Gaza: The Tip of an Iceberg
By Guest Post • Jan 16th, 2009 at 10:18 • Category: Analysis, Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Hasbara Deconstruction Site, Israel, Newswire, Opinions and Letters, Palestine, Religion, War, Zionism
WRITTEN BY Francis Clark-Lowes
What is happening in Gaza today is the tip of an iceberg. That iceberg is the genocide of the Palestinian people. It is a slow genocide, just slow enough for the world to look the other way most of the time. Occasionally, as at present, it speeds up and we see its tip.
Such genocides are a common accompaniment of exclusive colonial projects. The Spanish committed genocide against the Incas, the British committed genocide against the Aboriginal and Maori people, the Americans committed genocide against the Native Americans, the Belgians killed 10 million Congolese. Now the Jews are trying to wipe out the Palestinians.
You may say that I should moderate my language and say only that we are witness to an unfortunate war in which people are getting killed. But this is part of an intentional war on the part of Israel, and, moreover, it clearly coincides with the international legal definition of genocide. Let us not, therefore mince our words.
Perhaps you will also say that only some Jews are involved in this crime, that I should hold ‘Israel’ or ‘the Zionists’ responsible. But do you ask me to say that only some Spanish, or some British, or some Americans, or some Belgians committed genocides?
Perhaps you will now ask me to do this, but if I hadn’t said that ‘the Jews’ were trying to wipe out the Palestinians you would probably have been quite happy with my generalisations.
For we recognise that although not even a fraction of British people, for instance, were directly involved in the genocides of the nineteenth century, and clearly those who were born after those atrocities could not have been directly involved, yet we admit that this is a stain on our national consciousness which affects all of us, in so far as we identify as being British.
Do we not say that all Germans must accept responsibility for what was done by the Nazis? If not, then why does the international community continue to insist that Germany pay reparations to Jews – with German taxpayers’ money – for what happened in the time of their parents and grandparents.
You may protest that Jews are not a nation or state like the Spanish, or the British, or the Americans or the Belgians. But who says that we cannot hold a group, however it may have constituted itself, responsible for crimes? Marxists, for example, hold ‘the capitalist class’ responsible for crimes against the working class, yet ‘the capitalist class’ is not incorporated.
And of course people have no difficulty in holding Muslims responsible for ‘extremism’ although since the abolition of the caliphate there has been no world-wide Muslim organisation. I don’t agree with this particular representation, by the way, but I mention it to show how inconsistent our thinking is.
There is little evidence that Al-Qaeda really exists in a corporate sense. It is probably more the notion of resistance to Western imperialism in the Muslim world than an identifiable organisation. And yet it is constantly held responsible for ‘terrorist’ actions.
I am well aware that to say anything against Jews, as a group, is to cross a red line. I am doing so deliberately. The present conflict in Israel-Palestine may well lead us to Armageddon. I believe plain speaking could save us and our children, not the mention the Palestinians and the Jews.
If I thought it could be done otherwise, as many of my colleagues in the solidarity movement believe, then I would not take this course. There are, however, a number or actions by Jews which, if they were to take place on a sufficient scale, could make me change my mind:
· A recognition that Jewish identity has become inextricably linked with Zionism.
· An acceptance that Jews are collectively responsible for what is happening in Israel/Palestine, just as we, as a nation, accept our responsibility for the empire and slavery.
· A renunciation of the right of return and the right to Israeli nationality.
· An acceptance that ‘the Holocaust’ (in inverted commas and with a capital H) has become a kind of religion, an instrument of propaganda, an abusive mythology.
· A recognition that accusing people of hating Jews is usually a way of stopping them speaking.
· A recognition that the Zionist project is incompatible with respect for the human rights of Palestinians. Israel has got to go.
· A recognition that Jews, as a collective, exercise immense, and quite disproportionate, power in the world, and that this power is being abused.
I acknowledge that a small number of Jews have done some or all of the above. For example, Gerald Kaufman, MP, said in Parliament on 12th January 2009: “Olmert, Livni and Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza.” In doing so, however much he might disagree with other points above, he clearly acknowledged that this is a Jewish, not just an Israeli responsibility.
But until a majority turn against the supremacist culture which supports Israel’s actions I will continue to hold Jews collectively responsible for what is happening in the Middle East. This is a very uncomfortable position. I really do have many Jewish friends, and I know that what I have said today will shock some of them. I hope that our friendship is strong enough to withstand it. But I believe Jews, above all, need to be shocked into a recognition of their own complicity in this crime against humanity.
All of which is not to forget our own (British) national complicity, starting with the Balfour Declaration. In so far as we (Westerners) have been persuaded to accept the dangerous current mainstream Jewish view of the world, we also are responsible for what is happening in Gaza. And this makes us ‘the enemy’ in terms of those who identify with the Muslim victims of Jewish power.
Guest Post is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material published.
Email this author | All posts by Guest Post
Overwhelming Israeli support of Gaza op
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849022&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza enjoys the overwhelming support of Israeli Jews despite the loss of civilian life in the Hamas-run territory, a survey released Wednesday showed.
A whopping 94% of the public support or strongly support the operation while 92% think it benefits Israel's security, according to the Tel Aviv University survey.
The poll found that 92% of Israeli Jews justify the air force's attacks in Gaza despite the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip and the damage they cause to infrastructure.
Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed during the 19-day old operation, about half of them Hamas terrorists.
Seventy percent of the Israeli public said that the ground operation, which got under way on January 3, was a necessary move, the survey found.
Despite ongoing international calls for an immediate cease-fire and a flurry of diplomatic activity to reach a cease-fire by week's end, the survey found that 90% of Israelis believed that Israel should continue
with the operation until all its objectives were achieved.
The survey found that 70% of the public believe the operation had high or moderately high chances of achieving all its objectives, with a whopping 93% approving of the IDF's fighting capability.
About 80% of the Israeli public oppose the cease-fire with Hamas unless it includes the release of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit seized by Hamas in cross-border raid two and half years ago, the survey found.
The poll also found that the public was much more supportive of the country's military leadership than its political leaders.
A total of 85% of respondents voiced confidence in the IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, compared to 62% for Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres, and 53% for Foreign Minister Tzipi
Livni and Likud opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bottomed out the list with a 44% confidence rating.
The survey also found that Israeli Arabs – who make up 20% of Israel's 7 million residents – have the exact opposite views of Israeli Jews about the military assault in Gaza.
A total of 85% of Israeli Arabs oppose the operation, the survey finds, while 80% say Israel should sign a cease-fire agreement even if it does not entail the freeing of Gilad Schalit.
The telephone poll, which was conducted between January 4-6 in the second week of the Gaza assault among 593 respondents, has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
Reserve Colonel Yoav Gal, an Israeli Air Force pilot, told Army Radio during "Operation Cast Lead" (11 January 2009):
"I believe that it should have been even stronger! Dresden! Dresden! The extermination of a city! After all, we're told that the face of war has changed. No longer is it the advancing of tanks or an organized military. [...] It is a whole nation, from the old lady to the child, this is the military. It is a nation fighting a war. I am
calling them a nation, even though I don't see them as one. It is a nation fighting a nation. Civilians fighting civilians. I'm telling you that we [...] must know [...] that stones will not be thrown at us! I am not talking about rockets – not even a stone will be thrown at us. Because we're Jews.[...] I want the Arabs of Gaza to flee to Egypt. This is what I want. I want to destroy the city, not necessarily the people living within it."
Dear Mr. Clark-Lowes thank you so much for this article. Jews any where should stand up and declare where they stand. A war crime of historic proportion is being committed, one can be either a protestor or a perpetrator. EVRY EFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO START CRIMINAL PROSECUTION A.S.A.P.!!!!!!!!
@Mary Rizzo – I find both the author and your comments repulsive. I am a Jew, opposed to Zionism, and a defender of the Palestinians. How dare you say that I am to blame for what Israel does!
Your bigotry is no different than people saying Arabs or Muslims are to blame for what Osama bin Laden does.
It is unlikely I will return to your site, now, or link to it in the future.
Thomas, what i left was indeed revolting, the opinions of the israelis and the words that a Colonel stated on Israeli radio. It is clear that the vast majority support the genocide. Responsible people should always denounce genocide and race hate, and Jews are no different than others. In the case of Italy, "Italy" was lead by a Fascist govt during WW2, so "Italians were Fascists", the "Italians and Germans" were the Axis powers.
read the article again and see it is explaining why a collective identity that does not denounce what Israel does as a Jewish state has analogies.
It doesn't matter if you are a Jew, Thomas, so am I, so is the person who sent me the paper…. and with that??? Should we all think the same?
Thanks Frances
This is a point I stumbled on independently
We say 'the Americans bombed Vietnam' and it is widely understood to mean 'Americans as an organized force, though not every single American'
It is just as valid to say 'The Jews are murdering Palestinians'
Your key point is that, people will object to the second statement, but not to the first
I have tested this at a meeting I addressed, and sure enough, people objected to the second but not the first
However, I think you engage in a bit too much hand-wringing about whether we can say 'the [insert any group of people here] did something'
[...] first is an article coming out of the UK's Palestine solidarity movement. Here, Francis Clark-Lowes decides it is time to cross lines and force questions, no matter what [...]
Thomas, r try to come with a constructive criticism…
in case you didn't know, Israel is the Jewish state, it commits it crimes on behalf of the Jewish people. As long as you regard yourself as a Jew, you are implicated by these crimes. The next Q you should ask, is what are you going to do about it,…We can offer you a list of options, In fact Francis did as well
So far, all i see from you is an attempt to kill the messenger.
somehow the J campaigners always go for the messenger, Jesus, Spinoza, and now Francis…
Just come up with a categorical criticism rather than the usual Victim spiel e.g 'look at me, i am such a good Jew, i even support the pls'
@Gilad –
By your logic, you as a Muslim, are then guilty of all the terrorism committed by Muslims.
… as long as you "regard yourself as a Muslim."
Bigotry is bigotry, and yours is inexcusable.
@Mary Rizzo –
Yes, and by your logic, the analogy also applies that those who consider themselves Muslim, are guilty of what Muslim extremists do. I don't feel that way, but you obviously do feel that way about Jews.
Maybe you should look at the origin of the hatred and violence. (at least in our recent history.) Hitler persecuted the Jews with his bigotry, they are now persecuting the Palestinians with their bigotry, blaming all Palistinians, and now, guess what, the Palestinians are now better, they are going to blame ALL the Jews? This is not a path to peace.
It's time people like you and Gilad face the reality that you cannot blame individuals for what other people do in their name. I have NO power over the state of Israel, just as my Arab friends have NO power over Osama bin Laden.
How DARE you collectively damn me, or anyone else, for something they haven't done!
@Gilad –
I must say, I am rather stunned by your offensiveness.
I have many times in the past linked to your articles, I had no idea you would blame ALL Jews for what the NAZI state of Israel does in our name.
It seems to me, if anyone is to blame, it is the ISRAELIS, not the American Jews!
So, what excuse do you have for YOURSELF?
Perhaps before you declare me to not be a good enough Jew for you, you could find out a little more about me, before being so damned condescending.
My website: ThomasMc.com
Now, this Sunday I will be going to a Free Gaza rally, since that's really the only option we have here in Colorado Springs, with some Muslims from the local Islamic Center. At least THEY aren't such bigots!
Gilad why are u wasting time on a moyshele from colorado springs what haven't heard of a.i.p.a.c
Silly Thomas, Islam is a religion not an ethnic identity, Hence, Muslims are believers
Jewishness is a racially orientated ethnic identity.
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Thomas: I must say, I am rather stunned by your offensiveness.
G: why is asking a Jew to be critical an offense?
T: I have many times in the past linked to your articles,
G: So what, do you ask for an award now? … I never asked you to publish me, I do not know even who you are, but what I can see is your tendency to bargain here. You see Thomas, this is not a market in Jerusalem, your approval of my writing is far from an entitlement to be rude to others!
T: I had no idea you would blame ALL Jews for what the NAZI state of Israel does in our name.
