Zionism and History

by **Dreams End** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:15 am

Well Eros, I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to read the article. Not surprised, but sorry. My basic contention, as set out in the article, is that elements within the Arab world were cultivated, supported, trained and armed by the Nazis. And that at least one prominent leader, the Grand Mufti, was not only aware of the Nazi plans for the Jews, but embraced them and desired to bring that plan to the Middle East. Whether you want to blame this on their desire to have an ally against Britain, against Zionists or whether you blame this on the incessant propaganda emanating from an Arabic language German radio station, set up specifically to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, the fact is, this is what happened. Left and progressive elements in the Arab world, being popular neither with Arab fundamentalists or Nazis, were crushed and reactionary, anti-modernist forces, were cultivated--which, in turn, led to much of the Arab and Islamic nationalist movements we have today. However, since no one on this thread can bring themselves actually to read the article, it will get a little hard to discuss it. Hopefully the lurkers on this thread can see clearly how no one is dealing with that article at all. But it's central to my interest in what happened from Balfour forward.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:04 pm

i read your article DE. It does seem that the left sometimes shows a sympathy for the Islamofascists, (and thats what the Taliban and co are, I spose Pat Robertson is a christofascist), that is at odds with what the left supposedly stands for. possibly because of its revulsion for the acts of the current US admin and its supporters worldwide (I am thinking of Aus in this context btw not Israel.) And its understanding that the wealth of the west has often been stolen or scammed from people whose standard of living has actually gone backwards for 100 years, and that in some sense the Al Quaida attack on the twin towers is some sort of response to that. (The left doesn't subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories to my knowledge). Although Bin Laden's demands seem to have been specific to his country of birth and aspects of the US support for Israel, the left seems inclined to construct its own view of Bin Ladens motivations. The left seems obseesed with its own navel sometimes, and has a tendancy to frame whatevers happening in terms or forms that fit its worldview. Of course I would never do that but the left and the right, in the western world do, not me tho. Really. I think thats what the authors getting at. The way the left misses what might be the ugly heart of much of the "islamic resistance'" movement. Romantacising their resistance to bush cos its usually too comfortable and booj waar to do the same thing. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist, anti-democratic governmental system to other countries.<hr></blockquote> This is the point of my rave above. tyranney always resists new ideas, be it evolution or democracy, that which threatens a power base is gonna be scary to those that depend on that power base. However this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“Listen!” says a rabbi to a young Jew. “We have received an order from above. We need the blood of a Christian child for the unleavened bread for the Passover feast.” In the following shot, a terrified youngster is seized from the neighborhood. Then the camera zooms in on the child for a close-up of his throat being cut. The blood spurts from the wound and pours into a metal basin.<hr></blockquote> seems almost the same (subtext wise) as this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>were not always immediately murdered; sometimes they were kidnapped and taken to the mountainous areas under rebel control. There they were thrown into pits infested with snakes and scorpions. After spending a few days there, the victims, if still alive, were brought before one of the rebel courts and usually sentenced to death, or, as a special dispensation, to severe flogging. The terror was so strong that no one, including ulama and priests, dared to perform the proper burial services<hr></blockquote> Just cos one's got a footnote they are somehow different? That article raises some interesting points, but if criticism of Israel is the same as anti semeticism, and I get the impression that is what the author is suggesting, then its just another dose of the same type of propoganda that it claims emanated from germany in the 30s. I don't see that much difference in the sponsoring of Palestinian Nazis by german Nazis and the sponsorship of the settlers by some of their american supporters, jewish and non jewish. The consequences of the Nazi support of Isamofascism and the US support of the Afghan resistance in the 80s is the Islamist movement of today. What the consequence of the other sides actions gonna be? "Whats thatr coming over the hill? Is it a monster? Is it a monster?"

