Zionism and History

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:08 pm

This thread may not be long for the world. I want to start with a disclaimer and then start it off. Those of us who have found a lot of validity to theories of history that include "conspiracy" as part of the tradecraft of elite rule are constantly running up against rightwing ideology that suggest Israel and Zionists are at the heart of the world's ills. Meanwhile, though the left does not embrace the more all encompassing Jewish control theories, I'm seeing a lot of writing from the left these days that goes beyond criticism of Israel's actions into theories that, the Iraq war, for example, is purely a result of Israel somehow getting the US to go to war entirely against its own interests. While I think that those of us who are interested in conspiracy need to acknowledge what tainted ground we are oftenon (intentionally so, would be my view), I'm actually more concerned about the development of this sort of thought on the left. I say that because I'm pretty sure that is NOT the sort of perspective that's going to show up here, but it is my own interest. In any event, let this be a place to hash it all out. For me, I want to become very familiar with this territory. Like I said, I don't really have any interest in tracking down rumors that Hitler was the bastard son of a Rothschild (though I have, in fact, already done so) so I'd like to try to limit this discussion to the idea of historical Zionism and its role most specifically in the current situation in the Middle East. I'd like to invite people to put up specific arguments and provide some documentation rather than simply copy and paste something from another website that is unsupported. I wonder, to start, if everyone agrees to the following: Britain, via the "Balfour declaration, pledged to allow a Jewish homeland in Palestine. 1917 Following WW1, as the winners were redesigning the map of the world at the Paris peace conference, Britain was granted as a UN "mandate" parts of the Ottoman empire that included Palestine. Many more Jews than previously began to immigrate there. In the twenties there was increasing violence between Arab and Jew, while the official responsibility of policing the area still fell to Britain. World War 2 happened. (bit of understatement there). Many more Jews fled to Palestine. After the war ended, violence between Arab and Jew continued. The UN came up with a plan to partition the country into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The plan was agreed to by a majority in the UN but was objected to both by many Arab states as well as a segment of the Zionists. War ensues between Zionist forces and the Arab League. And then some other stuff happened. Okay, I think that is neutral enough. The next post will be a cut and paste of Alice the Curious's contention that "Zionism" was a racist project from the beginning. She has another contention that Zionists conspired with Nazis to the point of collaboration with them in the Holocaust in order to get more Jews to come to Israel/Palestine. I'm saving a response to that one till I get a chance to look at the Brenner book and article as Brenner gets cited by the left and so is of particular importance to me. Play nice. Keep this thread out of the firepit or at least from being locked.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:32 pm

I realized that Alice's points were sorta scattered throughout. Here's the sort of thing that left and right opponents of Israel tend to put out. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> For one thing, the early Zionists deliberately made it impossible for many Jews to escape Nazi Germany unless they agreed to go to Israel. According to their own statements, they placed a higher value on the creation of a Zionist state than on saving the lives of desperate and helpless people. Indeed, the Nazis rather liked the Zionists, and the feeling was apparently mutual. In other words, Zionists were not nice people then, any more than they are nice people now. <hr></blockquote> I suggest that at best this is an oversimplification and at worst a deliberate distortion that has been promoted for decades. The corollary to the above is that, absent Zionist collusion, Hitler would not have bothered with the Jews. This is profoundly nonsense as any copy of Mein Kempf will tell you. Expelling the Jews (and later much worse) was always part of the Nazi program. Hitler did not hide this fact, but many did assume that it was mostly rhetoric. So then, what is the charge? Is this really suggesting that had it not been for Zionists, more Jews would have been left to go about their business? That the Zionists were somehow partners in the Holocaust? I'm out of time at the moment and had promised to read the Brenner stuff. Meanwhile, maybe Alice or someone can clarify what this charge is. Are you suggesting that Zionists were part of the problem or simply that Zionists responded inadequately to the plight of European Jews? Meanwhile, I'd like to post this little flyer that helps show that the characterization of Zionists as racists intent on ridding Palestine of Arabs is simply untrue. You can follow the link to find a link to an actual copy but here is the text: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> APPEAL BY THE HAIFA WORKERS' COUNCIL TO THE ARAB RESIDENTS OF HAIFA TO THE WORKERS AND OFFICIALS For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa, in security and in mutual understanding. Thanks to this, our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents, and thus did Haifa serve as an example to the other cities in Palestine. Hostile elements have been unable to reconcile themselves to this situation, and it has been these elements which have induced conflicts and undermined the relations between you and us. But the hand of justice has overcome them. Our city has been cleared of these elements who fled for their lives. Thus, once again, does order and security prevail in the city and the way has been opened for the restoration of cooperation and fraternity between the Jewish and Arab workers. At this juncture we believe it necessary to state in the frankest terms: We are peace-loving people! There is no cause for the fear which others try to instill in you. There is no hatred in our hearts nor evil in our intentions towards peace-loving residents who, like us, are bent up work and creative effort. Do not fear! Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not block off your sources of livelihood; and do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families. UPRIGHT AND PEACE-LOVING WORKERS: The Haifa Workers' Council and the Histradut advise you for your own good to remain in the city and to return to your normal work. We are ready to come to your help, in restoring normal conditions, to assist you in obtaining food supplies, and to open up job opportunities. WORKERS: OUR JOINT CITY, HAIFA, CALLS UPON YOU TO JOIN ITS UPBUILDING, ITS ADVANCEMENT, ITS DEVELOPMENT, DO NOT BETRAY YOUR CITY AND DO NOT BETRAY YOURSELVES. FOLLOW YOUR TRUE INTERESTS AND FOLLOW THE GOOD AND UPRIGHT PATH. Federation of Jewish Labor in Palestine THE HAIFA WORKERS' COUNCIL <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/haifa.htm">link</a>

