offered Israel a choice. Israel, knowing its own sorry history but also knowing it had all the power, chose to ignore the offer. Arafat made peace overtures repeatedly over the years after that, all ignored, and finally made it explicit in three languages – still ignored. Nonetheless, a besieged people have every right to engage in armed struggle. As I said earlier, who would have begrudged Jews in Europe from fighting back – other than the Nazis themselves?

    Yes, Palestinians were interested in a one-state solution – and that may come to pass again if their long-term desire for a state merely festers while the Jews continue to expand at their expense.

    The second intifada broke out when Barak walked out at Taba and then Sharon made it clear he was going to crush Palestinians legitimate aspirations. – that is, Sharon made it clear that Palestinians would be killed via Israeli state terrorism if they resisted the Jews.

    And of course, by 1974, hey even by the PLO’s founding in 1964 – the Palestinians had been cleansed and occupied for 16 years – so it’s not as if the Jews should have been surprised at the level of Palestinian anger.

    There are no more concessions for the Palestinians to make – you own or occupy 100% of their country. The world knows this – they vote on this every year – EVERY year – with the dissenting votes coming from the US, Israel and maybe Micronesia. The job of Israel is to abide by the UN’s demand that Israel permit the return of the Palestinians they evicted. Their other job is to pick up their squatters and troops and bring them home to Israel. You already have your concession.

    So, lets get this straight. You have no data for your claims other than crap you pick up from tendentious Zionist sites and Wikipedia info written by Zionists. The Jews came to Palestine to steal the land (that was after all, we can both admit, the end goal of the zionists) and they took 78% of it. In 1967 they finished the job, invading and occupying the balance of it. So you have no moral leg to stand on. Certainly LESS of a moral position than did Saddam in Kuwait. Your duty is to vacate now.

    If you want to continue this discussion you’ve got to do better than the drivel you’ve been typing – it’s canned, it has not one iota of intellectual support, not even from Israeli historians – I know it up and down and have heard it all before many times.

  189. deceschi said on September 18th, 2009 at 3:41pm #

    As my “crap” comes obviously only from “tendentious Zionist sites” and Zionist wikipedia info, I suppose that your data come from very serious, reliable and neutral sources, even if you do not ever mention them ….

    The Jews came not to steal the land, they came to (re)build a Jewish State after 2000 years Diaspora. That fact that there were many European and Russian Jews among them is the consequence of the Diaspora which wasn’t chosen by the ancient Jews but caused by the Persian invaders first and the Roman invaders after. Jews were expelled forcibly from their land and were scattered throughout the world. It’s quite ironic that, after many centuries of persecutions, pogroms and expulsions, Jews were forced by the hostility of the world, that in antiquity had destroyed their homeland, to find a national solution for the Jewish people in that same original homeland.
    The denial of the deep indissoluble cultural, religious and spiritual bonds of the Jewish people with the Land of Eretz Israel can be only compared with the revisionist relativization of the Shoah. Indeed both types of denial can be seen together in the forma mentis of notorious Israel-haters.
    The history and the present life circumstances of the Diaspora led many Jews (but in retrospective unfurtunately not all, as the Holocaust sterminated entire Jewish European communities) in the late 19th and the early 20th century to the conviction that the sole way to change the Jewish fate was the struggle for self-determination – the creation of a Jewish State in their ancient homeland. The Jewish nationalism was the obvious and very late response to the unsustainable conditions of the Diaspora, which ended in the genocide of the Shoah. And that responce allowed the rebirth of Eretz Israel.
    But Zionism absolutely didn’t mean nor aim to the removal or expulsion of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. As a matter of fact, the early Zionists accepted fully the presence of the Arab majority and were instead willing to share the land and the knowledges they brought to Palestine with the rest of the non-Jewish people. Many Arab workers, the Fellahs, could indeed work in the orange plantations of the Jews along the coastal zones. There wasn’t also any kind of Jewish opposition or negative influence against the natural growth within and the immigration of the Arabs into Palestine. Besides, all land of the Jews was bought from the Arab landlords in a legal way and very often for exorbitant prises.
    Things started to change early twenties of the last century. You are right that Palestinian nationalism was a reality already before, but we can argue if it was indeed Palestinian or rather a sort of Arab nationalism, directed first against the Ottoman rule, then the British Mandate. Whatever it was, the Arab Palestinian riots against the Jewish presence in 1920 and 1921, and the more widespread and serious violence of 1929 turned the Palestinian nationalism definitely into a anti-Zionist/Jewish movement. Leaded by Amin Al-Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (during the WWII a convinced and very active Nazi and Jew-hater), the Palestinians identified their national struggle with the fight against the Jewish presence and immigration to Palestine, even if the Arab Palestinians were numerically in the great majority over the other ethnic groups, during the entire British Mandate (still 1947 almost 1’200’000 to 600’000 Jews and 150’000 Christians). At the latest in 1930 the humanistic soul of the Zionist Movement in Palestine (represented by Brit Shalom), favoring the idea of a bi-national state of Jews and Arabs, lost its support among the Jews and the revisionist movement of Japotinsky could gain stronger influence in the policies of the Zionists from that moment onwards. Japotinsky, as you of course know, believed that only the readiness of the Jews to defend themselves with violence would bring finally the Arabs to be willing to compromise with the Jews, seen as an alien element in the body of the Arab nation.

    The Civil war and and the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 were – seen in the right optic – a armed fight for land and survival between two ethnic opponents, wars rooted in the mutual radicalization of the nationalistic struggle during the prior decades.
    However, your accusation of genocide is absurd, since the Arab Palestinian minority in Israel enjoy the same rights of all Israeli citizens, although they don’t identify with Israel as their state and although they are often suspected to be a fifth column – and have a enviable population growth (currently1’200’000 strong community), even remotely comparable to the treatment of Jews in Arab countries, persecuted and forced to exodus during various expulsions waves immediately after the first Arab-israeli war, for a total of over 800’000 people (LOL).