G: 1. i do not blame all Jews
2. I have a problem with people who operate politically as Jews. Because it is a racially orientated philosophy
3. As far as i can see, it was you who was rather offensive towards Francis.
T: It seems to me, if anyone is to blame, it is the ISRAELIS, not the American Jews!
G: So I suggest that you read a bit about the Israeli Lobby in America, and then come back to us..
T: So, what excuse do you have for YOURSELF?
G: I don't have an excuse!!! This war has been done in my name and i am personally responsible for it all. This is why I am working so hard. I am to be blamed and i am taking responsibility!!! You ll never hear me saying that i am a 'good Jew'. I am just an ordinary 'proud self hating one'!! Yet, i am intrigued by your self loving, what is it that you like so much about yourself?
T: Perhaps before you declare me to not be a good enough Jew for you, you could find out a little more about me, before being so damned condescending.
G: Who cares about your Jewish goodness? In this site all we care about is the Palestinian people and the enemy of humanity, i.e J state and J power.
Once you attacked Francis the way you did (without even trying to produce an argument) , you associated yourself with J power. You want to regret what you did, Salam alekum, we are not going to hold it against you. we do not even know who you are…
T: Now, this Sunday I will be going to a Free Gaza rally,
G: Wow, great so you can rush back to us and tell us again how good you are.
Let me tell you 'Thomas the Righteous Engine', genuine ethical people, do not need to shout out or prove their goodness. Seemingly you feel the need to do it for some reason….
[...] 'Terrorism' http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/14-14 Gaza : The Tip of an Iceberg http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/16/gaza-the-tip-of-an-iceberg/ Moral Clarity in Gaza [...]
I touched several times on the same problem with several internet discussion groups here in Sweden as Francis and I got always silence as a reply. I´m a German who broke with his Nazi-parents because I felt responsible for the misdeeds of "the Germans" not only against the jews, but also against millions of Germans (communists, social-democrats, democrats, liberals and all the people in Europe especially against the Russians. And as a communist I also feel responsibility for all the misdeeds of socalled
communist regimes. And I feel also responsibility for all the crimes named by Francis that the white Christian people committed all over the world (even as I´m not a Christian, never have been and not a believer in any religion). But I´m a white man and a German and whatever I do this I could never change.
It´s not guilt what I feel – because I never took part in all those crimes – but as those crimes were committed in my name I have to take a stand. You have to choose sides if you like that better. As those Germans during the war who went over to the "enemy" (very few indeed) who sided with the offer or those Americans who deserted during the Vietnam war and who were supported and sheltered by us. In this way you are breaking the silence because "Cum tacent clamant" as already the Romans knew, you are saying "Not in my name" and you are shouldering your responsibility. In doing that you are entering a larger community so to speak. The community of responsible women and men from all over the world disregarding their colour, their nationality, their religion. All those who are siding with the oppressed, the hunted, the tortured – physically or mentally – the dispossessed, the hungry.
Therefore I never had a problem with "the Germans", "the Americans" and so on did this or that. Because I know of myself and of others (except certains fascist, orthodox and racist people) that I never forget that there are wonderful Jewish, American, German people.
Perhaps you will consider my words, Thomas, the words of an old man with more than 40 years of solidarity work on my back and where I met some of my best friends.
Amos, indeed good question
probably because he was rude and righteous like many moishales
Wonderful piece Francis. Thank you.
The genocides you mention were all executed in the name of expansionism. This genocide though, pretends to be on behalf of peace, democracy, equality, feminism & anxiety-relief. According to Livni, it doesn't matter how many Jews are killed by rockets. It matters how many Jews fear they may be killed by rockets.
Sadly our own Prime Minister (who unlike Maashal is unelected) announced today that he will be sending Naval assistance to prohibit arms entering Gaza. The tentacles of this monster are still far reaching
Thomas: By your logic, you as a Muslim, are then guilty of all the terrorism committed by Muslims.
… as long as you "regard yourself as a Muslim."
Sarah: As Gilad says, to be a Muslim is to believe simply that Allah is God & that Muhammed, peace be upon him, is his messenger. It really has nothing to do with affiliating to an ethnicity or a to a Nation. In the absence of both, declaring a spurious link to Rumi poetry and falafel wouldn't cut it either.
Stop and ask your self a few questions Thomas.
The United States complete support of anything and everything Israel wants or wants to do is to blame for the loomimg total destruction of both Judaism and Isreal. The spoiled child is the unwanted human.
Watching New York Jews dancing and celebrating the war crimes committed in Gaza makes me wonder what ever happened to the “Jewish values” we have heard so much about and are touted in America as part of the value system of America “Judea-Christian values”. Is the killing and murdering of innocent women and children a “Jewish “value? Does the bombing of hospitals, schools and UN compound is also part of this “Jewish” value? As someone who always advocated peace with Israel based on a two state solutions, as someone who always spoke against suicide bombings and the killings and murder of Israeli civilians, and as someone who really felt these is a chance, a possible chance for peace. I no longer believe that peace is possible with Israel of today, let alone peace with the American Jewish community. Nothing short of one state solution, nothing short of going after all the Israeli war criminals will ever do. I will not show any regret or remorse for the death of any Israeli Jew as results of armed resistance. I may not and will not dance in the streets like they did, but I will not have sympathy.
Sami:
what ever happened to the “Jewish values”
Gilad: let's face it once and for all, "Jewish Values" is a myth.
You may find some values in Judaism, but these values a submerged in an ocean of supremacist ideology and immoral teaching …
“Judea-Christian values” is another myth. While Christianity is all about loving thy neighbor, Judaism is all about self loving within a tribal supremacist setting.
Sami: Is the killing and murdering of innocent women and children a “Jewish “value?
Gilad: Apparently, it is rather apparent within the biblical context…To the point, the Zionist interpretation of the Bible is
indeed murderous.
Sami: I no longer believe that peace is possible with Israel of today, let alone peace with the American Jewish community.
Gilad: You are right and it is actually obvious, you cannot make peace with chosen people. In order to make peace a basic notion of human brotherhood must be accepted first.
The Jewish state has no future in the region. Its days are numbered, they will launch more and more wars, but they will lose in all of them. The IDF was effective fighting Arab armies but no one on this planet can win Islamic resistance!!! Neither the Americans with their idiotic cruise missiles nor the Israelis with their white phosphorus
Suzanne
Israel is gone, Judaism will survive and so are the Jews.
Judaism is basically a Jewish survival kit.
@amos zukerman – Hi Amos, thanks very much for your support and remarks. I completely agree about the criminal prosecution, though I am sanguine about how successful it will be.
@Sarah – Hi Sarah, thanks. One could say 'democracy' is the modern word for superiority. We hardly ever discuss what we mean by it, and whether it really delivers all that it claims. And, as you point out, we (the West) cavalierly disregard election results, such as those in Algeria and Palestine, where we don't like them. The colonists who killed in the Americas and Africa and the Antipodes also thought of themselves as superior – to a large extent because they were Christians. So I think the mind-set is not so different.
@Gilad –
You condescending ASS.
I know Islam is a religion.
Well, Mr. High and Holy Gilad, consider this.
I grew up during the Vietnam War. I was prepared to move to Canada rather than participate in those attrocities.
You grew up in Israel, and had to know how Israel treated the Palestinians, yet you still chose to serve in the Army. And don't give me any crap about how you had to, nobody held a gun to your head. I was prepared to give up my citizenship, why weren't you?
And quit with the bullshit that all Jews are guilty because Israel did something in their name. I have NO authority of Nazi Israel, they do not have any RIGHT to do anything in my name!
If a man murders someone in your name, should you go to jail? You idiot.
I am no more to blame for the actions of that Fascist State than my neighbor is to blame for 9./11 because he is Arab or Muslim.
Sorry you don't get it.
@Gilad –
"In this site all we care about is the Palestinian people and the enemy of humanity, i.e J state and J power."
Wow,. look who is so self righteous and holy!
@Einar Schlereth –
But that is exactly what I've been saying. I had no part in those crimes, I bear no guilt.
As for "not taking a stand," how dare you and Gilad say I haven't.
@Sarah –
The self righteous stink of this site is really getting to me.
@Thomas –
'You condescending ASS'
Listen Thomas, we have seen enough Jewish violence in Gaza in the past 3 weeks.
We do not need it here.
You either learn to behave yourself or just explore your symptoms somewhere else.
One last word, Mr. Atzmon, judging by your essays, I have been far more critical of Israel than you. I have long advocated a single state solution – named PALESTINE. Perhaps the Palestinians will treat the remaining Israelis better than they have treated them. If not, they have none to blame but themselves.
As for you Gild, I really don't give a crap what happens to you, you self righteous arrogant prick!
Hey Thomas
Please do not spread white phosphorus above our head just because we don't approve your violence…
We know you people are very sensitive
Raid Alert
I suggest we all take cover
there is a new Greenstein in the blog
@Gilad –
quote: "Please do not spread white phosphorus above our head just because we don't approve your violence…"
I'm an American. It's the ISRAELI Jews who use chemical weapons on their opponents.
Gilad, I suggest you step back and take a hard look at yourself.
That self-righteous attempt to convince others that you are better ("Look at me, I'm such a good Jew) is not coming from others, it is radiating from yourself!
@Thomas –
When you came here first you said you were a (good) Jew
Now you say you are an American
I got it, you must be Zelig
Gilad, you aren't a good anything.
You just write what you do to convince people otherwise.
Thomas it seems that, like your brothers, you have called a unilateral cease fire – but in case you come back, please take a look at you write here. It is you and you only that uses aggression, swearing and insults.
@Sarah –
Sarah my dear
To liberate this movement is to liberate it from the Zeligs
Karl Zelig, "About the Zelig Question" (1843)
it wld be nice to know how many diaspora 'jews' oppose not only medi zionism, maxi zionism, but also mini zionism.
we know that even at least some 'jewish' peace activists are minizionists. to me, anyone who's for the two state nonsolution is at least a minizionist .
europpean forms of zionism may differ significantly from n.amer zionisms. i am talking not only about eventually size of israel, now borderless, but also about supremacists ideology of world jewry.
'zionism', to me, is just a special case of land theft; i.e., of imperialism. however, the jewish supremacist cult is as strong among many 'jews' as was the nazi cult; i.e., ideations, if one allows.
in short, zionist 1 is not zionist 2,3,4,5..
when talking about 'zionism' (single quotes suggest that this symbol is quite inadequate and inaccurate) we need to take into consideration how, when, what for to establish a state by genocidal means.
we also need to dwell on the fact that there are three distinct peoples in israel: asheknazic, the master voelken, sephardic, and mizrahic.
most ashkenazim are in americas and europe. they are relatively safe in view of their cultish behavior and separatism. there is even cemeteries for jews only. thus, it is cultish to even separate dead 'jews' from us hated canaanites and other goyim.
my own estimmate is that 90%+ plus of the diaspora 'jews' approbate all 'jewish' crimes. more cld be said. thnx
yes, gilad,
judaism, islam, christianity, may be also other cults teem with 'promises', commandments, rage, hatred, intolerance, supremacism, etc.
but just like Mein Kamph and nazi ideology, the three cults contain sweets and sours. there is nothing i detest more than the sweet and sour treatment.
about the 'jews' being a racial ideology or group you may have said, wld you care to further elucidates us as to what "racial" means?
it seems to me that since evanescence of the israelites and later near total disappearance of the judeans, most of which fled for dear life to arab lands because these two peoples spoke dialects of a shemitic tongue, there cldn't have been that many jews or judeans in roman europe to form a group of people numbering some 15mn before 1938.
aren't euros with a unique cult germans, slavs, hungarians, and asiatics? which have nothing to do with zion nor shemites. thnx
@Thomas – hay Thomas you remember the AMALEK, i prefer to shake Einar Schlereth hand and tell him he is not alone in having to bare the heavy burden of parental guilt – the founding fathers of Israel were socialist and nationalists, which abbreviates as…
as to your would be deluxe dogging of the draft in Canada, compared to the risks and hardships, personal, professional, and artistic maestro atzmon have taken due to his uniquely courageous stand, well , shame on you.
