November 26, 2006

The Terminological Battle over the Palestinian Cause.

A Response to Gilad Atzmon’s ‘What is to be Done? Palestinian Solidarity in a Time of Massacres’ November 22, 2006

I’ve supported the palestinian cause throughout my adult life – which now stretches over 35 years. For most of this time I used the commonly accepted terminology. It was only in 2001 after discovering the jews had imposed a global ban on the word ‘palestine’ that i started thinking critically about the prevailing terminology and began searching for more objective and accurate concepts.

I realized that the phrase ‘israeli state’ was immoral and that the phrase ‘jewish state’ was deceptive since it suggested a multi-cultural state like those in the west. I concluded the most accurate phrase was ‘jews-only state in palestine’ since the jos had been created solely for jews and was working assiduously to remove all palestinians whether by killing them, deporting them, or making life so untenable they had to leave their own land. The phrase is misleading only to the extent that it conjures up comparisons with south africa’s whites-only apartheid regime. The jos is much more draconian than an apartheid regime because whilst white south africans were content to allow blacks separate development, jews are plainly not going to allow palestinians ANY sort of development – they want palestinians out just like the nazis wanted the jews out of europe.

These views eventually resulted in an article entitled ‘The Jews-Only State in Palestine: The Utter Filth of Jews-only Racism’ published in march 2005.

The response to this new terminology has been disappointing. Israel shamir suggested abbreviating the phrase to jos but this hasn’t helped its acceptance. Jeff blankfort didn’t like the phrase but didn’t deign to explain why. Ian buckley rightly proclaimed, "Never should they have acquiesced in the use of the word 'Israel' to describe the state set up on Palestinian lands." (Sir Richard's Warning’ Shamir Readers August 13, 2006) but provided no alternative and offered no criticisms of the alternatives. I wouldn’t expect the likes of chomsky or zunes to condescend to evaluate such an alternative given that they seem so happy with ‘israel’.

So, it’s pleasing that gilad atzmon has at least mentioned the phrase even if he continues to muddle it up with the quite different concept of ‘jewish state’. However, I fully agree with one of the implications he has drawn from the concept, "To identify the 'Jews Only State' as the core of the problem is to admit that peace is not necessarily an option. The reason is rather simple: the 'Jews Only State' follows an expansionist and racially orientated philosophy. It leaves no room for other people as a matter of fact and principle." I too believe that zionism is an expansionist and racist creed. The jos is an expansionist and racist state.

I also believe zionism is a colonialist creed and, correspondingly, that the jos is a colonial state desiring to capture new land on which it will carry out lebensraum policy. I fail to understand why gilad argues, "I myself do not regard Zionism as a colonial adventure".

As an admirer of arendt’s works on totalitarianism I have to disagree with gilad that the jos is a mere fascist state. I suggest it is an increasingly totalitarian state aiming at bringing about a final solution.

However, even this skip through some major political categories doesn’t do justice to what is happening in palestine and around the world. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the jos is also empire building by taking over other countries from within. It is doing this with the aid of jewish ruling elites in a number of countries – most blatantly in america but also to a critical extent in britain, canada, and australia. In britain we are still in the middle of what is called ‘the cash for honours’ or ‘cash for peerages’ controversy. These expressions are euphemisms. What is really going on here is that jewish donors have paid vast sums of money to blair in return for the blair government carrying out jewish domestic and foreign policies. The jos is dictating the philosophy, policies, and propaganda, of the western world. It is dictating the global political agenda.

Gilad is right. The primary objective is the dismantling of the jos. It is not combating anti-semitism. The political views of those opposing the jos are secondary. I would prefer it if palestinians/palestinian supporters weren’t anti-semitic but I’m not dictating terms and conditions to people suffering such appalling barbarism. I wouldn’t expect jews in concentration camps to love germans. It has to be considered that jews continually humiliate palestinians in the hope that they will express anti-semitic views because jews around the world can use this to divide opposition to the jos. Antisemitism ought to become a legitimate political issue only after the jos has been eradicated when there is a need to create a just and equal society.

It also needs to be borne in mind that a great many jewish dominated anti-war campaigns have been fought on a single issue basis excluding closely related issues i.e. the palestinian issue. Isn’t it about time that this same tactic is applied to the palestinian cause?

Jews are inflicting a terrible physical onslaught on palestinians in palestine (there is no war in palestine it’s just a one-sided slaughter). But jews are also inflicting an ideological onslaught on everyone else around the world to prevent them from giving the palestinians any form of support which might slowdown or deter the jos from implementing its nazi like racial purification/lebensraum policies. This ideological onslaught continually pushes the debate away from the main issue of overthrowing the jos. Thus jews claim that palestinians don’t exist – after all, if palestinians don’t exist then jews can’t be accused of killing them. Jews claim that palestinians never lived in palestine – after all, by eradicating all traces of palestinian existence, the jews can argue palestinians never lived there and thus they can’t be blamed for ethnically cleansing palestinians, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The jews use a specific terminology firstly to consolidate their racist ideology; secondly, to hide realities, historical facts; thirdly, to deceive those who know little about events in the middle east; fourthly, to provide a gauge of support for the jos around the world; and finally, as a token of submission for those who are willing to peddle jewish lies in return for what could be, very substantial, jewish rewards.

When people won’t even debate alternatives to jewish concepts then jews are transparently winning the ideological battle outside palestine and so–called palestinian supporters are doing nothing to help palestinians facing slaughter inside the jos. This shows the dominance of the jewish neos not merely the well known neo-conservatives but their allies across the political spectrum the neo-liberals, the neo-lefties, the neo-greenies, and the neo-pacificists such as for example human rights watch and amnesty international who summed up the jews’ disproportionate and unprovoked slaughter in lebanon in the following way, ""We are disturbed to discover that not only Israel but also Hezbollah used cluster munitions in their recent conflict, at a time when many countries are turning away from this kind of weapon precisely because of its impact on civilians," said Steve Goose of Human Right Watch in the report." (Shlomo Shamir ‘UNIFIL chief warns force may be used against IAF jets in Lebanon’ October 20, 2006). A wonderful example of moral equivalence.

Until those who support palestinians unite around a series of concepts which are free from jewish propaganda they are never going to help palestinians to overthrow the jos nor are they going to defeat global jewish racism.

Postscript: Of late I’ve come to appreciate that one of the reasons the phrase ‘jews-only state’ raised little interest is not because of its apartheid implications but because it uses the word ‘jews’. Jews don’t like anyone using the word ‘palestine’ but they are even more implacably opposed to the use of the word ‘jew’. My rationale for using it is that given that brits live in a british state and the french live in a french state then jews must live in a jews-only state.


Post a Comment

<< Home