ملاحظات حول «الترتيبات النهائية» أو «صفقة القرن»

سبتمبر 27, 2018

زياد حافظ

خلال اجتماعات الأمانة العامة الجديدة المنتخبة للمؤتمر القومي العربي واجتماعات لجنة المتابعة للحوار القومي الإسلامي تمّت مناقشة ما يُسمّى بـ «صفقة القرن». أشار بعض المشاركين إلى أن ذلك المصطلح غير دقيق لسببين: فالسبب الأول هو أن المصطلح يفترض وجود على الأقل طرفين أحدهما يمثل الشعب الفلسطيني، وبما أن الشعب الفلسطيني ومن يمثله غير موجودَين للموافقة على ما يحصل أو يُعرض فلا يجوز التكلّم عن صفقة. أما السبب الثاني، فهو أن ذلك المصطلح ترجمة غير دقيقة لما أطلقته الإدارة الأميركية كـ «ترتيبات نهائية» لحل الملف الفلسطيني. وبالتالي من الصعب التكلّم عن صفقة تفرض موافقة «أطراف». ولكن بعيدا عن الجدل المصطلحي فلا بد من إبداء ملاحظات حول تلك «الترتيبات» سواء كانت «صفقة» أو «مخططات» أو أي شيء آخر.

الملاحظة الأولى هي أنه لا يجب أن نقلّل من خطورة ما نشهده من أفعال تقوم بها كل من الإدارة الأميركية والكيان الصهيوني وفقاً لمسار واضح الهدف وهو إقفال الملف الفلسطيني عبر تصفية القضية الفلسطينية برمّتها وجعلها فقط قضية اقتصادية اجتماعية لمجموعات أي الفلسطينيين من دون أي حقوق سياسية كوحدة تراب فلسطين، والاستقلال الوطني، وحق العودة، والتعويض عن القتل، والتهجير، والتدمير، وطمس الهوية، والمسّ بالكرامة. ويعدّد المراقبون هذه الخطوات بدءاً من قرار نقل السفارة الأميركية من تل أبيب إلى القدس وهو قرار تمّ التصويت عليه بشبه إجماع في الكونغرس الأميركي خلال ولاية الرئيس كلنتون، أي منذ حوالي 25 سنة ، مروراً بقرار تصويت الكنيست الصهيوني على قرار القومية اليهودية، وإيقاف الولايات المتحدة تمويل منظّمة الاونروا، واقفال سفارة فلسطين في الولايات المتحدة وطرد الدبلوماسيين وعائلاتهم من دون سبب، وتجميد المساعدات لفلسطين. كما أن بعض الدول العربية التابعة للولايات المتحدة اتخذت قرارات بعدم تجديد الإقامات للفلسطينيين الحاملين لجوازات سفر فلسطينية غير جوازات سفر صادرة عن الدول التي يقيمون بها كخطوة عملية قسرية للتوطين في بلاد الشتات. هذه الإجراءات شكّلت بداية «الترتيبات النهائية» على أن تليها «ترتيبات» أخرى تحرم الفلسطينيين من أي وطن وحقوق سياسية وجعلهم فقط «مقيمين» في فلسطين مع حق الكيان الصهيوني بطردهم متى شاء.