by **slimmouse** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:06 pm

Dreams end, Perhaps you might post us another set of rules for when criticism of Israel, and highlighting the role of Zionism as a key factor in all the shit going down in this world is acceptable ? Got to keep people in their corner, right ? I remember you suggesting a while back that you were once the victim of hounding from the ADL. I really am having difficulty understanding why, other than that you hadnt paid your subscriptions. To be honest, Ive had it with the entire thing on this forum. Ive kinda seen the light so to speak. Actually, Im hoping that this is the reason, and not some subconscious conditioning. If it is the latter, could you suggest any culprits ? I think Alice kinda hit the nail on the head for most of her posts. Just my opinion of course. And finally, youre either free to speak out, or you arent. Which do you believe in ? But it would still be nice to have your guidelines on Jeffs forum so we dont break the rules, lest the wallpaper starts flowing again.

by **hava1** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:34 pm

ZIonism intends to oust the palestinians from what shall become the final shape of Israel, in order that this shall be a Jewish state with a secure jewish majority, given the different birth rate/population growth of these groups, that's obvious. Jews claim that Zionists collaborated with Nazis, either as wrong response or as a result of corruptions or a combination of both. Religious jews have worse accusations. The arab world is using the real tragedy of the palestinians to steer their public opinion away from more pressing, domesting problems (as all others regimes we know do when they have a lot to hide from their own folks). Israel's gov is now doing the same in Israel (instigating wars to hide corruption of leadership), and so apparently it has finally integrated in the region. Israel (and Italy and UK) have had a hand in the iraq war plan with the USA long before 9-11. The coopted military junta that now rules israel did believe, and still does, that Iraq war is a great success, and that we kind of managed to manipulate the superpowers to do "our job". However, this doesn't represent the popular opinion, and mainly the israeli public was never given a say, or the full info about the war. Zionism is a national liberation movement vis a vis Europe (!) and the arab world at large, and at the same time it is a colonialist oppressing movement vis a vis the arab indigenous population of palestine. Jews are undecided about it, internally, as Israel has been unable to attract the majority of affluent jews to join it. However, it succeeded in taking the lead voice (re identity politics) in the Jewish nation worldwide. Its a tied call. Not as bad as Alice puts it, given the nature of the region, where massacring tens of thousands of people is not uncommon domestically within the various nation states of the Mid East, and the reality of constant wars among them.