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:59 pm

DE, your basic premise seems to be that the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by Arab nationalism and Islamic reactionary movements, which, frankly, is bullpoop. You're ignoring the elephant (the mammoth?) in the room: colonialism and foreign occupation, and a bloody history of intervention to promote foreign interests at the expense of the native populations. The Mufti, whatever you think of him, was a blip, an insignificant, sycophantic blip, and it if weren't for the tiresome Zionist propaganda, he would have been left in peace where he belongs, in the dust-bin of history. Who respected him, even at the time (we are talking 60 years ago)? Other that blow a lot of hot air, what did he actually do? How would you say he compares to, say, Ariel Sharon, or Meir Kahane, or the much-revered former Israeli Cabinet Minister, Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, one of the founders of the armed, fanatic settler movement Gush Emunim, that spread Jewish settlements and terror throughout the West Bank, and author of this moving piece as recently as 2004? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> What is a Jew doing living in the "Arab" city of Hebron? How dare the Jews "occupy" the "Palestinian" hills of Judea and Samaria? "Peace" will only be achieved after the end of the occupation of "Arab lands"!!! These absurd declarations which are being broadcast day and night in the international media have been brainwashing world opinion, and have been adopted as well by the Israeli left. Let's get things straight. We have not occupied any foreign land, we've come back home to the land of our ancestors which has been promised to their children by the G-D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have returned to Hebron, the city of Abraham, the first capital of Israel established by King David. We have renewed Jewish life in the hills of Judea and Samaria where the visions of our prophets enlightened our lives even in the darkness of exile and suppression, with the divine promise of the redemption of Israel by its return to its Biblical inheritance. How blessed is our generation to take an active part in the realization of this divine plan of renewal of Jewish life, which is to bring a blessing (!!!) to all the nations of the world. Mr. Prime Minister and Minister of Defense with all due respect, there is no Jewish "occupied territories" in Eretz Yisrael. We have renewed Jewish life by settling in the heart of our homeland, as we are instructed by divine Biblical command and by the driving spirit of the Zionist dream. The continous flow of eternal Jewish life from the depths of destruction in the blood baths of Europe, burst forth into a renewing stream of life in Eretz Yisrael, turning into a gushing river of faith and hope. This divine Zionist faith created the pioneering zeal and devotion, which inspired the builders of towns, villages and cities, from Metullah, Rosh Pina, Elon Moreh, Shilo, Eli, Beit El, Yerushalyim, Gush Etzion and Hebron, to Sderot and Gush Katif. (My comment: and how many Arab "towns", "villages" and "cities" were destroyed in the process? Where are their inhabitants now?) Generations of dreamers, fighters and builders have been privileged to achieve the realization of the Zionist dream. "When G-D returns us to Zion, we will be like dreamers". (Psalms 126:1) ... I want all my friends, including our Israeli government, to know that the Zionist dream is continuing in the classical divine path of settling, building, and defending Jewish life in all of Eretz Yisrael, b'ezrat Hashem. This divine phenomenon is driven by the eternal strength of faith and its natural instincts of Jewish survival and existence. This process will not be deterred by the evil of our enemies nor by the weakness and irresponsible folly of our brothers at the head of the Israeli government. <a href="http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-279-The-Strength-of-Zionist-Roots-Testing-the-Leadership-of-Israel.html">www.internationalwallofpr...srael.html</a> <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> June 1967 radically transformed Zionism. Since then, its renewed ideological drive and pioneering zeal have come from within religious circles. Secular Greater Israel would be indistinguishable from the fruits of old fashioned colonialist plunder. But clothed in the pure garment of religious rectitude, religious Zionism could appeal to its divine provenance and be fuelled by eschatological fervor. Its theological underpinning lies in the trinity of the father Kook, the son Kook and the Merkaz HaRav, the Center for the training of rabbis established by the elder Kook in 1921. Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook (1865-1935) immigrated in 1904, and became the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine in 1921. With few exceptions, Orthodox Jewry was vehemently opposed to Zionism. They rejected it because of its secular inspiration and values, and regarded Zionists as heretics and sinners who presumed to usher in the messianic era on their own terms, without waiting for God. Rav Kook's teachings integrated the traditional, passive religious longing for the land with the modern, secular and aggressively active practice of Zionism, giving birth to a comprehensive religious-nationalist Zionism. Seeking 'the holy sparks' in every Jewish ideology, the Rav saw secular Zionism as an instrument of God to further the messianic redemption and restoration not only of Jews, but of all humanity - a critical aspect of his teleology, if widely ignored by his disciples. He was convinced that God was leading Jews, whether secular or religious to return to the Holy Land, after which the nation would return to its faith. God was bringing about his redemption through the 'Divinely inspired' Balfour Declaration that 'mirrored the Dawn of Salvation'. In Rav Kook's view, the divine energy was at its strongest in the creative pioneers of the secular Zionist revolution who were agents of God without even knowing it. If their utopian secularism was heretical in the minds of the Orthodox establishment, for him it represented the source of renewal. Practical activities were inseparable from spiritual aspirations, and social activity as well as mysticism had religious meaning: stirrings 'down below' were a necessary preamble to evoking messianic grace 'from above'. If Rav Kook's metamorphosis of the theory of secular Zionism into a full-blown practical and eschatological mysticism was virtually unknown during his lifetime, his prodigious writings, selectively mediated by his son, and especially his founding of the Center have proven to be critical in the renaissance of religio-political Zionism up to the present. It was only after his death that he became a cult hero and an idolized spiritual guide in the 1970s after the settler movement, Gush Emunim, claimed him as their forefather, and devoted themselves to carrying out his legacy, under the authoritative guidance of his only son. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook produced doctored versions of his father's writings, reducing them to collections of articles that distilled Judaism into Zionism by means of messianism. One such collection, Orot (Lights) was the 'red book' of the Gush Emunim cadres. The link between the two Kooks is the key to understanding Gush Emunim: the father is known mostly through the son, and the son is adorned with the halo of the father. While the father's view that the messianic era had begun was not taken seriously in his own day, his son now supported it with a program of messianic political activism. He saw in the rebirth of the Jewish state the first step towards the coming of the Messiah. All its institutions were means to a messianic end: its government and army were Kadosh (Holy). The war of 1967 was a turning point in the tortuous process of Messianic redemption. Nobody was more prepared to build on what they believed God had handed them than a group of rabbis who had come under the son's influence in the Center. They included Moshe Levinger, Haim Druckman, Eliezer Waldman, Ya'akov Ariel, Shlomo Aviner, Avraham Shapira and others who were to become household names in Israel over the next thirty years. For them, the biblical texts were no mere literary heritage, but constituted a living title-deed. Every advance of the army recalled the promise, 'Every place on which you set foot shall be yours', anticipating some future time when 'Your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the Western Sea' (Deut 11.24). On the final day of the war some of these rabbis carried their mentor to the Western Wall, where Rav Kook declared, 'We announce to all of Israel, and to all of the world that by a divine command we have returned to our home, to our holy city. From this day forth, we shall never budge from here'. Since the dimensions of Eretz Yisrael were those of Genesis 15, rather than of pre-1967 Israel, Jews were obliged to fulfil the 'commandment of conquest', by settling in the whole land and defending Jewish sovereignty over it. Such settlement had redemptive and messianic meaning, and would mark a Jewish renaissance. It was a sacred activity, and those engaged in such a holy enterprise had 'souls equal to the supreme zaddik' (the most righteous Jew). The first settlements were founded by young rabbi graduates of the Center. Under their influence, the superficial nationalism of secular Zionism was giving way to a religious Zionism, issuing in the popular slogan, 'There is no Zionism without Judaism, and no Judaism without Zionism'. The settlements dotting the landscape of the West Bank in every direction are a testimony to the success of their enterprise. Messianic Salvation & the Palestinians ... Like the first wave of Zionist conquest in 1948, the period since 1967 has been a catastrophe for the indigenous population. The establishment of a Jewish state in 1948 involved the eviction of the majority of the Palestinians, and the destruction of most of their villages, and the relentless use of force and state terrorism, wars and military operations since. The extension of the Zionist dream into the religious realm continues to involve the daily humiliation of the indigenous people and a litany of other atrocities. But, in the view of religious Jewish Zionists, and not a few foreign Christians, this is a small price to pay for the benefits of messianic redemption - especially when someone else is paying. ... As early as 1913, the behavior of Zionists towards the Palestinians made Ahad Ha'am fear for the future if Jews ever came to power. In a letter to a settler in Palestine he wrote 'If this be the "Messiah": I do not wish to see his coming.' <a href="http://www.sabeel.org/old/news/newsltr8/index.htm">www.sabeel.org/old/news/n.../index.htm</a><hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:28 pm