    Furthemore, if you would be really for peace you would see the irrationality of claiming of the right of return of all refugees since 1948 as obstinate conditio sine qua non by the Palestinians and their supporters. If Israel would let in all these people (several millions with the discendants), Israel would simply stop to exist that means commit suicide. That’s why I believe that the Palestinians and the so-called “anti-Zionists” like you aren’t truly interested in peace with Israel, but actually aim to liberate all Palestinian territory, as it is still written in the PLO-Charter (let alone the Hamas Charter).

    But I want to believe that soon or later reason and common sense will prevail over hatred and ideology. For this both the Palestinian and Arab side and the Israeli side must be ready to make painful concessions. BOTH, beyond any reasonable doubt.

  190. B99 said on September 18th, 2009 at 6:05pm #

    Well, yes Desechi, my information – as I stated, comes from historians – even Israeli historians who are doing great work to uncover the real history of Palestine.

    But of course the Jews came to steal the land – they had policies of ‘purity of land’ and ‘purity of labor’ – the whole idea was to create a Jewish state in what was already inhabited – and do it pure of the contamination of non-Jews.

    There is no tangible connection between the Jews of Europe and their diaspora – which was an overwhelmingly voluntary immigration, something people the world over have been doing since people became people. The Zionist effort – an effort made by atheist assimilated European Jews was to use the ‘return to Zion’ as their frontispiece. No one gets to go back to someplace they left 2000 years ago and remove the current inhabitants. Why should the Jews – because they are Jews?

    Expulsion from Palestine? Not. The traditional explanation is that Jews were evicted from Jerusalem – not all of Palestine. Jews continued to live in Palestine, Tiberias (Teverya) being a notable example. It is now understood by Israeli historians that there was no expulsion at all – the story is apocryphal. Jews left Palestine largely to make a living in greener pastures elsewhere in the Empire. And Persian Jews? What’s that have to do with the Ashkenazis of Europe?

    Some Ashkenazis have a genetic connection to the region – but so what? Maybe the Celts should reclaim all the places they lived in in Central Europe. Maybe we should all claim where ever it is our ancestors left 2000 years ago. Besides, even if you could make a case for ‘return’ you can’t make a case for evicting the inhabitants of the land, especially considering they were there BEFORE the Jews.

    Now granted the history of the Jews in Europe is one of pogroms, discrimination and the Holocaust. But that is the fault of the Europeans that they did not come across with just retribution – and the fault of the Zionists for not pushing for justice within Europe, instead of colonizing another’s land. I should add that there are no deep insoluble bonds of Jews to that land that are stronger than Palestinian bonds – unless you are arguing that Jews are somehow more human than Palestinians.

    There was no major struggle for self-determination among Europe’s Jews n the pale. There certainly was a desire to escape the horrors of Czarist Russia. But Jews did what so many others did – they immigrated to America. That was there Zion. And a few Jews who actually had an emotional attachment to Palestine went to Palestine where they could live out their lives. But millions came to the Americas – and that’s where most Jews have always wanted to go – most refugees in the 20th century wound up there because they had no choice. The Zionists saw to that.

    Jewish nationalism existed among those Jews who had colonialism in mind – the assimilated Jews of western Europe – not the Orthodox Jews of the East.

    Basically, the land question in Palestine pitted those Jews who wanted to employ Arab labor because it was so cheap (and they knew how to farm which the Jews did not), against those Jews who were trying to create an essentialist state in Palestine, they wanted Arabs excluded all together. The latter group won out and Jewish ‘farmers’ who employed Arab labor were punished. They soon all fell in line. The most vociferous Jewish exponent of a bi-ethnic Palestine was Ahad Ha’am – but he was virtually a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Official zionism, the race-based ‘blut und boden’ zionism of authoritarian central and Eastern Europe won the day. Maybe it was Ben-Gurion who summed it up with his statement that he wanted an Israel ‘as Jewish as France is French.’ That notion that the Jews came to share is pretty much fairy tale stuff. Surely a few individuals did, but they were no match for ideology. The Jaffa orange pre-dates the Jews – it was the orange of Palestine before the Zionists arrived. Indeed, land could be had for exorbitant prices – as it was in demand. Jewish ‘legal’ purchases amounted to less than 7% of Palestine. Arab tenant farmers, who were used to seeing land change ownership while they stayed on the land, for the first time in history evicted from this very land.

    Whatever kind of nationalism existed among Palestinians, and they to were swept up in it as was everyone else, it matters not whether it was Palestinian or pan-Arabic. That would be their prerogative. That it was directed against their occupiers, whether British or Jewish is understandable.

    The Grand Mufti was a British appointee, and as such, did British bidding. He was fourth among selections by the Palestinians but the Brits over ruled them and appointed him to a now very political position. The riots you refer to are examples of civil unrest – by a people being displaced from their country. You should understand that the Palestinians no more wanted a strange people with their strange European ways than do Israelis today want that country to receive growing numbers of gentiles – never mind Arab gentiles. Or for that matter, imagine if Israel had to ‘rescue’ 2 million Falashas rather than tens of thousands.