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:49 pm

<img src="http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/html/emoticons/popblood.gif"/>

by **johnny nemo** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:20 pm

One thing that was made clear to me long ago, was that many of the people in the Zionist movement did NOT want Jews to have a homeland, so much as they wanted Jews out of their country. This was certainly the case in 1492, when Isabella issued the Alhambra Decree, which expelled all Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, from Spain. This happened in many European countries, such as Germany where in 1536, the prince of Saxony John Frederick issued a mandate that prohibited Jews from inhabiting, engaging in business in, or passing through his realm. Martin Luther published his pamphlet "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen" (On the Jews and their Lies) a year later, which stated that Jewish synagogues should be burned synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." My German Jewish ancestors converted to Chrisianity around this time, but many remained faithful to Judaism, practicing their faith in secret. I always bear things like this in mind, when dealing with the issue of Zionism. I'm of Jewish ancestry, but I'm not a Zionist. Since alot of the history of this conflict is water under the bridge, I think the sensible thing to do is create a state of Palestine and a state of Israel and get them both to stop killing each other. I don't care if religious extremists consider this or that geographical area holy and worth killing for just because Abraham squatted and took a dump there.

by **starroute** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:54 pm

Zionism was certainly racist in the technical sense that it was born out of the early 20th century idea that nation-states ought to correspond to definable nationalities and that each nationality ought to have its own state. However, the charge that Zionism=racism generally refers specifically to Israel's attitudes towards Arabs. Here I think things get fuzzier -- and it might be as accurate to say that it was the British who were acting out of racist motivations in wanting to plant European Jews in the Middle East in preference to the existing residents. Americans in general have also tended to apply a racist template to Israel -- which is seen, for example, in the old assertion that the Israelis made the desert bloom in a way the natives hadn't ever managed to do. (I've recently seen this claim debunked as a fake. Whether it is or not, it clearly reflects the original claim of the European settlers in America that they had more right to the land than the Indians because they were prepared to improve it and extract more value from it.) So there's clearly a lot of racism tangled up with Zionism, but whose racism it is and whether it's intrinsic to the very concept of Zionism is a whole other argument.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:56 pm

Well, I'm really hoping for some substance....these are some well argued positions...and the idea of the racial implications of the Treaty of Paris is a good one. After WW1, the whole map was getting re-arranged and it was, in fact, done along ethnic lines. The one ethnic group that had no historic ties to the geography were the Jews..... But I just thought this might e a place to throw out some of the various claims against Israel with some facts to back them up. I started with a look at the claim that Zionism was a racist program from the outset (you'll have to be patient with me....I haven't gotten much past 1948 in my reading yet.) The piece of evidence I offered was a declaration by Jewish workers in Haifa that they wanted the Arabs to stay and would help them do so. This is contrary to the image anti-Zionists paint. It's only one bit of evidence but evidence it is. I am withholding comment on the "Zionist collaboration with Nazis thing" till I've read more of the links Alice posted. Others can obviously comment now if you want. It is complex, I'll grant that. Groups change sides or play both sides. Anyway, some good discussion but not a lot of specifics to look into yet. I love that Johnny Nemo is one of the "hidden Jews" as I've read about that but never known anyone who was one. There are books and even a documentary about it but I find it fascinating...there are families who kept the traditions without even KNOWING why they did them. And the reason they were "hidden" of course, is that was a handy way to avoid being killed or exiled for being Jewish. In any event, here's another document I found of interest. This is the initial agreement between Feisal Hussein, King of Iraq and Syria, and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Commenting on Zionism, Hussein said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him.... At the same time, we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, and America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons [abna'ihi-l-asliyin], for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles [jaliya] to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and all things connected to the land." 3<hr></blockquote> This quote is taken from the 1970's book "Battleground" which is a pro-Israel look at the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I don't know what HIS source was for the quote. However, we have the actual document itself. And though I believe Hussein changed his mind about his agreement and about the Jews in general (not sure about that history yet) I, at least, had never seen this document before. The above quote, and the document are taken from a very clearly pro-Israel site, but I don't think we can argue the authenticity of this document. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Agreement Between Emir Feisal Husseini and Dr. Weizman His Royal Highness the Emir FEISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. CHAIM WIEZMANN, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization. mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consumation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles;- ARTICLE I The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories. ARTICLE II Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. ARTICLE III In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantee for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917. ARTICLE IV All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmes shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwaxiiing their economic development. ARTICLE V. No regulation nor Iaw shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free excercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discimimtion or preference shell forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. ARTICLE VI The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control. ARTICLE VII The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will place the aforementioned Comission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use Its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof. ARTICLE VIII. The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace congress. ARTICLE IX Any matters of dispute which my arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration. Given under our hand at LONDON. ENGLAND, the THIRD day of JANUARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN. Chaim-Weizmann. Feisal ibn-Hussein. RESERVATION BY THE EMIR FEISAL If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of January 4th addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement. Feisal ibn-Hussein.<hr></blockquote> Here's the <a href="http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Esamuel/feisal1.html">link</a> for all of the above. There is a timeline on this site as well. Obviously, it is pro-Israel, but at least it's a way to familiarize oneself with the various events.