Alice, just to make the discussion easier, other than the Mufti's signficance in ME history, is there anything else in that article you dispute?

by **sockmonkey** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:53 pm

From the Matthias Küntzel piece: Anti-Semitism based on the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy The decisive transfer of this ideology to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda.Important to this process were the Arabic-language service broadcast by the German shortwave transmitter in Zeesen between 1939 and 1945, and the role of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was the first to translate European anti-Semitism into an Islamic context... Okay. So evil Nazi radio is responsible for turning Arabs into crazed Islamofascists? Thats the thrust of this link we are all supposed to read? Well, sorry, but it seems a bit of a stretch to me. The Nazis were broadcasting English language propaganda into Great Britain too, but Lord Haw-Haw didn't have much success converting the English listeners into raving Nazis and anti-Semites. Frankly, this whole push to Nazi-fy th Arabs is strange, and our friend here from the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, seems to be but a tool to this end. Try this: Ten questions to the Zionists by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L Dean of Nitra Yeshiva and author of min hametzar <a href="http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/tenquestions.cfm">www.nkusa.org/Historical_...stions.cfm</a> There's other articles there which you may find of interest , and which deal with the early phases of Zionism. Read them if you wish.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Nazis were broadcasting English language propaganda into Great Britain too, but Lord Haw-Haw didn't have much success converting the English listeners into raving Nazis and anti-Semites.<hr></blockquote> That's sort of a good point. First off, though, I think a reading of the article will show that the broadcasts alone are not all that's too blame. For example, I don't think that the Nazis were supplying training, money and other kinds of support to the English. Secondly, the trick is not to turn all Arabs into reactionary anti-Semites, but to cultivate those who are and work to establish and maintain their hegemony. I don't know your nationality, sockpuppet, but my government does this sort of thing all the time. Sometimes they just overthrow a government they don't like, but usually they cultivate some rightwinger by providing funds, training, "advisors" etc. These guys we cultivate, in turn, do away with forces for progressive change: socialists, communists, labor unions, etc. Think El Salvador, for example. In any event, since everyone accepts that there was Nazi support and cooperation with elements of the early Palestinian nationalists and other Arab nationalists, the questions are: 1. Was it significant enough to make any difference? 2. Does any of that lead directly to the various organizations we see today? This, in turn, leads to another pair of questions: 1. Is the Arab nationalist portrayal of current events completely accurate (i.e. all the blame goes to Israel)? 2. If the answer to number one is "YES" (and please pay attention to this part) does that automatically mean that the groups and organizations opposing Israel are groups worthy of support by progressives? This is key and the arguments keep jumping around. For example, I bring up the history of Arab anti-Zionism and someone will pop in with a list of alleged Israeli crimes from the present day. So this thread is about the history but another thread could (for the sake of argument) assume that Israel is the sole guilty party in the Middle East. Then the debate would become: does that mean that the progressive community should support Hizbollah (and its Iranian sponsor), for example? My contention has been that the Nazis (and also the English and then the US, but haven't gotten to that yet) not only supported the most reactionary movements in the ME, but also those movements worked to eliminate more progressive forms of Arab activism. For example, Nasser banned communist parties and jailed many communists during his time in power. So does the Western left celebrate this? Are we supposed to excuse it? In fact, it is the anti-communist perspective of Islamic fundamentalism (not referring to Nasser here) that has led the west so often to support such movements, or at least served as convenient cover for doing so. Note the oft quoted Brzenski statement about how the US funded the Mujahadeen even BEFORE the USSR came into Afghanistan specifically hoping to induce a Soviet "Vietnam". It's not always fundamentalists, of course. The Shah worked just fine for those purposes as well. This is political reality. Nothing is black and white...and yet people on this thread still keep speaking in those terms. "Israel did A so therefore anyone opposed to Israel and A should be supported." That kind of thinking is not only simplistic but dangerous. As easy proof, just check out he number of overt Nazi sites opposed to Bush and to "globalism". I'm opposed to Bush. I'm opposed to globalism. So does this mean I send a check to "overthrow.com"? Of course not. As such, it is disturbing, even if we put aside differences about the history of Zionism, that the left will rather uncritically support Hizbollah. I'm not impressed with Iran as the sort of country I'd like to live in..and I assume that Hizbollah shares the same vision as Iran for what they'd like to see in Lebanon, and ultimately, I suppose, in Israel. Anyone here want to defend the utopia that is Iran? I think that argument will be an easier one for me to win. If your answer was "no" then why support Hizbollah? This is, at best, very shoddy thinking by the left. I've seen it explained as simply a left romanticism of any "third world" nationalist movement. I don't think it's that simple. But whatever the reasoning, I don't like it. For anyone not on the left, probably a lot of that isn't relevant.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:00 pm