    The Arab genocide – Plan Dalet – was concocted in the years prior to the British exodus, and began to be executed prior to the declaration of statehood – itself a declaration of war. It resulted in the deaths and expulsion of near 800,000 Palestinians, the large majority of the nation. No one seriously doubts this. Palestinian-Israelis have NEVER enjoyed full rights in Israel. There are a number of laws that specifically favor Jews – and besides law, custom is used to include Jews and exclude Palestinians. It it basically a Jim Crow state. And I should add, its Apartheid on the West Bank. Of course, Palestinians do not identify with a state that is legally ‘the jewish state’. They will not be singing Ha Tikvah any time soon.

    The plight of Jews in Arab countries – where they lived in relative peace and certainly prosperity for many centuries – was inalterably damaged by Israel with its colonization of Palestine. Israel too, when out of its way to incite relations so that a reliable pool of Jewish labor could be obtained, to pick lettuce, to pick up the garbage, and to pick-off Palestinians trying to return home. As it turns out, Arab Jews were given the land of the Palestinians. Needless to say, the Palestinians have no role in soured relations between Israel and the Arab states – and because this is well understood, Arafat and Barak divorced these two issues at Taba.

    Israel has no right to exist as such – that is a ‘Jewish state.’ Palestinians evicted have every right to return to their country and homes, now lived in by Jews. They have that right because it is the LAW! You may want to argue that Israel will never commit suicide by permitting their return, but that is the argument of might makes right, or the argument based in racism, it is not the argument made on ethical grounds and it is not the argument based in international law.

    My goal is to see the law carried out. That means the return of the evicted refugees and a Palestinian state in the remaining 22% of Palestine. If that means that Israelis have to re-think what it means to be a citizen then so be it. Jews made that bed so Jews have to lie in it. But this time with the native natural people of that country – the Palestinians. It’s just too bad their was no vacant land left in the 20th century when the Zionists embarked upon colonization – but so it goes.

    It does not matter what it used to say in the PLO charter or what’s in the Hamas charter. The fundamental wrong is that Israel has constituted itself as a Jewish state in a land inhabited by non-Jews. It physically reinforced this notion by driving the non-Jews into the desert (and the sea as it turns out). Indeed, a two-state solution does not mean that the struggle for justice is over in Israel. Just as Jews worldwide were concerned with the plight of Jews in late Soviet history so too will Palestinians be concerned with the plight of Palestinian citizens (too date anyway) in Israel.

    That you would ask more concessions of a besieged people is a joke. Is it not enough that they have no paychecks other than the ones they receive for building your very homes in the West Bank? Do Zionists have no dignity whatsoever?

  191. deceschi said on September 19th, 2009 at 5:27am #

    Your arguments might be undestandable from a pure Palestinian or anti-Zionist point of view, but they don’t reflect the reality as it is today and was in the past. In other words, your position is incurably biased, onesided – and it couldn’t be different, indeed. I appreciate your intellectual effort in support of the Palestinian cause, but I see a fundamental lack of practical Reason, due to an excess of anti-Zionist ideological ballast. This ballast makes you, as anti-Zionist, believe to be in the absolute right while the adverse party is in the absolute wrong and chargeable of all sins. Nothing new under the sun. This happened with the Jewish people itself long before the creation of the Jewish state, and it must be said that Israel represents therefore a large splinter in the eye of many hidden anti-Semites, incapable to accept the reality of any kind of self-determination of the Jewish people. Your position is maybe more differentiated but in the effects it doesn’t differ from the first. So you deny Israel the right to exist as Jewish state, even denying the Jewish roots of the land, in the same way in the past the Diaspora countries denied the Jews to live on their soil or tried to convert them or persecuted and killed them, or in the same way today Arab and anti-Jewish Islamism in Middle East and elsewhere deny the Jews to live on Arab soil. You might not be so extrem but the conclusions are quite similar – or maybe you are simply (dis?)ingenuos towards Middle East realities.

    The Palestinian disunity, their political and diplomatic passivity and open refusal to go along with Israel as a Jewish state, the terroristic option, neutralized only thanks to Israeli security and military prevention and deterrence, and moreover the general Arab intransigence – all this reflects a basic hostile attitude that was present already before the birth of Israel and that has gone hand in hand with her whole history. An attitude, cultivated by the Arab and Islamic leaders during many decades and embraced by the Arab and the oppressed and revanchist Muslim masses. (Did you see yesterday the annual anti-Israeli “celebrations” of the “Jerusalem Day” and did you hear the slogan “Death to Israel” cried by the Iranian crowd, while the Iranian president was talking again about his fake Holocaust myth?).

    That’s why, on the other side, people like Anwar al-Sadat and former King Hussein of Jordan deserve my full and complete respect in the context of the Arab world. They were strong and courageous enough to go against the tide and reach with Israel a still working and effective peace agreement. And maybe your history books can tell you something about the Sinai Jewish settlements which were given up by Israel in exchange for a durable peace.
    (More recently: Barak offered in 2000 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza strip, rejected without any alternative proposal by Arafat. In 2008 Olmert made a similar offer to Abbas: same rejection).

    So I (and with me many others) consider your anti-Zionist position actually a obstacle to peace because it stakes unrealistic and not quite honest claims to Israel that Israel never will be willing to met in that absolute uncompromising form. And believe that, if there will not be a change in this attitude on Palestinian/Arab side, the Palestinian cause of self-determination will turn against itself and make any further progress impossible. Take it – or leave it.