My very Dear friend Einar, thanks for bringing rationality into this discussion.
@amos zukerman –
Hey Amos, tx for the kind words. You were tight a few days ago when you suggested that we may have to ignore this Moisha'le from Colorado…:)
We know these Jewish ethnic campaigners.. They always demand something in return…
However, i visited Thomas's website. and it is actually very good. so i suggest that we just leave him alone and let him do his job hoping that when he comes to visit again, he will operate as an ordinary human being rather than a Zelig.
Francis, I agree the imperialists you mention were as convinced of their superiority, as Israelis are today. They certainly have this is common. Yet the colonialists in the Americas, the Antipodes & Africa did not slaughter 'savages' under the banner of Enlightenment rhetoric as Israel does. I think it is this pseudo-liberalism that makes Israel and its supporters so uniquely lethal.
It is all the talk of 'equality, secularism & democracy' that enables many to lament the historical crimes committed in the 'Orient' on one hand – and still champion Israel's innocence on the other.
@Dr Francis Clark-Lowes – What about an international n.g.o effort? What about int. fund rising?
this criminals must be stopped this time or the really big one is coming
@Einar Schlereth – Thanks very much for your words, Einar. Your remarks come particularly close to the thinking by which I arrived at my conclusions. I was married to an Austrian woman for many years, and we often discussed the question of whether she – being born after the war – should feel any responsibilty for the Nazi's atrocities. It seemed unfair for me to insist on this until I realised that I, as Brit, also bear responsibility for so much wrong that my 'identity group' has committed as well.
As someone who worked with Francis Clark Lowes at Sussex University in the Centre for German Jewish Studies I am deeply appalled to discover that Francis holds such anti-semitic or shall we say anti-Jewish sentiments. The betrayal on a human level, to discover this hidden life of his, has been huge , but my private sentiments aside Clark Lowes’s fighting rhetoric that echoes the Protocols of Zion is offensive and dangerous to not just Jews but to people of all creed and all nationalities. The only way Clark Lowes can amend for his behaviour, which in Germany would be a prisonable offense today, is to profoundly apologise for his words to all those people who have had the misfortune to read and hear them and profoundly apologise to the PSC and other peace movements whose attempts to mediate a wise and peaceful dialogue and resolution have been seriously put into disrepute. I completely agree with Flesh is Grass’s succint conclusion regarding Clark Lowes Jewish power theory. It is ridiculous! As Flesh is Grass points out it is like accusing all blacks for the crimes Mugabe has committed in his country, there is no great intellectual merit to this theory, it is nonsense but one I am sure Clark Lowes will cling to. However, if all Jews are according to Clark Lowes in his recent fire and brimstone article, ‘The tip of the iceberg’ complicit in the crimes committed in Israel then as I have personally suggested to him, he should ensure that to avoid having his hands tainted he should from now on boycott all things Jewish which apart from not eating a lunch at Marks and Spencer would also entail banning certain medical advances, parts of his computer and his mobile phone! When the next time I have my car smashed up in my school by Moslem children who do not know better and think that all Jews should be killed because all Jews commit crimes in Israel, I will send the bill to Clark Lowes for I now hold him accountable for spreading hatred.
Many years ago Clark Lowes had a book sale and I bought in German his copy of Dante’s Divine Comedy. When I read his recent article titled ‘The tip of the iceberg’ for some strange reason I suddenly remembered that book and remembered the chapter on the ninth circle, the circle which is in a lake of ice. You check out for yourself who is in that circle but in the light of what has been revealed there is a dreadful irony to all of this particularly if Lowes was not aware of the connection he had made. The hell that Clark Lowes feels others is creating is one that he tragically sits in himself and multiplies with his diatribes and supposed power lectures. To abuse his knowledge and priveledge in the manner that he has done is Judas in the true meaning of the name. It will take myself and others who knew him as a friend a long time to recover from his betrayal. Words have great power, the tragedy of it all is that people who should know better very often never do. Energy and time should be used to find solutions not to express hate. And some may now say why do I now bother exposing Francis Clark Lowes and the reason is the same as why other social activists have done the same about friends they realised had a very hidden life. Francis Clark Lowes through his doctoral title and academic connections wields in certain circles power, he influences people who trust him because they believe that the mild mannered ‘peace keeper’ standing infront of them is wise , is learned and has perhaps answers that will help. It is clear from his words that he does not have answers. People like Clark Lowes who incite others to hate never bring about solutions but only create more hell. Perhaps it is time for Francis to read Dante one more time?
[...] / lees verder, Palestine Think Tank (Engels). Gepubliceerd [...]
@Les Simon – Hi Les, I can't say I actually remember working with you at the Centre for German Jewish Studies all those years ago, but no doubt that is the effect of age. Do you remember Monica who was there at the same time? I stayed in touch with her for many years but I'm afraid she reacted in exactly the same way as you when she read my article. Another funny thing. She also worked in a school and told me that she had had her car smashed up by Muslim children. Ah well, I suppose it's a sign of the times. Of course Muslims wouldn't have their own opinions about what is happening in Palestine – or Iraq or Afghanistan or practically anywhere else in the Middle East. They would only attack your car, or Monica's, if they were whipped up into a frenzy by a Westerner like me. But seriously, it's a pity to reduce all discussion of this desperately serious issue to accusations of Jew hatred. I admit that I'm not too fond of mainstream contemporary Jewish culture, but maybe if enough join me in this dislike there will be some motive for Jews to change it. I live in hope. Your old colleague, Francis
[...] one of the negative reactions to my article, ‘Gaza: The Tip of an Iceberg’ which appeared at Palestine Think Tank last month. The person who wrote it chose her words well, for it does indeed require courage to [...]
I stumbled upon this article [The Tip of the Iceberg] on another blog; the blog owner was instructing his readers to first watch a video that he had placed on the top of the screen. I read it and I liked it enough that I wanted to post it on my blog but I did not where I found the article. Therefore I did a G-search by title+author and PTT was one of the few places that had the article. My reaction to seeing a bunch of Jews with the flag of a stolen Arab land was quite disheartening to me. That flag incites a very negative reaction in me. It is a flag of theft, of treachery, if displacement, of holocaust, of supremacy, if evil. This was not even the flag that Herzl had in mind. I have a hand-drawn image of the flag that he had in mind and I had meant to post it one day. The picture of this fake flag is also distressing from another angle: Here are a bunch of Jews who feel that their cousins are entitled to the theft of Arab land; but these good Jews are willing to share with the Arabs’ the Arabs’ own land. How generous! Dershowitz hardly causes me any kind of reaction simply because his place is well-marked and he does not stray from it. It is these ‘good Jews’ that get on my nerves
I came upon the article 'The Tip of the Iceberg' by Dr. Francis Dr Francis Clark-Lowes at least two weeks after it was published. I did read the article and the readers' comments that followed the article. A comment by one Les Simon was written in a very typical fashion such as those found on the ADL website. They are laughable! They are totally devoid of logic and reality! They attempt to stand logic on its head, but expect it to walk. It can't and it won't. I would like to address some of the very convoluted and tortuous statements by Les Simon . I will enclose his statements in brackets followed by my own comments.
[As someone who worked with Francis Clark Lowes at Sussex University in the Centre for German Jewish Studies I am deeply appalled to discover that Francis holds such anti-semitic or shall we say anti-Jewish sentiments.]
I would prefer that you use the expression of anti-Jew or anti-Jewish since the expression of 'anti-Semitic' when intended to mean bias against the non-Semitic Jews of European origin would not make sense.
[The betrayal on a human level, to discover this hidden life of his, has been huge , but my private sentiments aside Clark Lowes's fighting rhetoric that echoes the Protocols of Zion is offensive and dangerous to not just Jews but to people of all creed and all nationalities.]
This statement is so confusing, because he is attempting to hit the writer of the article with all sorts of tried and adhered to weapons of Jewry such as 'the protocols'. I am familiar with the Protocols and there was nothing in the article that stirred the contents of those documents into memory. I may tend to agree with the complainer in that the article may come across as too truthful, and hence off the comfort zone for what most Jews are accustomed to. But the 'people of all creed and all nationalities' need to hear this sort of article that does not comply with what is regularly required by Jewish groups, which is a timid attempt to tell the truth but not quite getting there. As a person of color and hence as someone who would be understanding and sympathizing towards the occupied people of color of Palestine by European Jewry, I was very appreciative of the writer when I first came upon the article.
[The only way Clark Lowes can amend for his behaviour, which in Germany would be a prisonable offense today, is to profoundly apologise for his words to all those people who have had the misfortune to read and hear them and profoundly apologise to the PSC and other peace movements whose attempts to mediate a wise and peaceful dialogue and resolution have been seriously put into disrepute.]
'In Germany would be a prisonable offense today'. Guess who benefits from Germany's "thou shall not speak the truth or else face jail" laws? The man aught to ber ashamed of himself to bring up such a travesty on human dignity imposed on the German people by their own government. The German people's voice had been silenced, but there will come a time when the resentment is such that it will boil over. This man's accusations are very typical ADL-style. The ADL group knows that they have the power to liquidate those who oppose them but they first attempt at maximum humiliation in the form of asking the 'offending party' to come crawling on their knees and ask for forgiveness for having erred in their judgment when they opted to speak the truth. Marlon Brando, Mel Gibson … the list is long. They are having a hard time with a certain Bishop now, though. I don't think he is about to hit the ground to go begging on his knees and ask forgiveness from world Jewry. 'The wise and peaceful dialogue' that is mentioned in the post simply means as long as Jews are willing to bestow upon the Arabs the Arabs own land, however minute, and as long as the colonized Arabs are willing to agree for their colonizers to be their masters. I believe such a scenario would result in 'peace' but unfortunately for world Jewry they chose the wrong place when they decided to implant their colonial settlers on Arab soil.
[I completely agree with Flesh is Grass's succint conclusion regarding Clark Lowes Jewish power theory. It is ridiculous! As Flesh is Grass points out it is like accusing all blacks for the crimes Mugabe has committed in his country, there is no great intellectual merit to this theory, it is nonsense but one I am sure Clark Lowes will cling to.]
The complainer chose a very bad example in Mugabe. The fact that he has chosen Mugabe who has been targeted by Supremacist/colonialist type of people leave no doubt as to his ideological background. But Mugabe does not represent black people and black people's notion of who they are does not revolve around Zimbabwe. World Jewry now has a new religion and it revolves around the piece of Arab land that they forcefully stole from the indigenous people of the land. Would he disagree with what the ADL posted during the Gaza holocaust that American Jewry was united in their support of the carnage? Would he have a problem with a survey that was posted at Haaretz that 94% of Jewry in Palestine applauded the carnage in Gaza? Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University and he wrote in his recent article titled: 'Israel and the politics of friendship' (Israeli Jews insisted on having front row seats on hills overlooking Gaza for a live show, cracking open champagne bottles and cheering the murder and maiming of thousands of civilians, more than half of whom were women and children.) Chances appear to be very good that the complainer would also grab his 'anti-Semitic' whip against professor Massad.
[However, if all Jews are according to Clark Lowes in his recent fire and brimstone article, 'The tip of the iceberg' complicit in the crimes committed in Israel then as I have personally suggested to him, he should ensure that to avoid having his hands tainted he should from now on boycott all things Jewish which apart from not eating a lunch at Marks and Spencer would also entail banning certain medical advances, parts of his computer and his mobile phone!]
This is as Jewish Supremacist as it gets. Here we have a Jew bragging about the achievements of Jewry and at the same time threatening the writer of the article 'the tipi of the iceberg' to stay clear of anything that is made or created by Jews. Imagine if the reverse statement were to be dictated to Jews; i.e. stay clear of the creations of the gentiles. An uproar would erupt all over the globe! The complainer aught to know that a lot of the achievements that he attributed to Jewry may not have been the original engineers but the beneficiaries if it had been passed on to them, as we know the case to be regarding many inventions for which Jews take credit for.
[When the next time I have my car smashed up in my school by Moslem children who do not know better and think that all Jews should be killed because all Jews commit crimes in Israel, I will send the bill to Clark Lowes for I now hold him accountable for spreading hatred.]