DE, I find your obssession with anti-semitism truly bizarre, not to mention your odd mission to portray Arabs, particularly Arab nationalists defending their OWN countries and people against foreign invaders and occupiers, as...Nazis? Do you truly not recognize that the poison that infested the Nazis and the fascists in Europe is to be found, but not where you're looking? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Genocide in Gaza Ilan Pappe, The Electronic Intifada, 2 September 2006 A genocide is taking place in Gaza. This morning, 2 September, another three citizens of Gaza were killed and a whole family wounded in Beit Hanoun. This is the morning reap, before the end of day many more will be massacred. An average of eight Palestinian die daily in the Israeli attacks on the Strip. Most of them are children. Hundreds are maimed, wounded and paralyzed. The Israeli leadership is at a loss of what to do with the Gaza Strip. It has vague ideas about the West Bank. The current government assumes that the West Bank, unlike the Strip, is an open space, at least on its eastern side. Hence if Israel, under the ingathering program of the government, annexes the parts it covets – half of the West Bank – and cleanses it of its native population, the other half would naturally lean towards Jordan, at least for a while and would not concern Israel. This is a fallacy, but nonetheless it won the enthusiastic vote of most of the Jews in the country. Such an arrangement can not work in the Gaza enclave – Egypt unlike Jordan has succeeded in persuading the Israelis, already in 1948, that the Gaza Strip for them is a liability and will never form part of Egypt. So a million and half Palestinians are stuck inside Israel – although geographically the Strip is located on the margins of the state, psychologically it lies in its midst. The inhuman living conditions in the most dense area in the world, and one of the poorest human spaces in the northern hemisphere, disables the people who live it to reconcile with the imprisonment Israel had imposed on them ever since 1967. There were relative better periods where movement to the West Bank and into Israel for work was allowed, but these better times are gone. Harsher realities are in place ever since 1987. Some access to the outside world was allowed as long as there were Jewish settlers in the Strip, but once they were removed the Strip was hermetically closed. Ironically, most Israelis, according to recent polls, look at Gaza as an independent Palestinian state that Israel has graciously allowed to emerge. The leadership, and particularly the army, see it as a prison with the most dangerous community of inmates, which has to be eliminated one way or another. The conventional Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing employed successfully in 1948 against half of Palestine’s population, and against hundred of thousand of Palestinians in the West Bank are not useful here. You can slowly transfer Palestinians out of the West Bank, and particular out of the Greater Jerusalem area, but you can not do it in the Gaza Strip - once you sealed it as a maximum-security prison camp. As with the ethnic cleansing operations, the genocidal policy is not formulated in a vacuum. Ever since 1948, the Israeli army and government needed a pretext to commence such policies. The takeover of Palestine in 1948 produced the inevitable local resistance that in turn allowed the implementation of an ethnic cleansing policy, preplanned already in the 1930s. Twenty years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank produced eventually some sort of Palestinian resistance. This belated anti-occupation struggle unleashed a new cleansing policy that still is implemented today in the West Bank. The Gaza imprisonment in the summer of 2005, which was paraded as an Israeli generous withdrawal, produced the Hamas and Islamic Jiahd missile attack and one abduction case. Even before the abduction of Giald Shalit, the Israeli army bombarded indiscriminately the Strip. Ever since the abduction, the massive killing increased and became systematic. A daily business of slaying Palestinians, mainly children is now reported in the internal pages of the local press, quite often in microscopic fonts. The chief culprits are the Israeli pilots who have a field day now that one of them is the General Chief of Staff. In the 1982 Lebanon war, the Israeli airforce issued orders to its pilots to abort mission if within 500 square meters of their target they spotted innocent civilians. Not that these orders were kept, but the pretense for internal moral consumption was there. It is called in the Israeli airforce, the ‘Lebanon Procedure’ [Nohal Levanon]. When the pilots asked a year ago if the ‘Lebanon procedure’ is in tact for Gaza, the answer was no. The same answer was given to the pilots in the second Lebanon war. The Lebanon war provided the fog for a while, covering the war crimes in the Gaza Strip. But the policies rage on even after the conclusion of the cease-fire up in the north. It seems that the frustrated and defeated Israeli army is even more determined to enlarge the killing fields in the Gaza Strip. There are no politicians who are able or willing to stop the generals. A daily killing of up to 10 civilians is going to leave few thousands dead each year. This is of course different from genociding a million people in one campaign – the only inhibition Israel is willing to undertake in the name of the Holocaust memory. But if you double the killing you raise the number to horrific proportions and more importantly you may force a mass eviction in the end of the day outside the Strip – either in the name of human aid, international intervention or the people’s own desire to escape the inferno. But if the Palestinian steadfastness is going to be the response, and there is no reason to doubt that this will be the Gazan reaction, then the massive killing would continue and increase. Much depends on the international reaction. When Israel was absolved from any responsibility or accountably for the ethnic cleansing in 1948, it turned this policy into a legitimate tool for its national security agenda. If the present escalation and adaptation of genocidal policies would be tolerated by the world, it would expand and used even more drastically. Nothing apart from pressure in the from of sanctions, boycott and divestment will stop the murdering of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip. There is nothing we here in Israel can do against it. Brave pilots refused to partake in the operations, two journalists – out of 150 – do not cease to write about it, but this is it. In the name of the Holocaust memory, let us hope the world will not allow the genocide of Gaza to continue. Ilan Pappe is senior lecturer in the University of Haifa Department of political Science and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies in Haifa. His books include among others The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (London and New York 1992), The Israel/Palestine Question (London and New York 1999), A History of Modern Palestine (Cambridge 2003), The Modern Middle East (London and New York 2005) and forthcoming, Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) <a href="http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5656.shtml">electronicintifada.net/v2...5656.shtml</a><hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>DE, I find your obssession with anti-semitism truly bizarre, not to mention your odd mission to portray Arabs, particularly Arab nationalists defending their OWN countries and people against foreign invaders and occupiers, as...Nazis?<hr></blockquote> It will help if you read the article. And my previous posts. Before replying to them. Really.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyone here want to defend the utopia that is Iran? I think that argument will be an easier one for me to win. If your answer was "no" then why support Hizbollah? This is, at best, very shoddy thinking by the left. I've seen it explained as simply a left romanticism of any "third world" nationalist movement. I don't think it's that simple. But whatever the reasoning, I don't like it. For anyone not on the left, probably a lot of that isn't relevant.<hr></blockquote> from what I understand of the left it has 2 aspects, seperated by class. Today , not necessarily in the past. Upper middle class ideologues, and working class union types. The working people are often actually right wing in their thinking, save the collectivism workers are in it together attitude. And the middle class left are looking to give their life meaning and for a way to be taken seriously. there is newspaper in Australia "green Left weekly". Tho it should be called Green Left Weakly, cos thats an apt description of the movements power. Its an ideological perspective opposed to rampant corpaoirate capitalism. So when bush representing "global capital" says you are either with us or against us, I suspect the left says "well we are definitely not with you potato head" and gets drawn to those bush says is the enemy, if only to see what they are about. I think it is easy for the left to ignore the anti deocratic trend of Islamism, because it portrays itself as fighting a justified fight against the darkness in the world. That appeals to the mentality of those in the "green left weekly" camp on all sorts of memetic levels. They can join the righteous fight, and it appeals to them cos deep down ( most are uni students under 25 IME) they want to tell people how to do things, they know they have the answers and if they could just be in charge and everyone do what they say the world will be alright. This is the basic and stated plan of Islamist orgs from the Madrasses. Put us in charge, we'll tell people what to do and everything will be alright. The union centred, working people side of the left wants nothing to do with hairy muslims that blow people up and don't like women (or greenies that take away logging jobs for that matter). That seems to be the case with the lefts support of Hizbolla. Then again, Southern Lebanon has been treated like shit by the Israeli's for over 25 years, why not support the underdog in a fight, especially when the underdog has some valid points to make about the way the enemy it is fighting has given up on human decency in this particular fight. If Isreal didn't have a 10 to 1 kill rate of civillians against an organisation that is claimed to be a terrorist one. You know the terrorists, that bomb innocent civillians? If those numbers were different. If it appeared that Lebanon was not bombed back to the stone age in reponse to the cross border kidnapping, or the capture of a foreign soldier on their own soil, I dunno which, then hizbolla probably wouldn't have the support it does from the left today.