  192. B99 said on September 19th, 2009 at 8:28am #

    deceschi – So your arguments really come down to reality, not truth or ethics. Let me tell you something, I believed in the Zionist cause until the 1973 war. I believed that the Jews needed a home of their own because of the Holocaust – and that the Arabs were incorrigible for not making a welcome home for this persecuted minority in this tiny piece of land. The Jews just wanted to live in peace in their ancestral homeland and the Arabs were bent on killing them. Back then I had a fellow worker of Egyptian nationality. He told me once – he said, “you know *B99,* you are liberal to left on every issue but this one. You really must do your homework on this.” I did, and I found out the truth was 180 degrees away from what Zionists posit. I found that the views of Zionists on Israel were, in the words of a Jewish friend of mine (who has since appeared on John Stewart, how’s that for ethnic nepotism), “based on unalterable emotion, no matter what the facts.” This is apparent in your case. Israel could blow up a bevy of traffic cop recruits during their graduation ceremony (which is what Israel did) and Zionists would find a half dozen ways to defend this blatant mass murder. It’s a sickness.

    I certainly believe in the self-determination of all peoples – including Jews. But that self-determination had to come at the spatial expense of the offending parties, European gentiles. Self-determination at the expense of a third party is imperialism. As in the US, as in Australia, as in Tibet, etc. As I’ve made clear here earlier, I accept Israel as fact, as we have to accept the US as fact – and Australia – and all those countries that have been established violently on the homelands of others. But I accept an Israel only within the ill-gotten pre-67 borders – they cannot have a dunam more. You cannot do this to them. And because the Jews expelled the native population and has a 20% non-Jewish minority, it cannot exist as a Jewish state – a state where Jews are favored over non-Jews by law and custom.

    There are Jewish roots in the land – but the non-Jewish roots are also there – they pre-date Jewish roots, and it may be said that until 1948 there likely was never a Jewish majority in that land. But whatever the facts are on ancient history, the Palestinians were the people of that land when the Zionists shipped in.

    The United States, in the run-up to WWII, should have accepted all Jewish refugees. Britain and Canada, etc, should have done their part as well. These are the countries Jews wanted to go to – but anti-Semitism and even behind the scenes work by Zionists steered Jews to a third party’s land – to a land where in many years of the early 20th century, Jewish out-migration from Palestine exceeded in-migration, because so many Jews did not want to live there. Jews have been the most successful immigrant group in America’s history, and they know it – and are thankful for it. It is a crime that all were not accommodated – it would have changed history maximally. But DON’T put that on the Palestinians.

    There is no terrorism like Israeli state terrorism. It is technological, bureaucratized, systematized, personalized, continuous and continuing, immoral and amoral, micro- and macro-scale. But that you would expect Palestinians – or any self-respecting people – to turn over their country, is frankly unfathomable for any rational being. You give yourself away when you refer to Arab intransigence, or alleged early Jewish generosity in Palestine, or apocryphal Arab migration statistics. Or when you equate the plight of Jews in Arab countries with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. When it comes down to it, your argument is race-based, or to be generous, ethnic-self-aggrandizement. The original sin of the Zionists is the removal of the native population and you use all manner of diversion to mystify that bit of history. You’ve had many decades to rectify that, but instead, you put new settlements on what remains of their land. You are the guilty child in the classroom who is smart enough to quickly point his finger at his victim.

    Ahmadinejad is an asshole. He has no business in the Holocaust question. Because Zionists control US corporate media it’s his stupid statement that gets played here, rather than Netanyahu’s polite fuck-off on the settlements to Obama. The Jerusalem Day sentiment is genuine, and the predicament of the Palestinians resonates from Morocco to Indonesia. That’s the Jew’s fault for not coming to terms with what they’ve done.

    Sadat and Hussein were quislings. That’s why Sadat was killed – he took the money and ran – insuring that Israel could focus its full wrath on the Palestinians. Hussein played his cards well until his death – now his son is busy doing the same thing, Neither is any better than Sadat, and if killed, much of the Middle East will NOT mourn. Even Jimmy Carter, looking for the big personal success, sold out. Now he’s our greatest ex-president- and he KNOWS the Zionist game all too well.

    There were no Sinai settlements given up for peace. Sinai is Egypt, Sinai was attacked and conquered by Israel in ’67 (a completion of the ’56 goal). Israel was an illegal occupier and the ’70 war of Attrition and the ’73 war showed that Egypt would NEVER give up on Sinai. Israel folded as they did in Gaza and then used their minions in the US for maximum propaganda benefit. Israel took its settlers out of Gaza because it could never get more than a few thousand to stay there.

    My history books are your history books unless you do not read Israeli history books. Barak offered nothing to Arafat. No maps, no concrete steps to remove Israel from Palestine. Vague promises presented as a fait accompli by Clinton – as the best the Pals were going to get. The talks removed to Taba, egypt where upon Barak walked out to get back to electioneering as his PM campaign to blood-thirsty Jews was going down the drain to the butcher Sharon.

    My solution is the 2-state solution, with Palestine in all of pre-67 West Bank and Gaza. Return of refugees is essential – you guys are smart enough to work out what that means on the ground. But remember – IT”S THE LAW. After these things are accomplished, history will take its own turns.

    But you should always understand that the clock is ticking on Israel as presently constituted. First- acknowledge your history, then act on it to rejoin the family of civilized nations. That’s your only chance. Unless you ‘spirit’ them on freight trains.

  193. deceschi said on September 19th, 2009 at 1:40pm #

    I’m for the two-state-solution too, B99, but, as I specified above, the time is not ripe for that reality yet. Both Israelis and Palestinians must come clean on peace before land. Only on the basis of an effective peace agreement there can be a resolution of the conflict for land and the national aspirations of the Palestinian people can become reality. That’s why – in my opinion – Palestinians should do much more political and diplomatic effort in order to prove to be a reliable and serious peace partner towards Israel. Peace is the only way for getting their land and their state, not viceversa.
    But until today they appear unable to move forward, and I fear that this will be also the case even after the freezing of the settlements, as they require so loudly as a precondition for the restart of negotiations.