This is a very juvenile and ridiculous statement. Actually it is very stupid! Where is this man's school? Does he really believe that Muslims are just robots who after reading an article would just start hurling stones towards Jews they find on the street? Moslem Children and their parents were those who provided refuge to Jewry against the most lethal West. How soon we forget! Muslim children and their parents do not appreciate opportunistic European Jewry to come stampeding on to their land with the pre-planned idea to kill, to maim and do displace the people of the land. There is simply no people who would not object to Jewry's bestiality upon the colonized Arab people of Palestine.
[The hell that Clark Lowes feels others is creating is one that he tragically sits in himself and multiplies with his diatribes and supposed power lectures.]
The article was well received by me when I first came upon it. What the complainer is moaning and groaning about is because since Jewry colonized Palestine, they have managed to intimidate the voices of those who dare and it had been decades of only one side of the story saturating the airwaves which also happens to be owned by the same group of people. The Palestinian story never gets to be told and if it did get equal airtime, then Jewry knows that that would be the end of the gravy train.
[To abuse his knowledge and privilege in the manner that he has done is Judas in the true meaning of the name. It will take myself and others who knew him as a friend a long time to recover from his betrayal]
I am not very familiar with the biblical story of 'Judas', so I will skip over that one. The fact that there is such a reaction from the article tells me that Jewry had hitherto been treated with kid gloves; never told they are wrong when they commit holocausts on people of color, never told about the excesses of their control on the American government. Why is this man pretending to be so ignorant? Did he not hear what happened when the former knucklehead in the White House was told that Olmert was on the phone and demanding that Bush better cut his speech short and take his call, Bush did as ordered. Can the gentleman tell us any other world leader who could me so arrogant as to demand the head of empire skip over his speech and attend to him? No! There is none. Perhaps the gentleman needs to visit the Truman Online Library and read 'The Edwin M Wright Interview'. We come to the shocking revelation that American Jews stormed into Truman's office and pounding on his table told him that they would throw him out of town if he did not agree to accept Jewish money and Jewish votes in exchange for Palestine. Truman understood that there was no way he could make it to be president if Jewry stood in the way and he agreed. It is all official at the official Truman Online Library. We also learn how American Jews practiced Truman's voice and started calling third world countries (Haiti comes to mind as one of those counties) and telling them that the President was calling to tell those presidents to vote in favor of the Jewish state or else the promised funds would not be delivered. The Presidents of those counties voted 'yes' while their original plan was to vote 'no' and only by such treacherous schemes did European Jews declare Palestine to be their state. Do not take my word, check out the Truman Online Libary.
[Words have great power, the tragedy of it all is that people who should know better very often never do. Energy and time should be used to find solutions not to express hate. And some may now say why do I now bother exposing Francis Clark Lowes and the reason is the same as why other social activists have done the same about friends they realised had a very hidden life.]
I do not know Dr. Francis Clark Lowes. The first article of his that I read was 'The tip of the Iceberg' and my reaction was elation! Finally someone had the courage to speak out. I hope that he will continue to spread the word and never shy away due to silly posts such as by the Jewish man. What would he be exposing about the writer more than what the writer had decided to expose about himself when he wrote the article? This moaning and groaning is so typical of those who realize that the theft of Palestine is indeed indefensible, and it is often hard to defend the indefensible. Therefore they resort to silly and absurd allegation that do not hold water.
[Francis Clark Lowes through his doctoral title and academic connections wields in certain circles power, he influences people who trust him because they believe that the mild mannered 'peace keeper' standing in front of them is wise, is learned and has perhaps answers that will help. It is clear from his words that he does not have answers.]
I don't think that I read anywhere where he said that he had answers. I do have answers for the Palestinian dilemma and I can express is with one word: DE-COLINIZE! The Palestinians are on their land, they know how to cultivate the land and make a living. They do not seek handouts from foreign governments as the Jews do. The European Jews are a European people with European customs. Where they have inserted themselves would have worked had they managed 'to spirit the penniless population across the borders'. What we have in Palestine is two people with two different customs and heritages. The European Jews aught to seek settlement in Europe or somewhere in the West. The 'West' of today is very different from the 'West' of years past. The West of today is very accommodating towards Jewry and they aught to stampede back in that direction!
[People like Clark Lowes who incite others to hate never bring about solutions but only create more hell. Perhaps it is time for Francis to read Dante one more time? ]
I don't think the article was even written when Jewry decided to create hell on earth when they decided that Arab blood was so cheap that they decided to outbid who would be the most lethal killer of Arabs just before election time. They proved to their appreciative electorate that they were equally lethal, hence the problem that resulted with no decisive winner in their elections. Again, this is so typical of moaning and groaning that I read all over the Jewish-owned media, including Haaretz and the Jewish Forward.
EDWIN M WRIGHT
We are so blessed that Edwin M Wright took the time to document so meticulously all that occurred pre and post colonization of Palestine. I have indeed acquired such indispensable knowledge from studying these documents. They are gems to be cherished. Please do take the time to study them. They are gems because it would be next to impossible that anyone would dare state it as truthfully as Edwin M Wright did.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm
http://www.ziomania.com/edwin%20m%20wright/edwin.htm
@sophie – Thanks a lot, Sophie, for saying pretty well what I would have said if I'd thought the comment by this mysterious Les Simon worth more of my time. Thanks also for the references to Edwin M Wright which I didn't know about.
Sophie wrote: "As a person of color and hence as someone who would be understanding and sympathizing towards the occupied people of color of Palestine by European Jewry, I was very appreciative of the writer when I first came upon the article."
Isn't that a bit of a generalisation there? That the colour of your skin gives you a quality that makes you more understanding and sympathetic to the people of colour of Palestine? Is that the reason a person thinks they way they do, because of what colour they are? And, to carry that logic, are they to be supported because – I hope you won't believe – for the intrinsic reason of how you call them people of colour? It sounds like someone I wrote about recently who assumed that a black man from an African country "obviously" knew more about racism than a white in the UK. As if there is a direct relationship between being black and being discriminated against and whites being those who discriminate as a rule.
Also, is it really possible that you don't know the story of Judas? It's such a big one in the history of world culture, iconography and idiomatic speech that it seems ridiculous. Lasly, your assumption that Blue Jar (on a different thread) is not Muslim is jumping to a conclusion because someone expresses something in a way you don't like. So, to jump to calling her the ADL is unnecessary and unfair.
@Mary Rizzo – @Mary Rizzo –
[As if there is a direct relationship between being black and being discriminated against and whites being those who discriminate as a rule. ]
Yes, that is true, as a rule. Look around the globe and see who is the colonizer and who is the colonized. White European Jewry colonized Palestine. The immigration of Arab Jewry to Palestine came about as an afterthought to serve as a buffer for white European Jewry from hostility from the people of the area and also as cheap labor. European Jewry is white and they came to Palestine with a typical white colonial supremacist attitude. One of my favorite quotes is by WEB Dubois: “The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line.” We can now change it to say ‘the 21st century’. Ask Hugo Chavez about the kinds of names of degradation he had been called because of the African blood in him. You sound to me like the queen who said ‘let them eat cake.’ She could not be blamed, (nor should you) because from what she knew of her own surroundings, she simply could not grasp how people could be without bread. All people of color should be in solidarity with the terrorized and dehumanized people of color. But that in no way means discrimination against whites. What are the chances that Jewry would have been raining the bombs of hell that fell on the heads of the people of Gaza had they been white people? Think about it.
Note: People of color should not be confused with 'colored'. The former describes all people of the planet who are not of European Origin whereas the latter was and is a derogatory epithet to insult black people.
@Mary Rizzo –
Mary: [Also, is it really possible that you don't know the story of Judas? It's such a big one in the history of world culture, iconography and idiomatic speech that it seems ridiculous]
Please take it for granted that some of us are not so cultured! I can prove to you by confessing to you that I have no idea what ‘iconography and idiomatic speech’ mean, nor am interested. I don’t want you to think that there is any kind of hostility from here. Just stating the fact as I see them.
….
Mary: [Lasly, your assumption that Blue Jar (on a different thread) is not Muslim is jumping to a conclusion because someone expresses something in a way you don't like. So, to jump to calling her the ADL is unnecessary and unfair. ]
As far as your comment about [Blue Jar], I had not idea what you were referring to until I went to that article by the same author titled ‘the outrage of the guilty’ and traced my comment.
Here is the comment in brackets by [BlueJar] followed by my comments
BlueJar: [This is exactly, word by word, the same crap blaming us muslims all over the world for Al Qaeda's crimes and executions in Iran.]
I don’t know how is it that you seem to know [BlueJar] is female unless you are personally acquainted with her. To me, the name could have been ‘xyz’. It is a poster that I do not know but can only respond to what is posted. Muslims would be less inclined to make such a comment for many reasons:
a) The Muslim world is under siege!
b) Iran is part of the Muslim world where Jewry had been salivating to see lots of Iranian blood spilled on to the ground. Iran is not yet out of the woods.
c) ‘Al-Qaeda’ is the boogieman that world Jewry benefits from in having the people of the West to have a negative view of Muslims and when those Muslims who had been sufficiently demonized get bombed to hell, the people of the West would have more pity for cockroaches than the Muslims.
I think that will do it for me and I have no more plans to respond any further.
@sophie –
It was enough to see the link from the site to figure out she is a Muslim woman. I followed the link, see there is a widget leading into my site (in fact, it brings in a lot of people from Spain) and doubt that an ADL member would have that element on his or her site, and sure, saying people blame Muslims for Al Qaeda is basically a statement of fact, stating that when they want to slur Islam they talk about the executions in Iran. None of this is expressing an opinion or value judgment on either of the two, but stating how generalisations work.
Sorry you don't know the story of Judas, it's a pretty popular one, I don't think I ever met anyone who doesn't know it, even people from Japan where there is no Christianity, so I guess it would strike me as surprising that such an icon would escape your radar.
And stating that "people of colour" are discriminated against by whites is like stating that air is transparent. Yes, we know that. But to claim that every black everywhere in the planet is intrinsically more aware of it than a white could be, even one that has always lived in a mixed culture where race is an issue on a daily basis is a blanket generalisation like the kind that calls racism blacks practice "reverse racism". My brother has been married to a black woman for 25 years and he tells me that even now, four kids later, they face members of her family and friends not accepting him due to colour… it is life experience, not skin colour that determines how one thinks and acts. You implied that a person of colour is more responsive to the Palestinians. A friend of mine (a black man) has written article after article about the total lack of interest that blacks have for the Palestinian struggle. and how he has never been able to mobilise blacks to be activists for it. Not only that, he has said for years that very few are interested in Arabs in general. It's only his opinion, obviously, but blanket statements such as yours are also based on assigning behaviour according to one's colour, which is ridiculous.
anyway, seeing as how you have said all you have to say, ciao.
The Chicago Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)
Seeking a Just Peace Between
Israelis & Palestinians
HOME ABOUT PERSPECTIVES RESOURCES ACT NOW CALENDAR
Other Voices
International Voices
American Jewish Voices
Palestinian Voices
Israeli Voices
Your donation
keeps us going!
Not In My Name
PMB 206
2859 Central St
Evanston IL 60201
312-409-4845
back
A Response to Paul Eisen's "Jewish Power"
Joel R. Finkel
This essay was written in response to an essay on "Jewish Power" by Paul Eisen. It represents the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of every member of NIMN.
The article by Paul Esien can be read on the Righteous Jews web site, which labels it as a "seminal article."
Daniel McGowan, who runs the Righteous Jews website, refused to post this response due to the "ad hominem nature of your essay and its lack of relevance to the idea of one state …[which] make [it] unsuitable to be included in our list of related articles." Of course, Eisen's article has no relevance to the idea of one state, but no matter, he is a "Righteous Jews" and I am not. To be "righteous," according to McGowan's criteria, I would have to insist that Palestinians abandon their national aspirations and demand that they embrace a single state "between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, one country with equal citizenship for all."
A sad postscript follows the original essay.