by **hava1** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:44 am

been following this thread, with a mind opened to understand the zionist movement. some exciting turns here and there, but on the whole, didn't gain more insight, as I was thinking maybe to "digest" the thread for hebrew readers, but on second thought, there is a lot of "provocative" material there, which does not settle into something solid. it could illustrate, though, to the average readership here in israel, how much time/energy is spent outside of israel on their very own histories and public life. i actually don't know what that means as well, namely, why the interest. here, that is. more interesting to me would be the analysis (deeper analysis) to the evolution of the "two state solution" in the dept. of state. what kind of "two states" ? what is the financial arrangement in view ?namely, the way this solution is integrated into the overall US financial interest in the region and world wide. is palestine to be part of the US-Israel special relations deal. etc. -- Next to my place, a palestinian was shot dead point blank by an israeli border policeman, the day condi landed here. seems like the orders came from DC. -- on the shahak debate, not much to add except he is not bad or mad. he is just a non conventional voice in israel. so take it from there. one cannot learn the history of north america from RI, but that doesn't mean RI is insane, as well. same goes for using official prop. these are poles between which life happens.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:55 am

It is fascinating, Hava, it would be great if this were all fiction, some made-up or ancient case history to be discussed in a philosophy or political science course. I just have a real problem thinking of all these issues in academic terms, or distancing myself. I imagine myself having my home demolished, losing my shelter, my papers, watching this pimply kid riding a big American bulldozer as he smashes the walls that guarded my family's privacy, that protected us from the hot sun and the cold winter rain. I imagine my precious babies, some asshole giving himself the right to shoot bullets into them. And other assholes explaining that shooting them was an act of self-defence. And, in the upside-down world of the Zionists, I and my family are the criminals, while the assholes sitting behind their solid walls, under their solid roof, on furniture they know won't be smashed or thrown into the street, flap their mouths about how the Zionists are the victims of anti-semitism, while I and my family and my neighbours, are the jack-booted Nazis. My problem is that the situation is not fixed, it's not standing still while we debate back and forth. It's urgent, war crimes are being committed, innocent people are dying, being crippled, being orphaned, sliding further into despair. I don't know about you, but when I picture myself and my family facing the daily atrocities that too many Palestinians face, the rage and hatred that rushes into my heart, not only for the Zionists, but for their hypocritical and complicit supporters, is overwhelming. The miracle is that those who actually live this situation, on the ground, are, according to most reports, free of this rage and hatred. I don't know how or why these people are so much better than me. Maybe because of their profound faith in God, which tells them that nothing happens unless God wills it. Probably also because the Palestinians are very strange in one way: they have the lowest personal boundaries of any people I've ever met. Anybody who's been to Palestine will be struck immediately by this. If you go to someone's home, there will usually be lots of people milling around, and it's almost impossible to determine who's a blood relative, who's related by marriage, who's a neighbour, and who is a friend, because all will seem equally at home, all will offer you food and drink and welcome you. You'll be asked all kinds of personal questions, with a frankness and lack of reticence that will seem shocking to, say, a North American or European. If you stay long enough, at least one small child will overcome his or her shyness to settle themselves comfortably on your lap and probably go to sleep. Psychologically, this must be a life-saver. This must account for their awesome capacity to withstand the daily atrocities, the outrageous injustice, for more than 60 years, with no end in sight. How smug you are, DE! How transparent you are, as you hold up cheap and malicious Zionist propaganda as "evidence" that the Palestinians are Nazis and, therefore, the Zionists are right to massacre and dispossess them! I'm beginning to suspect that Zionism is more than just a racist ideology: it's a serious mental illness. Mentally ill people should not be allowed to commit genocide under the influence of their delusions. Sane people should stop them.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:16 am