    And, with your permission, I believe that anti-Zionist positions like yours are not really helpful to positively change this attitude, on the contrary: it suggests and encourages the Palestinians to remain intransigent and prevent them from becoming more receptive and proactive for peace.

  194. B99 said on September 20th, 2009 at 7:07am #

    If the time is not ripe for a state of Palestine – 90 years after it should have come into existence then you don’t believe in self-determination, except perhaps for Jews. If that is the common view of Jews, and it is a race-based view to be sure, then there is no reason for Palestinians to favor a two-state solution. I would (for what it’s worth) join Palestinians in shifting to the notion of one democratic state for all in all of historical Palestine.

    If Israelis want a peace agreement they have to pick up and leave the West Bank like they say they did in Gaza (freezing settlement growth is chump change – and Obama is the chump). Legally, Israel is entitled to none of this land, but if they are going to keep a swath of settlements they have to give up the Galilee because Israel is not entitled to any more land than the Europeans gifted them with.

    The problem the Palestinians have is they have no peace partner – they have only an adversary gobbling up the rest of their land. You know what is going on – Israel expects to inhale so much of the West Bank that a Palestinian state is rendered non-viable. Then that condition will function as the Israeli excuse not to permit a Palestinian state (a replacement of alleged Palestinian violence as the current transparent excuse). I’m sure that is your position as well. Peace or no peace on the part of the Palestinians has nothing to do with getting a state of their own. Israel expropriated Palestinian land from Day 1 to the present, 25 years of non-violent resistance netted the Palestinians only the loss of the land and the perception in Israel that Palestinians were weak. With the First Intifada, the perception changed to that of the Palestinians being intransigent – you took their land either way.

    Israelis have to examine their own behavior – it is incorrigible, it is paranoid, it is uncivilized. If the Goldhagen thesis is correct that virtually all Germans assented to Nazi policies, then the same applies to Israelis, a people who routinely elect ghastly political leaders who openly defy the world in their genocidal policy and illegal land expropriation.

    My positions are largely academic. I take my lead from where Palestinians stand. I have spent much time on both sides of the line and I know how both sides feel and think. The Palestinians carry the burden of Israel themselves – no one helps them. They have valiantly withstood the onslaught of the Yishuv, ably assisted by the British; the early years of Israel, ably assisted by both the West and the East Bloc; and the last 40 years, ably assisted by the world’s only superpower. They will not be disappeared like so many Indian tribes, or like the aboriginal people of Tasmania. They are on the ground, they are many millions, and they want their piece of the pie. You ignore them at your own peril. There are world imperatives that eventually will cause the US to alter its position on being Israel’s ‘amen corner.’ The clock is ticking.

    You can make no moral or legal case for an Israel outside of its pre-67 boundaries. You can only make your case on racial rights or the right of power.

  195. B99 said on September 20th, 2009 at 8:21am #

    So deseschi, having seen your opening lines again, it’s clear that you only say you are for a two-state solution – that’s a front so as to appear reasonable. If it is not a front, it is worse, its racial – that you believe Jews-only roads are fine, but a Palestinian state on that very land must wait – must wait for the Palestinians to shut up and sit still to the approval of Israelis (as you move in and herd the natives). Such an approach is either a fraud – or a sickness, or both.

  196. deceschi said on September 20th, 2009 at 12:48pm #

    B69 (you have to get my name straight 😉 –
    You are putting many words in my mouth, but it’s your words not mine. Blind in one eye, you are terribly focussed on Israel and I don’t see balance in your position, at the most ill-concealed hatred. But is ok, if you feel right so.

    The clock is ticking for the Palestinians too. If they don’t roll up their sleeves and work effectively for a durable peace agreement with Israel, if they prefer – supported by irresponsible allies and friends who aren’t interested in the Palestinian destiny but rather in Israel’s defeat and disappearence – to keep high the level of confrontation and don’t choose the way of talk and serious negotiations, the settlements will continue their expansion, Gaza will remain under blockade, there will be other wars and suffering. And the Palestinians will have to settle for Jordan as their only quasi-state. Israel will stopp the settlements only on the condition that the Palestinias will stopp their hostility and their terror. The settlements in the West Bank arose after the 67-war and were in the first place thought as strategic-military outposts against possible attackts coming from Jordan. They represent still today a defensive security belt in case of terror and military offensives. In this original purpose was added, but not supplant the importance, religious significance and population.
    Furthermore Terror attacks by Palestinans were carried out from first day of the war aftermaths.

    To blame

  197. B99 said on September 20th, 2009 at 1:52pm #

    Your name? Ha! – that’s really important.

    No, as I told you before, Israel was the dog I had in that fight. Then I educated myself – now I know better. So far you have failed to educate yourself. You haven’t posted one historical ‘fact’ that was true. Further, you abandoned your attempts at history as justification for basically the emotional position – *that we can’t expect Israel to dissolve itself.* Then you try (over and over) to put the cart before the horse – that Palestinian intransigence is why Israel must take their land. You know, if you go back to 1900, the Zionists were but a needle-prick in a land fully inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. If you go back before 3000 BC, King David’s city (not that there really was such a person) was Palestinian – the Canaanites. So you’ve tried every usual trick and you have no more, so you play the race card – Jews are entitled to a state in Palestine (though many left of their own accord 2000 years ago – and after), and Palestinians are not allowed a state in what is left of Palestine (never mind return to their property in Israel) though they were ethnically cleansed of their homeland by the very same people who now say they don’t deserve a state because they won’t behave. Is that a bizarre position you’ve taken, or just ethnocentrism taken to its logical racial maximum?