“Edward Said spent a lifetime picking his way through the Israel/Zionism/Judaism minefield and never once criticised Jews…” so writes Paul Eisen near the end of his essay, “Jewish Power.” Would that the same could be said of Eisen, who, it seems, did not learn from Said and intends in this work to correct his little oversight. Without presenting any facts, Eisen spends some fifteen pages simply asserting his argument, which amounts to something classic anti-Semites could embrace (and have[1]): Jews are very clever, successful people who have taken control of major sections of the U.S. ruling class and are formulating a U.S. foreign policy that is consistent with “Jewish interests.”
Central to Eisen’s argument is his assertion that there is a Jewish essence—what he calls “Jewishness”—which can be attributed to all Jews and from which naturally emerges “Jewish interests.” The problem is that such a project can only lead in two directions: Jewish chauvinism and anti-Semitism. There are many ways to investigate Jews and the Jewish experience: historic, economic, cultural, etc. From none of them, however, can one divine a Jewish essence. Indeed, both Zionism and anti-Semitism are based on the proposition that there is such an essence. At the heart of the Zionist mythology is the claim that this Jewishness contains, and has always contained, a primal urge to return to Palestine. Central to anti-Semitism is the idea that this Jewishness contains a primal urge to conquer the world. Although neither is correct, Eisen adopts both and, in doing so, employs Zionist mythology to construct patently anti-Semitic conclusions.
This is a trap into which Edward Said never ventured, and for good reason. The simple fact is that there is no such Jewish essence, and he knew it. Eisen, however, takes this essence as his starting point; and it leads to anti-Semitic conclusions.
Paul Eisen is a commendable person[2], and the Deir Yassin Remembered organization, of which he is a director, is an eminently worthy and important group that keeps alive the truth about the massacre of Palestinians and the Catastrophe that was visited upon them in the creation of the Jewish State of Israel. It is not my goal to argue that Eisen is an anti-Semite. I believe that Eisen has fallen into a trap that entices many activists—particularly Jewish activists—who are enormously frustrated by their impotence to make things better. They lose political clarity and resort to mythmaking. I am responding because I believe that Eisen’s arguments are not only baseless, but dangerously wrong.
This danger is manifest in the way Eisen chooses to close his essay, quoting the self-proclaimed anti-Jewish demagogue, Israel Shamir:
Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews…..the world is.
Now exactly what does this mean? Are we really supposed to be so passive as to not even suggest a resemblance to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? Then, to reinforce this dangerous hatred of Jews and Judaism, Eisen asks this intentionally ominous question:
Will the Jews of Israel, supported by Jews outside of Israel, now obey the law, live peaceably behind their borders and enjoy the fruits of their victory, or will they want more? Who’s next?
It is important to undertake the disagreeable task of responding because Eisen’s essay, and therefore the ideology it endorses, has begun to circulate within the activist community. It would be more useful to spend time organizing real opposition to Israeli policies than being forced to answer such appallingly bad politics. Would that one could simply ignore such stuff. However, it is important to address some fundamental errors in Eisen’s thinking.
Eisen divides his essay into three sections: 1) examining the relationship between Zionism and Judaism, 2) examining the relationship between American Jews and American society, and 3) examining what he calls “Jewish Power.” In spite of the fact that one must wade through pages of undocumented and unsubstantiated assertions, an overriding ideology emerges from the unity of this trinity: Jews have taken over Palestine and the United States and, unless they are stopped (or stop themselves) they will take over the planet. What this actually means, however, is anybody’s guess, but the specter of global ethnic cleansing, modeled after Israel, is clearly implied. More dangerous than his lack of scholarship and mythmaking is that Eisen’s only prescription to remedy this “Jewish Power” is to oppose Jewry in order to rid the world its evil essence.
1) The relationship between Zionism and Judaism
In the preface to this section, Eisen begins his argument:
The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons with Jewish religious symbols all over them, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organised Jews worldwide.
Having set the table, he immediately serves the main course:
But Zionism is now at the heart of Jewish life with religious Jews amongst the most virulent of Zionists and Neturei Karta[3], despite their impeccable anti-Zionism, their beautiful words and the enthusiasm with which they are welcomed at solidarity rallies, etc., may well be just Jews in fancy dress, a million miles from the reality of Jewish life.
Eisen then manifests his first major mistake, standing the question on its head:
Has our refusal to look squarely at the very Jewishness of Zionism and its crimes caused us to fail to understand exactly what we are up against? [emphasis in the original]
Eisen is suggesting that “what we are up against” is a Zionism that results from “Jewishness” and, what is more, that there is something uniquely Jewish about Zionism’s crimes. Rather than the standard arguments, which rest on a misreading of Israel Shahak’s analysis of how Talmudic law has been used to enhance Jewish racism[4], Eisen attempts to discern a “Jewish identity” that “comes from deep within Jewish history,” and then relate that to “Jewishness of Zionism.”
There are two things wrong with this approach. Eisen first fails to undertake a serious examination of Jewish history, and then, more importantly, fails to address the Zionization, as it were, of Judaism.[5] In other words, Eisen is so intent on proving that Zionism is a result of a “Jewish identity,” which derives from “Jewish history,” that he ignores the more important question: How did it come to pass that Zionism, which was an unpopular, secular, and indeed, anti-religious movement, come to dominate mainstream Jewish theology and identity? In fact, Eisen has stood the entire relationship on its head; Zionism is not dominated by “Jewishness.” If anything, the exact opposite is the case: “Jewishness,” at least as Eisen understands it, has become dominated by Zionism.[6]
Norman Finkelstein, who first examined this issue in 1988, described how it was not until 1967 that the American Jewish elite, having been relieved of the question of dual-loyalty (Israel had just become a U.S. strategic ally), took a vocal pro-Israel stance.[7] Before then, Israel was hardly on the agenda of the U.S. ruling elites or the leaders of the American Jewish communities. This is not to say that American Jews were neither interested in nor felt any affinity to Israel; many clearly did. But the Zionist ideology had not yet become a central theme in Jewish theology or identity. The shift came after Israel conquered the West Bank and East Jerusalem, proving itself to be a potential ally for the U.S. ruling class. As it then became patriotic and pro-American to be pro-Israel, American Jews quite naturally joined in.
Furthermore, in the examination of this “Jewishness of Zionism,” Eisen ignores the history of Zionism, which itself promulgated the myth of a Jewish essence. This movement to transfer European Jewry out of Europe began in the early 1800s from an emerging strain of Christian Evangelical Protestantism.[8] The number of Christian Fundamentalist Zionists outnumber Jews in the United States today by over 4 to 1. Their numbers also increased dramatically after 1967, when Israel’s easy victory was viewed as the unfolding of biblical prophecy. In addition, Eisen fails to mention, let alone examine, the dialectical relationship among Zionism, British, U.S., and Soviet imperialism, Arab nationalism, and Palestinian nationalism: a complex and dynamic relationship through which these movements shaped each other.
Because Eisen avoids any serious study of Zionism, his attempt to discern the “Jewishness of Zionism” is bound to inaccurately characterize its full spectrum.[9] His focus is necessarily narrow and shallow. Furthermore, as Eisen eschews any serious study of Jewish history, and cannot but fail to accurately characterize the non-existent “Jewishness,” he is left to simply assert a Jewish character to Zionism. For example, Eisen first gives us the totally unremarkable statement that:
Jews are complex; Jewish identity is complex and the relationship between Judaism the religion, and a broader, often secular, Jewish identity or Jewishness is very complex indeed…Jewish identity, connecting Jews to other Jews, comes from deep within Jewish history. This is a shared history, both real and imagined, in that it is both literal and theological.
He then asserts, without any evidence of any kind, that:
Central to Jewish identity both religious and non-religious is the sense of mission centered on exile and return. How else to explain the extraordinary devotion of so many Jews, religious and secular, to the “return” to a land with which, in real terms, they have very little connection at all?
But this is a myth: in fact, it is the Zionist myth. The fact that Eisen cannot otherwise explain this “extraordinary devotion” does not mean that this myth has any basis in material reality. To begin with, Eisen needs to explain why this “return” to the land is a central theme now when, throughout the 1900 years since the Roman expulsion, it was not a major theme. A study of Jewish history reveals no major movement to “return” to Jerusalem that was either broadly supported or accepted by the rabbinic authorities.[10] So why now?
This idea of a Jewish essence is central to Zionist mythology—and the idea of “return” is central to it—for a very simple reason: it supports the Zionist colonial project. It is not because there actually is a Jewish essence nor because the urge to “return,” which has no historical precedents, is real.[11]
This is Eisen’s primary mistake. He steps out of the real world and into the mythological world created for him by Zionism. He actually defeats himself by citing the Jewish theologian, Marc Ellis:
Marc Ellis, a religious Jew, says that when you look at those Jews who are in solidarity with Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of them are secular – but, from a religious point of view, the Covenant is with them. For Ellis, these secular Jews unknowingly and even unwillingly may be carrying with them the future of Jewish life.
So, is not “solidarity with Palestinians” also an integral aspect of “Jewishness?” Could it be that there is no such thing as “Jewishness,” and that to speak of the “Jewishness of Zionism” is an absurdity?
Claiming that “Jewish specialness” is a central component to “Jewishness,” Eisen compounds his mistake by asserting that “At the heart of this Jewish specialness is Jewish suffering and victimhood.” Again, he is wrong. While one may correctly place the idea of “Jewish suffering and victimhood” at the heart of the Zionist mythology, it is impossible to place it at the heart of a Jewish essence.
This topic of Jewish specialness has been addressed by many and there clearly is an aspect of this, particularly within the modern Ashkenazi weltanschauung. It is derived, in part, from the special role that European Jews played in the expropriation of surplus value from both the peasantry and aristocracy, which placed them in a dual position of privilege and vulnerability.[12] Indeed, it may be the case that European anti-Semitism grew so virulent because the medium in which it thrived contained a social memory of the Jews’ special role.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Zionist ideology—and, following that, Jewish theology—would adopt and reinforce the idea of Jewish specialness. What is surprising, however, is that Eisen accepts the Zionist reduction of this specialness to suffering:
At the heart of this Jewish specialness is Jewish suffering and victimhood. Like the shared history itself, this suffering may, but need not, correspond to reality. Jews have certainly suffered but their suffering remains unexamined and unexplained. The Holocaust, now the paradigm of Jewish suffering, has long ceased to be a piece of history, and is now treated by religious and secular alike, as a piece of theology – a sacred text almost – and therefore beyond scrutiny.
What Eisen fails to examine is why this “paradigm of Jewish suffering” never really existed before 1967.[13] Instead, he claims that:
Zionism is at the heart of this. Zionism is also complex and also comes from deep within Jewish history with the same sense of exile and return. Zionism also confirms that Jews are special in their suffering and is explicit that Jews should ‘return’ to a land given to them, and only them – by God if they are religious, or by history if they are not – because they simply are not safe anywhere else on earth.
The problem here is that almost none of this is correct, save for the rather pedestrian idea that “Zionism is also complex.” First of all, Zionism is not “at the heart” of this “paradigm of Jewish suffering;” it is the other way around. Secondly, Zionism did not come “from deep within Jewish history with [any] sense of exile and return.” This is a simply Zionist mythology. Thirdly, Zionism does not “confirm” Jewish suffering, it posits, mythologizes, and profits from it.
Zionism arose late in the period of European nationalism, when German and Italian nationalism, among others, were in formation. Its leaders wanted to create a modern nation-state in which Jews could be rescued both from their assimilation (in Western Europe) and from what they considered to be a backward, medieval, mysticism-laden religion (in Eastern Europe). Western Europe, in which Jews were highly assimilated and had attained full political rights, was seen as a trap: Jews, through the very process of their assimilation, would choose to cease being Jews. And with a bigotry not uncommon for Western European Jews, those in the Eastern European shtetls were viewed as needing to be dragged into modernity in order to save them from their own backward ideas (and language).[14]
The “paradigm of Jewish suffering,” was invented to support the rather specious Zionist argument that the more Jews assimilated, the more anti-Semitism they would encounter. Of course, the actual experience was precisely the opposite: Jewish communities suffered pogroms in exactly those regions (in Eastern Europe) where they were the least assimilated. And this is where the Zionists found their early support; assimilated Jews (both religious and secular) in Central and Western Europe opposed them.[15]
Eisen goes on to suggest that the “problem with Zionism” is that it:
… expresses Jewish identity but also empowers it. It tells Jews (and many others too) that Jews can do what Jews have always dreamed of doing. It takes the perfectly acceptable religious feelings of Jews, or if you prefer, the perfectly harmless delusions of Jews, and tries to turn them into a terrible reality. Jewish notions of specialness, choseness and even supremacism, are fine for a small, wandering people, but, when empowered with a state, an army and F16s become a concern for us all.