Alice, I tell you what. I'll stop using information from pro-Zionist websites, if you'll stop using information from anti-Zionist sites? Deal? Didn't think so. When Alice gets back to the cheap shots, you know she's run out of arguments. How "transparent" I am, etc. Whatever. Here's my interest...the one that goes beyond this debate. I feel, and feel I can prove to a certain extent, that the left in the West is, in large degree "fake". Or maybe a better term is "controlled". While my efforts to make some distinctions on this thread don't amount to much since people respond to my posts without actually reading them(by the way, I'm behind on reading the links that have shown up here as well...still finding free time scarce) I've made it clear that there are two important and to a large degree, separate issues. Number one is what's the culpability of the "Zionists" in the ME? Not only in regards to Palestinians but as a causative factor in things like the Gulf War. Number two is whether any, some or all the forces who OPPOSE Zionism, regardless of our opinions on Zionism itself, are worthy of support. I'm sorry, Joe, but being an "underdog" is not a valid criterion. Would you have supported the Contras? UNITA? So, for example, when you have CIA types here in the US decrying the policies of the neocons but ignoring the truly massive litany of abuses directly carried out by the CIA before and after the word neocon came into popular useage, you can say that this particular strain of "opposition" is fake. It is misdirection. It is an attempt to get legitimate opposition voices channeled into acceptable patterns of resistance which does not truly threaten the power structure. And the left in the US is almost completely overrun with these sorts of forces now. I see the Middle East in the same light. Obviously, I'm ultimately interested the most in what the role of my own country is. But in general, when the "humanist" and (mostly) secular left is embracing a political movement designed to bring about an Islamic theocracy, then I want to know what that's about. I've asserted, and Alice doesn't deny, that many of these nationalist movements, religious or no, have wiped out the communists in their respective countries. What does that tell you? \ And yet this pattern is so clear and predictable. History is replete with the US both supporting rightwing movements who go around killing commies, and also infiltrating or creating left movements in the same countries to keep them under control. This is what our own AFL-CIO has done so often...set up labor unions in various countries but with the specific goal of decreasing the power of any other unions which may be socialist or communist influenced. Or google "National Endowment for Democracy". We also find that many, many of our domestic "left" groups are funded by foundations with names like "Rockefeller" and "Ford." This should be a clue. So I could (but won't) stipulate that Israel is the most evil country on the planet but that still doesn't mean any movement that opposes Israel is worthy of left support. In any event, the only real argument about the big article I posted is that it is simply propaganda (but anything that is not anti-Zionist would fall under this definition, and any anti-Zionist source will not print that material, so that sorta limits my ability to find acceptable sources for Alice) and that yes, the Grand Mufti was a Nazi but that influence was not important to later Arab resistance movements. And the latter point is the one I'll keep looking into. Feel free to keep posting opinion pieces or rhetorical attacks on me and on Israel. We all need a hobby. But meanwhile, that's where I'm going with this.

by **erosoplier** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sane people should stop them.<hr></blockquote> Indeed. ----------------------- Who knows how long the road will be to bringing this particular case of madness to a halt? I need to know a lot more about the situation before I can be of much use to anyone re. this, and DE does us a service by serving as a "formidable adversary." Keep it up DE (you prick! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> ). It's obvious that in this day and age simply knowing in your heart what is right isn't going to change the world. Not unless everybody else knows the same thing as you do, and that isn't the way it is at the moment. This world is currently run by callous bastards who come across as nice guys (witness William Krystol - how innocent he seems as he nonchalantly affirms that it will indeed be necessary to confront Iran militarily - a cold blooded murderer with boyishly handsome charm...truly astounding to watch) To make this and other similar roads as short as possible we're all gonna need well sharpened tools in our kit. I'm hoping this thread will continue to be of assistance. I take it for granted that my opinions about the Middle-East should count for something if they are sufficiently appropriate, and I take it for granted that I am a stakeholder in this situation, regardless of the fact that I'm not readily identifiable as being immediately concerned. If they ever pull the nukes out over there it will be everybody's bag of fish. And apart from that, I don't like seeing innocent people getting killed. And I don't wish to overlook the problem of Islamic fundamentalism - I'd be eager to address it actually, but this thread hasn't yet provided the appropriate context for a fruitful discussion, I don't think. If others are interested, count me in. ---------------------- DE, I've just read your latest post and I'm still struggling... There is a strong case to be made that Bush has simply gone too far, and the likes of McGovern arriving on the scene is simply a natural response to this (or do you think everyone in the CIA was in on 9/11?). Why set off on a spook hunt when the obvious answer is to shut the spooks down (ie bring the CIA's meddling to an end), regardless of how unrealistic that possibility seems? You seem to be the one with the more trivial hobby. Though having said that, I did learn the other day that Mcgovern gave Bush senior his daily briefing when he was Prez, so, um, that kinda rings alarm bells for me. Anyway, I'll be interested to see what you come up with re. outside influences on Islamic resistance movements.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:58 pm