by **meekster** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:26 am

I'm not a prolific writer, but maybe here are a few points: 1. Tail wagging the dog. The left (such as Chomski) doesn't like to think about symbolism and myth as having any real power, especially religious symbolism. They look at who has the biggest bombs and wallet, end of story. But maybe they miss the mark. What if the real power really IS the power of symbolism, of belief? if you look at it that way, then ancient (and modern) Israel has far more power than the newbie USA. How many people want to be "The Chosen People"? Apparently everyone: Aryans, Arabs, Catholics, Anglo-Israelis... even Jews. It's like the fucking ring on the merry-go-round. The symbolic power really does live in Jerusalem, and many people do desire to possess it. 2. American Nazis/Fascists: Do Nazis play the role of "the stick"? What would be the result if all Jews were blamed for the erupting Neocon/Republican disaster of Iraq/economic meltdown? American Jews would be forced to flee... maybe to Israel? A Zionist dream come true. I happen to have family (through "marriage") in the New York diamond business. Go figure. For generations, Europe (De Beers) sent rough diamonds to New York to be sawn, polished, set and sold. This business was focused on 47th st., and it's practitioners were almost all Hassidic Jewish men. Over the last 5 years, De Beers has gradually shifted this business to India, and to Israel. New York Jews have been left out in the cold, and old family businesses have failed. Again, maybe a stick? A prod to get out while you still can?

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:02 am

Dream's End, you think your little outline there is "neutral"? I looked, but could not find, any reference to Palestinians. You mention Jews fleeing to Palestine, and emigrating to Palestine, but tellingly neglect to even mention ONCE the existence of any Palestinians, nor of how they ended up dispossessed and herded into refugee camps, stateless, uncompensated, deprived of any human or legal rights. But anyway, that's your problem. You call yourself a Leftist, but I think you judge yourself by American standards, where the term "Left" means someone like Bill Clinton. Like most concepts in the US today, "Left" has been stripped of any but the vaguest, most easily manipulated, meaning. I also call myself a "Leftist", but at least I can tell you what I mean by that. Morally and intellectually, I believe in the solidarity of workers as the only hope for a sane, just and humane world. I believe that such tribal concepts as nationalism and religious, ethnic or racial solidarity are tools used by elites the world over to divide and rule those they exploit, even to the level of slavery. Interestingly, those same elites enjoy the very class solidarity that they deny to the workers in their countries, or within their 'tribes'. They cut secret deals and maintain open channels of communication among each other, to promote their many mutual interests. To me, this is a tacit admission by the elites, that class solidarity, rather than the nationalistic, xenophobic and religious mumbo-jumbo they promote at home, is a highly effective mechanism for achieving freedom and empowerment, a concept they happily apply to themselves, but fiercely denouce as 'godless communism" when applied by those they rule. From the point of view of the more enlightened workers, looking up at the complex pattern of threads connecting global elites, this manifestation of class solidarity is sometimes described as a conspiracy, or "the Octopus". One of its most glaring examples being the incestuous military-corporate-government complex that transcends geographic, racial, religious and ethnic boundaries, most dramatically since WWII. In contrast, the same period has been characterized by the fragmentation and weakening of the world's workers into mutually hostile and 'competitive' rivals for the crumbs that fall from their lords' tables. In other words, while the world's elites have been playing a variable sum game among themselves, the workers who actually produce the wealth have been manipulated into playing a zero-sum game with their rapidly-shrinking share. Using sophisticated propaganda tools and 'socialization' techniques, not to mention 'false flag' terrorism and psyops, the elites manipulate the masses into supporting disastrous and costly wars that fill their own pockets at the expense of such basic public services as health care, genuine education and environmental protection. This serves a dual purpose, besides channeling wealth and control of the world's resources into their hands. First, it prevents workers from supporting and strengthening each other by convincing them that they are enemies. Second, the deterioration in health and education keep the workers passive, ignorant and further weakened. Anyway, this is how I see things, in a nutshell. That is why I call myself a Leftist. Now, Dream's End, back to your letter from the Haifa Workers' Council, which although you don't mention it, was written in April of 1948. This letter is traditionally flourished by Zionist apologists and propagandists to "prove" that Zionism offered the hand of genuine friendship to 'the Arabs', but it was cruelly rejected. I'm surprised it took you so long. As always, a little background helps to put things into perspective. Being a self-styled Leftist yourself, I thought you'd appreciate this slightly more complex historical analysis of the situation. <a href="http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/arab_jewish_struggles1.html">www.marxist.com/MiddleEas...gles1.html</a> I looked for, but couldn't find, the cartoon version.