Let us ignore for the moment that Eisen does not explore “Jewish identity” any further than by adopting the Zionist myth of “Jewish suffering.” Let us ignore that he makes no distinction among the various Jewish ethnicities,[16] but merely reduces the broad Jewish Diaspora to “a small, wandering people.” Let us also ignore the fact that he once again fails to provide any evidence for his assertion. What is important is that Eisen states that Zionism allows Jews to “do what Jews have always dreamed of doing.” And what exactly have Jews “always dreamed” of doing? It seems that, at least according to Eisen, Jews have always dreamed of exercising their “notions of specialness, choseness and even supremacism.”
Now it is possible that what Eisen actually means is that what Jews “have always dreamed of doing” is returning to Jerusalem. After all, as we have seen, Eisen adopts the Zionist idea that “Central to Jewish identity…is the sense of mission centered on exile and return.” But he does not state this clearly and makes no attempt to parrot the usual argument that Jews for centuries have proclaimed “Next year in Jerusalem.”[17]
Therefore, we are left to conclude that Eisen actually means that Jews have always dreamed of exercising their “notions of specialness, choseness and even supremacism,” justified by the other central theme of “Jewishness,” viz., “Jewish suffering.” It is of little wonder that the Nazis who run Zundelsite consider this essay to be “extraordinary” and “brilliant.” And it is also of little wonder that Eisen presents no evidence for this assertion, as such a task would be impossible.[18]
It is then easy for Eisen to declare that:
This Jewish state is built on traditions and modes of thought that have evolved amongst Jews for centuries – amongst which are the notions that Jews are special and that their suffering is special. By their own reckoning, Jews are “a nation that dwells alone” it is “us and them” and, in many cases, “us or them”…Israel is a state that manifestly believes that the rules of both law and humanity, applicable to all other states, do not apply to it.
This is not only simplistic, it is false. In fact, Israel specifically does not “manifestly” believe that “the rules of both law and humanity, applicable to all other states, do not apply to it.” On the contrary, Israel and its supporters are quick to claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East, is “a light unto the nations,” and that its military is the most moral and humane in the world. The point here is not that they are delusional—states are neither moral, immoral, humane, or inhumane—but that Eisen ignores these claims and suggests that their beliefs are the exact opposite of what they actually state.
Rather, as Shahak explains, the Jewish state is built on ideas of ethnic/religious exclusivity that are reinforced—to an ever-increasing degree—by classical rabbinic ideas based in Talmudic law. While rabbinic power over a closed Jewish society was destroyed (from the outside) by the political freedoms that emerged during the Enlightenment, Israel, as a Jewish state, represents a retreat to racism and exclusivity. This results in a decidedly undemocratic state.
Eisen then compounds this mistake by asserting that:
…this Jewish ideology [i.e. Zionism] , in its zealotry and irrationality, resembles more the National Socialism which condemned millions for the attainment of a nonsensical racial and ethnic supremacy.
… National Socialism, like Zionism, another blend of mysticism and power, gained credibility as a means to right wrongs done to a victimized people. National Socialism, like Zionism, also sought to maintain the racial/ethnic purity of one group and to maintain the rights of that ethnic group over others, and National Socialism, like Zionism, also proposed an almost mystical attachment of that group to a land. Also, both National Socialism and Zionism shared a common interest – to separate Jews from non-Jews, in this case to remove Jews from Europe – and actively co-operated in the attainment of this aim.
Zionism is not simply a “blend of mysticism and power” that “gained credibility as a means to right wrongs done to a victimized people” in the same sense as National Socialism, i.e., German Nazism, which was called into power by a capitalist class that was not competent to ensure its own profitability in the face of a world-wide economic depression and a revolutionary workers’ movement. However, it is instructive to examine, albeit very briefly, the actual connection between national socialism and Labor Zionism.
Zeev Sternhell has identified the roots of Labor Zionism in what he terms “nationalist socialism,” which was a movement in opposition to the liberalism of the Enlightenment as well as to the universalism of Marx’s democratic socialism.[19] Whereas international socialism sought to organize human labor to bring about its own self-liberation (and, in the process, the liberation of all of humanity), nationalist socialism sought to harness human labor to create and glorify a nation-state. Like liberalism, nationalist socialism rejected the Marxist view of human society in terms of class, adopting a view that emphasized the particularities of ethnicity, religion, and nationality. So does Eisen.
Labor Zionism was not dissimilar to other nationalist movements in Europe. It included a focus on ethnic particularity, emphasized a unified national language, and its ultimate goal, like others, was to establish Jewish autonomy. What made it unique was its intent to mobilize a disparate people to colonize and conquer a foreign land and its indigenous people, and its reliance on a powerful imperial power, Great Britain, to assist it. Zionism was also a response to existential burdens placed upon European Jewry by anti-Semitism and fascism. As Sternhell explains:
Thus, even if Israeli society was largely an ideological creation, one should not forget that it sprang up to an equal extent as a result of the upheavals that took place and are still taking place in Europe.[20]
Labor Zionism was not the only current within the broader political Zionist movement. But it became the dominant tendency within both Palestine and throughout the world. As Sternhell explains, the Marxist Zionists, such as Hashomer Hatzair, the Jewish Russian Marxist Party (Po’alei Tzion – Workers of Zion), etc., were doomed because of the:
…tense atmosphere of building up the country, where the main preoccupation of Jewish workers was the “conquest of labor,” in other words, the dispossession of Arab workers in order to take their place—and thus the establishment of a solid infrastructure for an autonomous Jewish existence.[21]
Having ignored an actual study of either Jewish or Zionist history, Eisen is left to adopt the destructive mythology that is embraced by both Zionists and anti-Semites: that there is an identifiable Jewish essence, which comprises characteristics that can be attributed to every Jew in the world, and in which, therefore, Israeli crimes against humanity are deeply rooted.
2) American Jews and Jewish America
In his second section, Eisen attempts to address the relationship between American Jews and American society. This is important because, according to him, “At the heart of the conflict is the relationship between Israel and America,” and also because he feels that Jews control America. He begins by correctly arguing that “Israel is a client state of America, serving American interests or, more particularly, the interests of its power elites…if Israel did not further the interests of those who control America, then we can be sure America would not support Israel.”
Eisen is now left to argue that American Jews dominate this “power elite” by first asking:
But is this the whole story? Does Israel really serve America’s interests and is their relationship wholly based on the sharing of these interests? Consider how much in terms of goodwill from other nations America loses by its support for Israel, and consider the power and influence of the “Jewish”, “Zionist” or “pro-Israel” lobby, as when many an otherwise responsible lawmaker, faced with the prospect of an intervention in their re-election campaign from the Jewish lobby, seems happy to put his or her re-election prospects way in front of what is good for America.
In other words, because one could argue that by supporting Israel the U.S. loses “goodwill,” the motivation behind this ultimately detrimental support must be accounted for in another way. Eisen suggests the solution by asking:
That support for Israel must be in the interests of those who control America is certainly true, but who controls America?
Eisen will answer that it is the Jews who control America. But before examining this, it is necessary to provide an accurate analysis of U.S. support for Israel.
As mentioned above, substantial support did not appear before 1967. It was only then that Israel’s military prowess led the U.S. ruling class to appreciate Israel’s potential as a strategic ally. Israel’s military became a proxy for that of the U.S., and was a potent defense against Soviet expansion as well as any pan-Arab or pan-Islamic movement that would threaten U.S. interests. In addition, Israel became a conduit through which U.S. military equipment could be made available to counter-revolutionary paramilitary groups in Latin America. Over time, the military-industrial complexes of the two countries became highly integrated. Troops trained together and Israeli specialists taught at the School of the Americas.
The needs of U.S. capital are served by this relationship with Israel. These needs have everything to do with maximizing the rate of profit and nothing whatsoever with serving what Eisen calls “Jewish interests.” It should be simple enough to understand that, beginning in 1967, the interests of U.S. capital coincided with the economic and expansionist needs of Israel, and that therefore the U.S. ruling class has, since then, supported Israel.[22]
Indeed, the fact that Israel maintains a huge lobbying effort in Washington suggests that it understands all too well that this marriage of interests may be temporary. The needs of U.S. capital may shift, causing Israel to be viewed as more of a liability than an asset.[23] Because Israel’s elites, along with American Jewish elites, know full well that they do not control the U.S. ruling class, massive efforts to influence the American public and Congress have been organized.
Steve Zunes has presented a strong case that the relationship between Israel and the U.S. has placed Jews back into a traditional and vulnerable role as intermediary operatives for the ruling class. Just as throughout European history, when Jewish communities suffered as local lords withdrew their protection and abandoned them, the U.S. ruling class could not only abandon Israel but, as typically happened, use the Jews as scapegoats. Zunes writes:
One of the more unsettling aspects of U.S. policy is how closely it corresponds with historic anti-Semitism. Throughout Europe in past centuries, the ruling class of a given country would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, set up certain individuals in the Jewish community to become the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and money lenders. When the population would threaten to rise up against the ruling class, the rulers could then blame the Jews, sending the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scape-goats, resulting in the pogroms and other notorious waves of repression which have taken place throughout the Jewish Diaspora.
The idea behind Zionism was to break this cycle through the creation of a Jewish nation-state, where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling class of a given country. The tragic irony is that, as a result of Israel's inability or unwillingness to make peace with its Arab neighbors, the creation of Israel has perpetuated this cycle on a global scale, with Israel being used by Western imperialist powers — initially Great Britain and France and more recently the United States — to maintain their interests in the Middle East. Therefore, one finds autocratic Arab governments and other Third World regimes blaming “Zionism” for their problems rather than the broader exploitative global economic system and their own elites who benefit from and help perpetuate such a system.[24]
Eisen is simply ahead of the curve in blaming American Jews. In spite of what he asserts, Jews neither control the U.S. ruling class nor compose a major segment of it. Eisen states:
…if Jews have influence anywhere in America, it’s not over its muscle and sinew but over its blood and its brain. It is in finance and the media that we find a great many Jews in very influential positions. Lists abound (though you have to go to some pretty unpopular websites to find them) of Jews, prominent in financial and cultural life: Jews in banks; Jews in Forbes Magazine’s Richest Americans; Jews in Hollywood; Jews in TV; Jewish journalists, writers, critics, etc., etc.
This is a classic anti-Semitic argument, and, indeed the “pretty unpopular websites” that publish these “lists” are virulently anti-Semitic.[25]
Zunes writes:
Jews in the United States are often believed to have an enormous degree of economic power. Yet among the individuals who could actually be considered among the most influential sectors of the American ruling class, Jews are not represented any more than their share of the general population.[26]
Lenni Brenner estimates that 84 of 400 (21%) people listed by Forbes as the richest Americans are Jewish.[27] This means that 79% of them are not Jewish. This is, by any estimation, underwhelming evidence that Jews control the U.S. ruling class. Even if one contends that this 21% is ten times the percentage of Jews in the country (about 6 million, or 2%), and that, therefore, Jews are over-represented among the rich, there is every reason to suggest that this group shares its fundamental interests with the ruling class rather than the rest of the Jews. To suggest otherwise is to elevate the particularities of ethnicity/religion over class. This is a common mistake and, as Sternhell explains, it is central to Zionist ideology.
This Jewish elite, which is primarily centered in the intellectual sphere[28], made a clear pro-Israel shift after 1967, as Finkelstein has documented. This certainly was projected into the American popular culture. But the tail does not wag the dog. The promulgation of ideas that support neither the dominant ideology nor the needs of capital is allowed only to the extent that they do not significantly challenge the needs of capital.