    Balance in my position? I’m for self-determination for all people. What should I balance that against? The right to plow through towns with Merkava tanks? The right to drop cluster bombs on villages? you have your state – get the fuck out of the West Bank – totally the fuck out. Stop your shit about your concern for the Palestinians. I’m the one that recognizes a two-state solution now – not in the dismal dim future. I’m the one that recognizes Israel – YOU had trouble uttering the word Palestinian. I’m the one that says that Jews are entitled to remain in Israel because they were now born there and the state is a fact – you are the one that won’t even admit the Jews kicked the Palestinians out, and have no problem with 10 to 1 kill ratios until the pals learn their Jabotinsky behavior lessons about who the master race in this region is. So don’t talk to me about being blind in one-eye, I was studying IN the region when you didn’t know bris from bialy.

    You’re a damn liar. You KNOW Israel is not going to stop its settlements, it has NOTHING to do Palestinians playing nice. I’ve interviewed Israeli soldiers and to a man (and a few women) they tell me that because of fatigue and agreements with Abdallah, the West Bank would have been Israeli in 1948. The purpose of ’67 was to inhale that land and start creating facts on the ground. They’ve now done that for more than 40 years and you have the hubris – the chutzpah – to tell me that the settlements will stop when the Palestinians stop being hostile. You can write that jerk shit in the New York Times or say it without a retort on CNN or NPR – but here you can’t get away with it. No one will play the fool for you here.

    You want peace with your Arab neighbors. Make peace with them – they offered it in spades in 2002. But you reject that right here on DV. That’s because you don’t want peace without the WB. You’d rather put Israeli Jews in perpetual anxiety rather than give them true peace. All to protect yourself against that Middle East powerhouse – Jordan. What crap. Why don’t you show some respect for the truth and admit one thing: You’re taking the West Bank because you have the power to do so. Stop bullshitting about Arab in-migration in the 19th century or Palestinian terror (as if!), and admit its about racial lebensraum.

  198. Jeff Blankfort said on September 20th, 2009 at 2:07pm #

    I have not commented on this very long thread in a long time but I feel remiss in not having let others know that Deteschi (sic) seems to be interested in getting into endless arguments with what he considers to be erudite arguments in defense of the indefensible and which the rest of us of identify as recycled ziobabble. I ran into him on another site before he popped up on this one. Is this a coincidence on Deteschi’s part or is he one of a number of Jewish volunteers who have been either recruited or have volunteered to defend Israel on progressive web sites? I would advise not responding to his messages as a solution to the immediate problem. But that’s just me and I though a word of warning was overdue..


  199. bozh said on September 20th, 2009 at 2:21pm #

    This shld interest to u.
    Chomsky, in his fourth email to me finally admits that he’s not for the right to return for the descendants of the expelees.
    By now, expelees [let’s not use the word “refugees”] from the yrs ’47-49 wld be 62+ yrs old.
    A refugee may TAKE a refuge for numerous reasons but an expelee is forced to leave because of the threat of execution and seeing actual executions.
    UN shld be ashamed of self for calling expeled pal’ns “refugees”. tnks

  200. deceschi said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:00pm #

    Come on Bsixtynine, not so quickly and not so angry with your typed ideas and emotions. Chill out. We are talking together from very apart poles on earth thanks to this phantastic medium that is the web, so even if we have different positions and perspectives on the issue, we shouldn’t lose control, but enjiy the fact that two total strangers to each other as we are, can speak together about a common theme, even from diametrically opposed points of view.
    As a matter of fact, what I’m writing here could simply be the “dark side of the moon”, that side you are not willing to see. But it’s not lies – it’ s my relative truth, sorry, as you have your. And I’m not so fool and racist as you’d like to believe.

    So let be open: How can you assure me that Palestinians want indeed really peace and will live side by side with Israel in peace and security, as every UN-speech do underline, if Israel would withdraw completely from the West Bank and more than that, would let in all refugees, as you (and with you the Arab peace plan of 2002) obstinately postulate?
    Can you assure that – seen the circumstances – the West Bank will not become another Hamastan with its “fireworks” of rockets and mortar shells?
    (By the way: I pointed out my opinion about Gaza and Hams on the other thread, but maybe again it’s too dense and racial for you.)

    Well, if you can give me a convincing answer, it would be a great pleasure for me to change my mind or, at least, to be more optimistic about the Palestinian desire for peace.

  201. deceschi said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:06pm #

    Yes, Jeff, ostracism is always the best way to get rid of disturbing thoughts, yes?

  202. Jeff Blankfort said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:10pm #

    It took Chomsky four messages to admit that he is against the right of return? That might be a positive sign although it is hard to pin the man down. Let’s see He against the Palestinian ROR. He’s against BDS. He’s against a single state because the Jews might (Yaweh forbid!)become a minority and he thinks the US,not Israel has been the primary obstacle to his beloved two-state disillusion, and he discounts the influence of the Zionist lobby/Jewish establishment over US policy towards Israel and the Palestine. If one did not know his name but just listed those positions to describe an unnamed individual, on what side of the barricades would you place him.

    As for the terminology to describe the displaced Palestinians. Some were forcibly expelled and others fled but I don’t think the language is the problem at this point. Getting them to get the opportunity to go back there is and unfortunately that prospect is not on the horizon, nor for that matter is any meaningful change in the situation.