by **Trifecta** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:31 am

<a href="http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=384">www.camera.org/index.asp?...rticle=384</a>

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:05 am

I will read the link. The way I'd like this to work is that, if you have a criticism of the timeline...then provide the info. What was, exactly, the population in Palestine before '48? What were the demographics? Were there Jews there? when did Palestinians start being called that (that area, as you know well, was constantly under some power's control...before Britain, the turks...etc.) How did they get along? I have some answers, but I'll give you first shot. Do you think the Haifa workers were some of the original, continuous population of Jews? Perhaps the article will explain that all of those workers moved there but were just immigrants and NOT Zionists? Or by Zionists do you only mean the leaders of the Zionist movement and not the regular folks who immigrated there?

by **dranek7** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:33 pm

The recent conflict in Lebanon resulted in the exposure of the Israeli government's strategic influence operations, known as Hasbara. It is a form of well-organised perception management which most gentiles had no knowledge of until recently, so now whenever I see threads like this on RI or dKos, I can start to notice the astroturf. The irony is that the hasbara groups are closely aligned with rapturists. I guess a short-term public image boost must be worth casting one's lot in with the rapture...

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:30 pm

Dranek...I really gained no insight from your post. I have no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to elaborate or provide some citations we could look into. In looking into the "what about the Palestinians before '48" question I found this. This is from Nathan Weinstock, who in '69 wrote a scathing indictment of Israel. He since regrets the book and refuses to republish. Part of his regret is based on the uses to which it was put...there's only so much energy one can have for contacting Nazi sites and asking to have your books removed, and partly from an overall rethinking. So the comments are from Weinstock and the quoted material is from a guy named Karl Marx, allegedly a leftist, but who, despite his own Jewish heritage, usually didn't have much good to say about Jews: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated - the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from distant and different countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosophat and to die in the very places where their Redemptor is to be expected. 'Attending their death,' says a French author, 'they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.'"[2] [Quote from Marx ends here] In passing, Marx informs us that Jerusalem had 15,500 inhabitants, including 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Moslems (Arabs, Turks and Moors). His remarks are confirmed by all contemporary observers. We will leave out the surveys of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, whose objectivity might be questioned by suspicious readers, and rely instead on the accounts of Catholic writers of travel guides for pilgrims to the Holy Land (note, the point, of course is how anti-Semitic the Catholics were, so that sympathetic accounts of Jews from Catholic writers should be considered reliable. -- DE) These edifying tours invariably culminated in the contemplation of the spectacle - both instructive and heartrending - of the downtrodden Jews, living in the most extreme poverty. Frozen in prayer before the Wailing Wall, they formed a living illustration of the degeneration of the "killers of God." And in order to heighten the impact of this grand finale, a point would be made, before undertaking this final step, including a visit to the Jewish quarter in the programme. "This is by far the darkest and most unhealthy part of the whole city. (…) The wretched appearance of the inhabitants and the disgusting state of this district mean that nobody passing through it can forget God's curse which weighs so visibly on the Jewish people."[3] <hr></blockquote> It would be interesting to look at Weinstock's current views and see how his own thinking changed and how he relates to Brenner. so far, I've only read the Counterpunch article by Brenner and not Alice's other links. The most egregious quote in that article, the one from Stern proposing working with Nazis on removal etc....does this quote represent the overall Zionist position? Wasn't Stern the most hardline on anti-assimilation? Are people suggesting that the Stern/revisionist tendency took over the whole Zionist enterprise leading to a point of view that seems, from that letter, to by sympathetic with fascism? Or is the consensus I'm hearing that all Zionists were agreed in their perspective on things like working with Hitler, etc? I think that to continue to use the term "zionist" in a monolithic way will make this confusing. And Alice, I'm glad to know you are a leftist, as that was more my interest. I'm glad you won't be the one tossing in the quotes about how the Rothschild's were behind the Holocaust or regurgitating the Protocols or any of the old blood libel stuff. Hard to believe, but we see that around here from time to time. Give me some sense, if you have time, about your perspective on the Arab resisters themselves. Do you feel that they have some ideology you certainly don't agree with but because they are oppressed, we should side with them or do you feel that Hezbollah and others are a liberation force that you'd be happy to see mirrored in other parts of the world? I think the more pro-Israel folks do a disservice any time they look the other way when Israel violates international law or human rights. Do you think the anti-Israel left is scrupulous about separating out actions of the oppressed groups they don't agree with? I'm also curious about the anti-Israel left's attitude on Iran. Hezbollah is backed by Iran. I think that's a given fact, isn't it? Would Iran be a model that the anti-Israel left would point to as an ideal for Arab nationalists aspiring for independence? I assume not, so I'd be interested how all this is interpreted from your point of view.