It is these needs—that is, the needs of U.S. capital not the needs of American Jews—that are consistent with the support of Israel. In fact, Brenner estimates that only about 10% of American Jews consider themselves to be Zionist. “Yet,” suggests Brenner, “we have an overwhelmingly gentile Congress that is emphatically more pro-Zionist than the majority of Jews.”[29] Imagine, if you will, how difficult it would be for the American Jewish elite to become anti-Zionist; the question of loyalty to the U.S. would be raised in an instant.
To add to his own mythmaking, Eisen refers to “Jewish interests” seven times within this section, yet he never bothers to define what this means. If he defines it as support of Israel, then he should at least point out that the overwhelming source of this support is not Jewish. As mentioned before, Don Wagner estimates that there are about 25 million Christian Fundamentalist Zionists in the U.S. and their ideological leaders, such as Pat Robertson, are anti-Jewish. In fact, the sub-section of the huge Evangelical movement that supports Israel[30] does so because of their unique reading of biblical prophecy, in which the return of Jews to Zion will result in the tribulation and rapture, during which their god will dispatch the Jews to hell. Their support of Israel is simply to fulfil this prophecy—and rid the world of Jews. Can this be considered to be a “Jewish interest”?
Wagner cautions:
Indeed, the largest bloc of pro-Israel sentiment is found within Christian fundamentalist circles, whose numbers dwarf the Jewish voting population in the US (approximately 25 million Christian fundamentalists to 4 million Jews). The pro-Israel lobby and influence, then, is Christian as well as Jewish, and that reality should always be reflected. Not only does this avoid the canard that criticism of Israel and Zionist political activity equals antisemitism, but it accurately describes the contemporary political reality.[31]
Yet, in fifteen pages, Eisen mentions Christian Evangelicals exactly once, in passing. Is this because the power of the Christian Fundamentalist Zionists tends to disprove his thesis that Jews control America? He writes:
Do not the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Gun lobby, the Christian Evangelicals also not work to further their group interests?
The difference between Jews and other groups is that they probably do it better. Jews are, by pretty well any criteria, easily the most successful ethnic group in America and, for whatever reason, have been extraordinarily successful in promoting themselves both individually and collectively. And there would probably be nothing wrong with this were it not for the fact that these same people who exert so much control and influence over American life also seem to refuse to be held accountable.
The fact that Jews are more successful than other immigrant groups may be explained by the fact that the Jewish experience was, for the most part, urban, and that immigrant Jews arrived with certain urban survival skills that other immigrants, who came from agricultural societies, lacked. Also, their skin color made them more easily accepted into white America. What upsets Eisen correctly is the Zionist influence, which he incorrectly views as emanating only from a uniform and overly-successful Jewish community. He is implying that Jewish interests are Zionist interests; this is a gross generalization that leads him to oppose Jewry rather than Zionism.
Another example of this incorrect generalization appears when Eisen states:
But there is another claim, subtler and more worrying [about “Jewish Power”]. This is that it doesn’t exist; that Jews do not wield power, that there is no Jewish lobby; that Jews in America do not exert power and influence to advance Jewish interests, even that there are no such things as Jewish interests! There are no Jewish interests in the war in Iraq, there are no Jewish interests in America; most amazing, there are no Jewish interests even in Israel and Palestine. There is no Jewish collective. Jews do not act together to advance their aims.
Without a shred of evidence—or even an explanation—Eisen asserts that there are “Jewish interests in the war in Iraq.” This is convenient, even required, in order to prove that Jews control America, but it is entirely unsubstantiated. Of course, one would not be particularly surprised if American Jews, who undoubtedly exhibit an affinity for Israel, would be just as susceptible—or even more susceptible—to the argument that Saddam Hussein represented a real threat to Israelis. After all, Hussein did attack them with SCUD missiles.[32] Therefore, one would not be surprised if American Jews supported the war in greater numbers than others. However, exactly the opposite was found by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: American Jews express less support for the war on Iraq than does the general population (52% to 62%).[33] This disconnect between the American Jewish community and those Jewish elites who support the war is enough to disprove Eisen’s claim that there is a “Jewish collective” that “act[s] together to advance their aims.”[34]
Eisen continues:
This conflation of Jewish interests with American interests is nowhere more stark than in present American foreign policy. If ever an image was reminiscent of a Jewish world conspiracy, the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East, this must be it. But we are told that the fact that the Jewish neo-cons, many with links with right wing political groups within Israel, are in the forefront of urging a pro-Israel policy, is but a coincidence, and any suggestion that these figures might be influenced by their Jewishness and their links with Israel is immediately marginalised as reviving old anti-Semitic myths about Jewish dual loyalty.
It is Eisen who is conflating Zionist interest with Jewish interests. Keeping in mind that Eisen has nowhere explicitly defined “Jewish interests,” he speaks of the “the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons” who are “influenced by their Jewishness” and who have “gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East.” I suppose we must count among these Bush, Chaney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Rice. Of course there are neo-conservative Jews who are also influential, and they have ideological loyalties to the Likud Party. But this right-wing Israeli political party no more represents “Jewish interests” than the man in the moon.
Eisen joins such brilliant thinkers as Patrick Buchanan, Rep. James Moran, (D-Va.), Gary Hart, and a whole host of right-wing anti-Semites in asserting this nonsense. Even Ari Shavit, writing in Haaretz, states “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”[35]
But why this indictment of Jews, and the suggestion of some hidden Jewish agenda, rather than indicting the neo-conservative ideology? Neo-conservatism is not a Jewish ideology. We should remember that this very dangerous argument was used to declare that Bolshevism was a grand Jewish plot. Indeed, many anti-Semitic web sites still make this a primary focus.
In short, Eisen would have his readers believe that “cagey” Jews within the ruling class, absorbed by their “Jewishness” and exercising their “Jewish power,” are formulating foreign policy to advance “Jewish interests.” Throughout, Eisen conflates Jewish interests with Zionist interests. This is exactly what the Zionist ideologues want: everyone must agree that Zionist interests are Jewish interests.[36] Eisen does so not because he is a Zionist, of course, but because he lacks political clarity. Sadly, it leads him to oppose Jewry rather than Zionism.
Eisen continues by observing that “the Jewish narrative is now at the centre of American life, certainly that of its cultural and political elites.” And what narrative is this? He cites the existence of the Holocaust memorial in Washington and asks, “How is it that a group of people who make up such a tiny percentage of the overall American population can command such respect and regard that a memorial to them is built in the symbolic heart of American national life?”
Finkelstein has examined the development of that he calls the “Holocaust Industry,” of which this memorial is a part. This industry manipulates public opinion to make it more profitable to sell Jewish suffering, and it shakes down governments for reparations, which almost never go to those individuals who deserve it. This is despicable behaviour to be sure. And it is indubitably the case that these profits are directed into the Zionist project. But why indict Jews, as a group, rather than these profiteers as a group, as Finkelstein does? It is so much easier to ignore the details and advance an ideology based on ethnic/religious interests and power.
Eisen makes a further, outrageous claim: that no one is allowed to question the Holocaust narrative that has been constructed while other genocides may be “freely discussed:”
Whether those who question the Holocaust narrative are revisionist scholars striving to find the truth and shamelessly persecuted for opposing a powerful faction, or whether they are crazy Jew-haters denying a tragedy and defaming its victims, the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why? Because, like the rest of the Jewish history of suffering, the Holocaust underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to see and to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the world.
This is nonsense. First of all, I do not know of many “scholars” who “say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place.” Where is Eisen’s evidence? The simple fact is that Jews, particularly those who experienced the horror of the Holocaust, have every right to be upset if revisionist “scholars” attempt to deny their suffering. Just as we should expect Armenians and Palestinians to be enraged when their own horrific experience is trivialized or denied, we should expect Jews to do exactly the same. Such outrage, even if it is organized, as it is with Jews, is hardly convincing evidence of “Jewish power.”
To be sure, the Jewish community exercises greater influence over the Democratic Party and U.S. foreign policy than its raw numbers would predict. It is also true that there are Jewish institutions, both secular and religious, that thrive on protecting and promulgating the Zionist mythology and ideology. It is true that prominent Jews and Jewish institutions are involved in the vilification of Islam[37]. And it is true that many wealthy Jews have, and continue to, underwrite the Israeli colonial project.[38] But none of this should be used to suggest that Jews represent a monolithic community that controls, either secretly or openly, the U.S. ruling class. Acting alone, the Jewish elites who espouse Zionist mythology and who support the Zionist project would be impotent. Their power, such as it is, derives from their coalition with powerful partners in the religious right and within the U.S. ruling class, which acts on its own behalf.
3) ”Jewish Power”
In this section, Eisen presents a depressingly confused—and confusing—argument that at one and the same time 1) one cannot “draw a distinction between Jews, Israelis and Zionists,” yet 2) “It is true that ‘the Jews’ do not constitute a legally recognized body… It is also true that the Zionists do not represent all Jews but they do represent the views of very many Jews indeed, and certainly the most powerful and influential Jews,” and, what is more, 3) “ ‘the Jews’ are not a legally constituted body and they do not have an obvious and defined common policy.” [my emphasis]
But he argues that, nonetheless, there is such a thing as “Jewish Power” simply because there is such a thing as “Jewish identity” and because many American Jews support Israel to one extent or another. The flaw, it seems, is inherent in “Jewishness,” that is, the Jews’ “common spirit,” which, he claims, is the “specialness” of Jewish suffering and victimhood. From this repetition of his early mistake, he therefore adopts the very principled position that one should oppose Jewry, not Jews!
He begins by reviewing the ideology of the anti-Semitic Israel Shamir[39], who, he claims, has joined other “famous escapees [from Judaism] as Karl Marx, St. Paul, Leon Trotsky,”[40] and who, he writes, “has no trouble whatsoever in calling a Jew a Jew.” Eisen shares Shamir’s view that Jews are fundamentally different than other people. It is therefore perfectly easy to ascribe to Jews certain characteristics and claim that “Jews are responsible and should be held accountable” for the crimes of the Israeli government. It is also easy to claim that:
For so long now Jews have told the world that black is white and not only that, but also if anyone should dare to deny that black is white they will be denounced as anti-Semites with all the attendant penalties. We are held in a moral and intellectual lock, the intention of which has been to silence all criticism of Israeli and Jewish power.
Jews, it seems, are not only intent on exercising their “Jewish Power,” they lie about it, too. To add insult to injury—and it is no small insult—Eisen invokes the Jewish theologian, Marc Ellis, whose words are placed immediately before Eisen’s closing paragraphs:
“To the Christian and to the entire non-Jewish world, Jews say this: ‘You will apologise for Jewish suffering again and again and again. And, when you have done apologising, you will then apologise some more. When you have apologised sufficiently we will forgive you … provided that you let us do what we want in Palestine.” [Marc Ellis][41]
After which Eisen continues:
Shamir took me to task, “Eisen is too optimistic”, he said, “Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews…..the world is.”
Well, I don’t know about that, but, if as now seems likely, the conquest of Palestine is complete and the state of Israel stretches from Tel-Aviv to the Jordan River, what can we expect? Will the Jews of Israel, supported by Jews outside of Israel, now obey the law, live peaceably behind their borders and enjoy the fruits of their victory, or will they want more? Who’s next?
Who is next, indeed. Perhaps the Dene Indians in the Northwest Territories of Canada?
Conclusion
“We shall,” to use Eisen’s own words, “speak our minds.” No one has yet been able to create a definition of Jewishness for the simple reason that there is no such thing. Religious Jews come in many varieties. Secular Jews display a wide range of political views. There is no single Jewish ethnicity and, even if there were, one would still be unable to discern its essence. Boaz Evron presents the argument that the only thing that all Jews have in common is a religious tradition, which began only with the return from the Babylonian Exile.[42] The most interesting definition I have heard is that Judaism is a “conversation across the generations.” Yet this lacks any specifics on which one could hang an argument of any weight.