  203. joed said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:16pm #

    you guys have no idea how rediculous you sound.
    the main goal of the zionist pigs in these comments is to create confusion and chaos among those commenters that truly want to understand and sincerely want peace in this world.
    my basic comment is;
    don’t get in a pissin’ contest with a skunk–you can not win.
    necon/zionist pigs have won because they don’t play around with honesty, sincerity or civility. thats what makes ’em murderous pigs. and that is what makes you folks that want real discussion seem so pathetic and stupid. for thopse that want a real discussion the only way to get it is to ignore each and every comment that doesnt further the dialog. Another trick of the necon/zionist pigs is to demand definitions. because once something is defined it can be “deconstructed” and show to be meaningless or wrong or whatever the pigs want. that why they have won.
    fuck israel, fuck amerika and long live the taliban.

  204. pat said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:19pm #

    Re settlements as a security measure. Israel managed to defend itself very well in 1967 without a single foot in the West bank prior to the war. Why does it need them for security now? Developments in military technology since then could see Israel defend its 1948 award from almost anywhere. To locate civilians on the borders of a percieved enemy/ies Jordan, Syria,would be very irresponsible if not down right criminal. Unless of course the objective is a continuation of ‘one acre -one goat’ approach. Protection would of course be needed but, not from outside powers but from the people whose land and homes are being taken. If as the previous poster states Israel does recognize Palestinian right to a state then , why did it not recognize the P.L.O. declaration of independence in 1988 when it recognized Israel and signalled its acceptance to form a state on the West Bank and Gaza and thereby ceding over 60% of mandated Palestine to Israel. It seems to me to more a case of ‘To the victor-the spoils’

  205. B99 said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:21pm #

    Jeff – I don’t mind answering despoty – I know the material through and through – dessicatey throws no curve balls, just the same pitches his own historians have long hit out of the ballpark.

  206. deceschi said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:35pm #

    “fuck israel, fuck amerika and long live the taliban.”
    Well, joed, if this is the core of the anti-Zionistic culture, well, than I’m getting scared, really. Than I still prefer some pseudo-intellectual thought with fellow B99. But indeed, each to his taste …

    By the way: B99 still didn’t aswer my simple question. Jeff’s ascendancy seems to work or maybe only a bit embarassed…?

  207. Don Hawkins said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:36pm #

    Israel is suffering the worst drought in its history, with below average rainfall during the last five years, and the Israel Union for Environmental defense warned in 2007 that if current trends continue, global climate change will result in Israel having many heat waves, a decrease in average rainfall of up to 30 percent, severe storms and a flooding of the coastal plain where most Israelis live due to a rising Mediterranean Sea.

    And that’s best case scenario. Will it get better so far no.

  208. Shabnam said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:46pm #


    Thank you for your warning on rabid Zionists who come to this site to engaged people in dishonest discussion to change the image of Israel. Shortly before the Gaza genocide, this site was receiving many Israeli supporters to defend an apartheid state where kills and steals land of others to survive. I agree with you hundred percent. Unfortunately, there are small number of posters on this site who apparently have a lot of free time to chat with these Zionists back and forth trying to convince these Zionists of their criminal acts but they have not been successful since these people are not interested in the truth rather these Zionists are propagandists to fool others. These Zionist liars are paid to go to different sites including an Arab pro Zionist site which is financially supported by the Saudis royal family, AL ARABIYA, to attack people who tell the truth about Zionist criminal history. I have warned people to ignore these Zionists but all have fallen on deaf ears.

  209. Annie Ladysmith said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:53pm #

    It is possible to make a soup out of cabbage, the insects are extra protein and possibly add some taste. Cabbage is known to cause a lot of flatulence, like this blog. This is NOT a CIA coded message!

  210. Annie Ladysmith said on September 20th, 2009 at 3:57pm #

    Taliban guy, eat your scarf. Your kind of abuse and hatred is not a joke, it is obscene. You are part of the problem.

  211. deceschi said on September 20th, 2009 at 4:30pm #

    Jeff and Shabnam are two fellows lazy and self-righteous Israel-haters. It’s enough for them to find a friend of Israel on the path with a couple of disputable ideas to cry wolf and put the head in the sand. Folks, you are pretty bad off.

  212. bozh said on September 20th, 2009 at 5:14pm #

    please call them abettors of land robbers with the intent to expel and slaughter indigenous pop. Every kid {adult?!} wld understand that but possibly no kid wld understand what zionism is or what zionists are.
    Even i cld care less to know what zionism is or zionists are. But i know what they do: murder and expel people. tnx

  213. bozh said on September 20th, 2009 at 5:30pm #

    to me, and others, it is very important to call “collatteral damage”, “slaughter of innocents”, or a “refugee” [with connotation akin to a katrina refugee] “an expelee”.
    Not so much for adults, but for kids. We’ve probably lost US adults even on the issue of basic rights such as right to be informed and not [deformed as so many can’ns and amers are] disinformed or robbed of their inheritance, such as healthcare or higher education.
    And in ’67 all or most ‘refugees’ may have been expelled. I understand there was also an expulsion in ’82. Confirmation please. I am off to bed now! I’ll read responses tomorrow. tnx

  214. b99 said on September 21st, 2009 at 11:46am #

    Deceschi – The better question is how can Israel assure the Palestinians that Israel wants a just peace given that the Jews took 78% of their country in 48/49 and the rest of it in 67 – which they still violently occupy and are still ethnically cleansing, and given that Israel reneged on its agreement with the UN to let the refugees back in. Given Israeli history, Jewish promises are fairly worthless. Thus the question can only be answered by a full Israeli withdrawal from the WB and Gaza. That means settlers, troops, tanks, aircraft, seacraft, and the ending of the no-man’s land and no man’s water zones. As you can see, it is incumbent upon Israel, the offending party, to reassure the Palestinians, not the reverse. The Palestinians are the Indians here, basically unarmed Indians who’ve been driven into the desert. The moral burden falls entirely on the regional superpower, Israel, to make some good come out of its history. Can Israel demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Palestinians that it is something other than a mad bomber of women, men and children – a usurper of land – and will not continue to use Palestine as an outlet for its rage against Germany and European gentiles through its use of the most advanced weaponry on the planet?