by **starroute** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:36 pm

<a href="http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/854854.shtml">www.indymedia.org/en/2004...4854.shtml</a> The US commitment to Saudi Arabia has its roots in secret pledges by American Presidents to protect the Saudi Monarchy dating back to 1947, according to previously unreported documents. Washington's little known commitment to Saudi Arabia has proceeded in tandem with a close security relationship with Israel, beginning with Truman's 1947 decision to support the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. The 1947 pact between President Harry S. Truman and King Ibn Saud was described in a 1947 State Department cable, classified Top Secret, from acting Secretary of State Robert Lowett to the US Ambassador in Riyadh. Lowett described a personal message from Truman for the King given earlier that year to his eldest son Prince Saud: "One of the basic policies of the United States in the Near East is unqualifiedly to support the territorial integrity and political independence of Saudi Arabia." . . . Serious US interest in the Middle East began in the 1930 's when Ibn Saud chose a US oil company to explore in his country. A top executive of that company was Jimmy Moffetts, a friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1943 Moffetts persuaded Roosevelt to give economic assistance to the Saudi King, also a friend of Moffetts. In those days Saudi Arabia was a relatively poor country that was exporting a trickle of oil. Roosevelt wanted Ibn Saud to use his position with other Arab Leaders to win support for a plan to transfer a portion of Palestine west of the Jordan River to the Jews as a new homeland for $ 50 million. In 1943 , Roosevelt sent a secret emissary to Riyadh to ask the King to meet Jewish Leaders to discuss the plan. The emissary, Colonel Harold Hoskins, an intelligence officer, wrote to FDR, "Not only you as President but the American people as a whole should realise that if the American Government decides to support the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine... they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish State in Palestine be established or maintained." After the death of Roosevelt in early 1945, two months after his meeting with Ibn Saud, President Truman pushed by political pressures and arguments, agreed on backing the creation of Israel. That story is relatively well known, but Truman's actions with regard to Saudi Arabia have for the first time been disclosed in The Washington Post of Feb. 9, 1992 . In response to the overture by President Truman, the King said that he wished to know how and in what manner he might rely upon the United States. The King was worried about neighbouring Iraq and Trans- Jordan, whose Hashemite King challenged his right to serve as the protector of the Holy places of Islam. Truman's ambassador in Riyadh said the King wanted to know whether the United States "Would supply the Saudi Arabian government an army with the necessary materials" to defend its borders "since the threat was not only involving Saudi Arabia but also vital American interests." In 1950 Ibn Saud asked Truman for a formal military treaty. In response Truman sent Assistant Secretary of State George McGhee to Saudi Arabia to establish a military aid program that continues to this day. McGhee told the King, "The United States... will take most immediate action at any time that the integrity and independence of Saudi Arabia is threatened." The King, evidently pleased, closed the meeting by saying he wished, "It to be understood that he considered the United States and Saudi Arabia as One State."

Zionism and History

Zionism and History

Continued

Perhaps you might .....

Re: Perhaps you might .....

Re: Perhaps you might .....

This is very thin ice we tread

Re: This is very thin ice we tread

More...

Zionism in America

Re: Zionism in America

smile at the camera

Definition

Re: smile at the camera

Re: smile at the camera

And then there's the Saudi connection ...

Who is online