More importantly, to accept the idea that there is a Jewish essence is to accept the basic premise that underpins both Zionist mythology and anti-Semitic ideology.
However, we are able to identify certain trends within both the religious and secular Jewish community. As with any other people, a certain tribalism dominates, which leads, not surprisingly, to an affinity for many things, including Israel as a place where many Jews live. There is nothing inherently criminal in this tribalism; it is merely an indication that mankind has not yet established the conditions for its abolition. The Jews’ affinity for Israel is no more criminal nor unnatural than Germans’ affinity for Germany or Puerto Ricans’ affinity with Puerto Rico. That this sense of Jewish nationality is widespread is as obvious as it is understandable. Many factors went into the creation of this nationalism, and while a sizeable proportion of world Jewry was being annihilated, a small proportion decided to act on this growing nationalism and immigrated to Palestine, particularly after 1929 when immigration to the U.S. was severely restricted.[43]
It was only after 1967, when Israel proved its military prowess and became an important ally of U.S. capital, that there was set into motion a whole host of projects within both the American Jewish religious and secular community to actively, and uncritically, support Israel. Among these projects was the creation of a series of manifestly politically-motivated mythologies, including such frauds as Joan Peters’ pseudo-proof that Palestine was devoid of inhabitants before the arrival of Zionists.[44]
It is also true that these myths, including Peters’, are still sold openly in the bookstores and from the bema of many Jewish synagogues. Of course, this mythmaking began before 1967. We should remember that the Zionist ideology, which began by embracing, rather than challenging, the anti-Semitic movement, adopted a wide range of mythologies, each of which served to reinforce its political project of colonizing Palestine.
This mythology was used to conquer not only Palestine, but Judaism. The religious theology, which had taught that Jews were not to return to Jerusalem, was not only turned on its head, but infused to a large extent with Labor Zionist ideology. Marc Ellis has said that this ideology is now the central theme of the religion for many people, and that, therefore, the Torah should be removed from the Ark and replaced by models of Apache helicopters and the Wall.[45]
This is not an indictment of Judaism, or of Jews, but of the Jewish religious establishment, which has turned a blind eye to human suffering (that is, the Palestinians’), and used the religion to sanctify egregious crimes against humanity. To a large extent this is because they, too, believe the myths and are intensely afraid to look at reality: the injustices are simply overwhelming and so are rationalized away.[46]
To this end, the Israeli government’s policy of pursuing a permanent war—combined with the abysmal failure of the Palestinian leadership to create a democratic resistance to the Israeli Occupation—serves to instill a sense of “us versus them” among American Jews. This is hardly surprising given that this attitude supports the needs of the U.S. ruling class at the moment. Neither is it surprising that the dominant American culture has absorbed this attitude; how could it be otherwise when its dissemination is both so lucrative and consistent with the (current) needs of capital?
At the same time, but for different reasons, the Christian Fundamentalist Zionist movement, which promulgates its own theology/ideology, has grown tremendously and wields enormous political power. Adherents to its apocalyptic vision, which requires that Jews return to Zion in order to be slaughtered by god, are in the White House and Congress, and their leaders own numerous broadcast facilities and publishing houses.[47] If their nonsense were not consistent with the needs of capital, one can be sure that an opposing ideology would rise to dominance. This is a real problem because if the needs of the ruling class do change, the opposing ideology that emerges may be forthrightly anti-Semitic.
This is not to suggest that the current ideology should go unchallenged. But we should not replace it with one that “has no trouble whatsoever in calling a Jew a Jew.” We need to work to oppose the interests of U.S. capital without mythologizing them as “Jewish interests.” After all, the very real interests of the ruling class have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with maximizing the rate of profit. Indeed, one could easily argue that these interests are fundamentally contrary to the actual material interests of the vast majority of Jews, both here and in Israel.
We need to oppose ideologies and myths without condemning an entire religious/ethnic group or, in doing so, creating our own myth of “Jewish Power” based on the stupid and dangerous idea that Zionist interests are Jewish interests. Finally, we need to abandoned the entire concept of a Jewish essence, or “Jewishness.” Until we do, our politics will inevitably fail to advance beyond either Jewish chauvinism or anti-Semitism. And we will be incapable of engaging in the truly important work that awaits the Palestinian solidarity and global justice movements.
——————————————————————————–
Joel R Finkel is a member of Not In My Name (NIMN), a predominantly Jewish organization based in Chicago that organizes opposition to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The opinions expressed by him in this paper are not necessarily shared by every member of NIMN.
——————————————————————————–
Notes:
[1] The virulently anti-Semitic Zundelsite (www.zundelsite.org) has posted this essay, which it describes as “brilliant.” Of course, Eisen cannot control the use of his work by these scum, but that is hardly the point. The sad fact is that it represents a “brilliant” endorsement of their own ideology of Jew-hating.
[2] Indeed, I spent a memorable day with him in Jerusalem in April.
[3] This is a small Jewish sect that burns Israeli flags and solidarizes with Palestinians on the religious grounds that Jews were expelled from Jerusalem and are not to return to rebuild the Temple until the messiah arrives. If I drove a car with a bumper sticker that read “End Israel’s Occupation Now,” they would probably cheer me, unless, of course, I was driving on the Sabbath, in which case they would just as likely stone me.
[4] Shahak, Israel; Jewish History, Jewish Religion : The Weight of Three Thousand Years; Pluto Press (1994). Shahak investigates how Talmudic law historically emphasized racism towards non-Jews and helped to enforce rabbinic control of a closed society. Many people mistake his analysis of classical Judaism—and its application to the ideology of a Jewish state—as a treatise on Jewish essence.
[5] I will use the term Zionism as a short-hand for Labor Zionism, which is a distinct—and majority—tendency within the broader Zionist movement.
[6] That this seemed inevitable created the basis for opposition to Zionism from the Jewish religious communities.
[7] Finkelstein, Norman; “Palestine: The Truth About 1948,” Against the Current (#15; July/August 1988) [reprinted at
http://www.nimn.org/Resources/history_landing_page/000028.php?section=History%20of%20the%20Conflict
[8] Wagner, Don, “The Alliance Between Fundamentalist Christians and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Christian Zionism in US Middle East Policy;” Holy Land Studies; Vol. 2 No. 2. (March 2004)
[9] In fact, Labor Zionism, the dominant ideology that created the Jewish state, was only one of several strains of Zionism, some of which wanted to create a Jewish homeland but not a Jewish state.
[10] I know of not a single major movement to “return” that accompanied even major expulsions, such as from England (1290), Italy (1491), or Spain (1492), which is when a primal urge to return, if it actually existed, would most likely appear.
[11] It is extremely doubtful that anything but a small minority of modern world Jewry has any urge, primal or otherwise, to “return” to Palestine!
[12] Leon, Abram; The Jewish Question—A Marxist Interpretation, 1946 (http://www.marxists.de/religion/leon). While criticisms of his concept of a people-class have advanced the scholarship on this topic, Leon was among the first to apply a class analysis to the study of Jewish history. It is also instructive to read The Memoirs of My Jewish Great-Grandfather (introduced by M.A. AbuKhalil) Belfast Historical and Educational Society (2002) to get a sense of how some Jews continued to play an critical role as capitalist production and distribution grew in the late 19th century and superseded production based on cottage industries.
[13] Finkelstein, Norman; The Holocaust Industry (Verso, 2nd Edition: 2003). The first chapter, in particular, is a scholarly study of this.
[14] Let me note that Britain’s early support of political Zionism was due to their own anti-Semitism and imperialist goals, and was influenced by the British Christian Fundamentalist Zionist movement. In the early 20th century, Zionism was seen as an antidote to Russian Bolshevism, in which Jews played a vital role. The timing of the Balfour Declaration, weeks before the Revolution, suggests that it was aimed at trying to convince Russian Jews to abandon their revolutionary activities.
[15] Segev, Tom; One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate; Owl Books, (2001). As detailed by Segev, it was assimilated Jews in the British Foreign Service who voiced great opposition to the Balfour Declaration and insisted on including language to protect the rights of Jews in Europe: "…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." [my emphasis]
[16] Ilan Halevi, in his A History of the Jews: Ancient and Modern; Zed Books (1987), identifies five major Jewish ethnic groups: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Arab, Moroccan, and Italian. To this we should probably add the Lemba, a tribe of Black Jews who migrated out of Yemen some 2500 years ago and now live in South Africa, as well as others.
[17] This argument is itself specious, as the longing to be “next year in Jerusalem” was not simply meant literally. It was, in part, an entreaty for God to send the messiah (a pre-requisite for being allowed to return to Jerusalem). Jerusalem, in this context, is also metaphor for a more perfect, more spiritual place, and, as such, the longing to be in Jerusalem represented a longing to be in better physical, emotional, and spiritual conditions.
[18] After all, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was not based on any facts, but created by the Czar’s secret police.
[19] Sternhell, Zeev; The Founding Myths of Israel; Princeton University Press (1999); translated by David Maisel.
[20] Ibid. page 13.
[21] Ibid. page 16.
[22] For a full discussion, see: Chomsky, Noam; Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians; South End Press (1999).
[23] For example, it may come to view Israel’s activities to be unnecessarily destabilizing. Or its very support for Israel may become a liability as it attempts to pacify Arab and Muslim resistance to its own imperialism. At any time, the U.S. ruling class could change sides.
[24] Zunes, Stephen; “Anti-Semitism in U.S. Middle East Policy” in ZMagazine (March 1995)
[25] If you have a strong stomach, examine JewWatch.com.
[26] Op. cit.
[27] Brenner, Lenni; “The Demographics of American Jews” in Counterpunch (October 24, 2003) http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html
[28] It is important to note the difference between the spheres of industrial production, on the one hand, and that of ideas, on the other. The needs of capital are derived from the former. The latter tends to create and reinforce the dominant culture, which necessarily supports the needs of the former.
[29] Op. cit.
[30] The proper term for this group, according to Wagner, is Christian Fundamentalist Zionists. One should note that many Evangelicals, such Wagner himself, are long-time activists in the Palestinian solidarity movement.
[31] Op. cit.
[32] Ironically, many of these missiles fell on Iraqi Jews living in a suburb of Tel-Aviv.
[33] As reported on March 13, 2003 by Fox News: "Powell Scoffs at Conspiracy Theories on Iraq War"
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81002,00.html]
[34] I am not arguing here that there is no pro-Israel lobby or that it does not comprise, along with others, Jews who are organized as Jews. I am arguing that it represents Zionist interests, not Jewish interests.
[35] “White Man’s Burden” by Avi Shavit; Haaretz (May 4, 2003).
[36] Therefore, to criticize Israel is anti-Jewish.
[37] Daniel Pipes, for example, who is among the most outspoken anti-Muslim bigots, has worked closely with Pat Robertson in advancing this bigotry.
[38] The casino magnate, Irving Moscowitz, for example, is a major donor to the Jewish colonization of East Jerusalem and the surrounding region.
[39] In 2001, Israel Shamir became the darling of guilt-ridden Jews. He espouses an ideology that is openly anti-Jewish; that is, he faults Jews for being Jews. Interestingly, it was two Arabs, Ali Abunimah (who started the Electronic Intifada web site) and Hussein Ibish (of the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee), who first spoke out against Shamir’s anti-Semitism; this while many Jews were eagerly awaiting Shamir’s next beautifully written, hate-filled message. Shamir responded with pure ad hominem attacks on these two committed activists. See
http://www.abunimah.org/features/010416shamir.html
[40] Marx had to “escape” a youthful bout of Christianity, the religion to which his father had converted. Trotsky could not possibly have “escaped” from Judaism, as it never meant anything to him.
[41] It may come as no surprise to some that I have argued this attitude with my friend, Marc Ellis. Specifically, I do not agree with his accusation of communal guilt. However, I respect his thoughtful scholarship as well as his life-long commitment to the search for justice. I therefore declare a personal revulsion at the juxtaposition of his remarks with that of Shamir’s.
[42] Evron, Boaz; Jewish State or Israeli Nation?; Indiana Universi
[...] / lees verder, Palestine Think Tank (Engels). Tags: Midden Oosten, [...]