    The world understands very well what Israel has done to the Palestinians. They vote on this every year – and but for two or three votes – and the addition of a Pacific microstate to round things out – the world decides over and over that Israel is the offending party. The burden is upon Israel to materially correct its behavior.

    But Israel is unlikely to comply. Israelis still want a bigger Israel more than they want correct relations with their nieghbors.

  215. b99 said on September 21st, 2009 at 11:57am #

    Pat – You are totally correct that the Palestinian’s implicit recognition of Israel, then its explicit recognition in 1988, fell on willfully deaf ears. Said recognition was but a bump in the road for Israeli’s bent on inhaling the rest of Palestine. Indeed, the ‘spoils of war’ and ‘might makes right’ are the 19th century ideals Israel subscribes to, the only ‘democracy’ that continues to do so.

    One caveat – Israel was not defending itself in ’67. Israel attacked Egypt and Syria in the pre-dawn hours. The Arab states were still hoping for a cessation of hostilities via the US and UN when Israel attacked.

  216. Lance Watson said on September 21st, 2009 at 12:31pm #

    Joachim Martillo
    In understanding modern European and Jewish history, books like The Meaning of Hitler by Sebastian Haffner (Raimund Pretzel) sometimes provide a few insights. A book like Reading the Holocaust by Inga Clendinnen is also valuable not so much for what it says (basically drivel), but as evidence of the profundity of common misconceptions and ignorance about the Holocaust. One must also wonder why such a piece of garbage is taken seriously (Meditations on the Unthinkable by Daphne Merkin — Christopher Bollyn: The Zionist Gang That Bankrupted General Motors) when it is practically impossible to publish serious historical analysis relating late 19th and early 20th century Jewish political economics to the Holocaust.

    We need a serious book that addresses the meaning of Jewish conspiracy theories or that explains how to read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or Waters Flowing Eastward, from which the article below is adapted. A book like A Rumor about the Jews: Antisemitism, Conspiracy, and the Protocols of Zion by Stephen Eric Bronner is just Jewish apologetics masquerading as serious analysis.

    Since the 19th century Jewish conspiracies in crime, politics, government, business, finance, and academics have been common and have proliferated. Why do the fantasies receive so much attention when studying the reality can provide so many useful insights in so many important areas of inquiry?

    The Protocols must have been sufficiently inadequate for Leslie Fry that she was inspired to investigate both Spanish Jewish history and the Zionist politics of the early 20th century in order to write Waters. Yet she uses the materials that she discovers to generate even greater fantasies, and her public seems to love it even though the reality is at least as interesting and more than enough cause for political mobilization against both the Jewish Bolshevik and the Jewish Zionist politics of her time period.

    Jewish conspiracy theories are making a big comeback

    * because the groveling of the Obama administration to its Zionist masters is becoming ever more obvious in the affairs of Chas Freeman, Van Jones and the Goldstone Report and
    * because Zionists within the Obama administration have been quite shameless in their efforts to protect Zionists in the Bush administration from prosecution for numerous criminal violations on behalf of the Zionist imperial system.

    In this environment, one would expect serious academic and political discussion of Jewish Zionist conspiracy. Yet all we hear and read is nonsense. One must suspect manipulation and contrivance

  217. pat said on September 21st, 2009 at 1:45pm #

    67 war- Yes Israel did attack Egypt and Syria. Israel will claim it was a defensive war. However Jordan did attack fearing that once war began Israel would take the opportunity- as it did do- to snatch the West Bank. I was really making the point that to take Israel’s own view of self defence events have shown it does not need to control West Bank to prpotect itself, therefor there is another explanation- land grab.

  218. pat said on September 21st, 2009 at 1:58pm #

    recognition. I would support earlier comments on the need for Israel that it needs to convince the Palestinians that it desires peace and recognizes the Palestinian state. Not only was it declared by the P.L.O. an organisation accepted by Israel as representing Palestinian views it was also accepted by the international community in the form of a U.N. RES. in line with RES. 181. Only 6 countries voted against it. Israel, U.S and its client states. Micronesia being one. So a Palestinian state actually exists. It would be interesting to hear from some of the pro- Israelis here why , When what they had been insisting on for decades-namely the recognition of Israel and- before the development of the Hamas to its position of major protaganist did Israel not grab the opportunity for peace with both hands.

  219. deceschi said on September 21st, 2009 at 3:03pm #

    B99 your “better question” is not good at all from Israeli perspective. And your proposals are unrealistic like your entire mindset, to say little. It’s up to the Palestinians and Arabs to explain and convince the counterpart that the future state will not be hostile to Israel. That is their share of work that nobody will take away. But they can’t even find unity among themselves let alone with their sacred enemy.

  220. b99 said on September 24th, 2009 at 10:56am #

    deceschi – Inasmuch as all wars originated with Israel, it is up to Israel to show it can integrate its stll foreign body into the region in a peaceful manner. I think it is unrealistic to think that Israel will make it through this century if it fails to do so. You do understand of course, that the imposition of a European people and state into an already inhabited land is an unforgettable grievience, one that renders dismissable whatever grieviences the Jews have against those they expelled. Should we even ask if the Jews are capable of being something other than hostile towareds the gentiles of that region? Perhaps, we know already they are incapable of same. Those of us for justice and self-determination for all people have to find a way to pry our government from its blind and stupid support of this regime in Tel Aviv so that the UN can embark upon the business of tieghtening the noose around it.