eros, My blog is my attempt to sort through some of these questions. <a href="http://dreamsend.wordpress.com">Dream's End's evil Zionist blog</a> Actually, it's not much about Zionism at all, though the attempts to put ALL of the blame on neocons and Israel for everything that the US does is a focus. Short answer about CIA is this: why would McGovern, for example, ally himself with RCP....known to support groups like Shining Path rather than a more mainstream group, like United for Peace and Justice? We can't say he didn't know RCP was behind Not in Our Name because he, himself, brags of how much info he has access to. Ditto Ramsey. Why is Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch...etc. Anyway, it's all on the blog. As for one's "heart". ... We have 60 years of very sophisticated intelligence games and covert operations, some of which are continuations of games going on before that. Indeed, the politics of colonialism in Afghanistan was even known as the "Great Game." So it is no shame, I think, to admit that it's not always easy to figure out how to translate that good impulse into correct action. Here's a little analogy that is fairly off topic but it just came to my attention. I wrote a little about how my local peace group has just hired a new director. The heart of the board was in the right place as they were strongly hoping to find a qualified African-American in hopes of fixing whatever is preventing the local peace community from having much coordination with the Black community, whether it's internalized racism or merely tactical screw ups. Anyway, they hired a guy who is a "radical anarchist." That actually didn't bother me. But it turns out he also served time in jail...well, that didn't bother me either, actually, It was WHY he was in jail..for hijacking a plane to Cuba when he felt he was being persecuted by the FBI for the murder of a klansman. In fact, this may very well be true. Before serving time, he says that the government grabbed him and tortured him, first in Czechoslavakia (and this was before the end of the Cold war) and then in Gitmo. So I became convinced that he might be some sort of mind control operative or at least have been sufficiently "conditioned" by his experiences as to allow the bad guys to use him for their own purposes. So I speculated that it would result in the destruction of this local group. Which has begun. Emails are going out with accusations on all sides. He accused a regular activist of racism. others accuse him of libel. etc. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is, but the point is, I've seen this exact same crap before. It's text book. Someone in the group is trying to bust it up. I can't swear it's the new director...only that events are happening exactly as I assumed they would. (And no, I have no idea why this little group would be of interest to the PTB...not much of a threat.) Anyway, even if I"m way off base here, I've seen this happen before when it was quite clearly police agents instigating the self-destruction. It's actually pretty easy to do. Meanwhile, I'm also aware of several so-called revolutionary groups such as RCP which, if they aren't FBI sure act like they are. And then you get McGovern with them, etc. So how does one follow one's heart in this? I knew the local group was headed for this kinda b.s. but what am I going to do, say "Hey, that guy might be a mind control victim whose tasked with disrupting the organization?" I actually had an earlier run in when I tried to work with them and got paired with this really unpleasant woman who I also suspect is an agent as she completely pissed off a local city councilman who was supposed to speak at an anti-war rally and pissed a lot of other people off as well. She even threatened to slap my wife. When I raised these issues with the peace group leadership, they kept her around...so I backed out. I had enough of that in LA. It's a complicated world and the bad guys are smart, rich and have the benefit of a left that does not seem to remember its own history. They study social groups and movements not just to oppose them but also to control them. And they do it very well. You can see some of their most obvious handiwork by learning about Patty Hearst and the SLA or Jim Jones and the People's Temple. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. Or a bigger enemy. Or even the same enemy.

by **slimmouse** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Actually, it's not much about Zionism at all, though the attempts to put ALL of the blame on neocons and Israel for everything that the US does is a focus.<hr></blockquote> Heres a good deal DE, Lets hear what youre reasons are for the US doing what its currently doing in the ME, and then lets compare those with best case argument for why what is happening is the fault of The Neocons, Zionists and Israel ? Dont be afraid to name names. In fact, it should be a reasonable prerequisite of your composition TO name names, rather than hiding behind posts of immense length which even to educated people seem to do little than use bandwidth to explain little to zero. Lets hear exactly WHO is to blame IYO, in order of importance, with means motive and opportunity. You seem to insist that this Anti Israel thing is leading us all of track, and is a primary indicator of some kind of baseless closet fascism. OK, lead us back on track please !

Zionism and History

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Re: Matthias Küntzel

Re: Matthias Küntzel

Re: "The Mufti" as a red herring

Re: "The Mufti" as a red herring

Re: Matthias Küntzel

Re:fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Heres a good deal.

Who is online