الملاحظة الثانية هي أن هذه الإجراءات تدلّ على إصابة الإدارة الأميركية وقيادة الكيان الصهيوني وبعض دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي بمرض التوحّد السياسي، حيث يضربون على نغم واحد غير مكترثين بالنتائج وردود الفعل على قراراتهم، وكأن ليس هناك من شعب فلسطيني، ولا قوى عربية من دول وفصائل تقاوم ما يُخطّط. وكأن المسألة «كن فيكون»! فجولة المبعوثين الأميركيين كوشنر وغرينبلات لم تسفر عن أي نجاح في محادثاتهما مع مسؤولين عرب يستطيعون التأثير على القرار الفلسطيني. ما تمّ عرضه كان خالياً من أي مضمون سياسي وكأن المسألة فقط مسألة تسوية أوضاع عقارية أو نهاية خدمة موظفين. فالعقلية السائدة عند الإدارة الأميركية وخاصة عند الرئيس الأميركي هي ذهنية الصفقات العقارية دون الاكتراث للبعد السياسي الذي يحيط بالملفّ الفلسطيني. وبالتالي، لن تلقى هذه المحاولات أي نجاح حتى على الصعيد الرسمي العربي رغم دفع بعض دول الخليج لتلك المبادرة التي يعتبر البعض أنهم وراءها. فصهر الرئيس كوشنر المولج بالملف لا خبرة سياسية له ولا معرفة إلاّ ما تلقّاه من صديق عائلته رئيس وزراء الكيان بنيامين نتنياهو. أما شريكه جاسون غرينبلات فهو «أكثر اتزاناً» وإن كانت معرفته بالملف محدودة. فأفكار تلك «الترتيبات» النهائية تحاكي عقلية السمسار غير البعيدة عن كل من بعض المسؤولين الخليجيين ورموز الإدارة الأميركية المولجين بالملف. وما يمكن أن يعزّز ذلك الاستنتاج هو تاريخ الفشل المتراكم لصهر الرئيس في الصفقات العقارية التي ورثها عن والده. فليس معروفاً عنه أي قدرة بعقد صفقات ناجحة كما تشير وسائل الإعلام الأميركية التي تتابع أخبار الرئيس الأميركي وأفراد عائلته.

الملاحظة الثالثة تتعلّق بجدوى «الترتيبات» التي اتُخذت. فقرار الرئيس الأميركي بنقل السفارة لم يحظَ بأي تأييد دولي. فالتصويت في الأمم المتحدة، سواء في مجلس الأمن أو في الجمعية العمومية، كشف مدى عزلة الولايات المتحدة رغم صلافة تهديدات سفيرة الولايات المتحدة للدول التي «خالفت» القرار الأميركي. أما قرار الكيان باعتبار فلسطين وطناً لليهود فقط، فهو قرار ينسف سردية الكيان وكل مَن تضامن معه ودعمه طيلة سبعين سنة بأن الكيان هو «الواحة الوحيدة للديمقراطية في صحراء الاستبداد». فهذا القانون يكرّس علناً عنصرية الكيان ويجعله الكيان الوحيد العنصري رسمياً في العالم. والقانون يشكّل إحراجاً للأمم المتحدة التي تقبل في عضويتها دولة تجاهر بعنصريتها. أما «الترتيب» الثالث بإيقاف الإدارة الأميركية تمويلها منظمة الاونروا فهو ترتيب لم يلاق أي تأييد دولي. فحتّى الدول التابعة للولايات المتحدة من بين الدول العربية دعت إلى سدّ الثغرة التي شكّلها انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من التمويل. و»الترتيب» الرابع المتمثّل بإقفال سفارة فلسطين وطرد الدبلوماسيين الفلسطينيين من الولايات المتحدة من دون أي سبب غير رفض انصياع السلطة الفلسطينية لإملاءات الإدارة، فهو دليل على صلافة الإدارة وعدم احترامها أياً من المواثيق الدولية والشرعية الدولية ما يزيد في عزلتها. فما إذن قيمة تلك «الترتيبات» الأحادية التي لا تحظى بأي تأييد دولي ولا حتى القانون الدولي والشرعية الدولية؟ كما ما قيمة تلك الترتيبات التي تتجاهل عمداً الحقوق الأساسية للشعب الفلسطيني؟

الملاحظة الرابعة هي أن خلال كل تلك «الترتيبات»، فعدد من الدول الأوروبية تفكّر جدّياً بالاعتراف بفلسطين كدولة وإن كانت تحت الاحتلال. فكل من ايرلندا واسبانيا على وشك إعلان ذلك. من جهة أخرى، الدولة الوحيدة التي تراجعت عن قرارها بنقل سفارتها من تل أبيب إلى القدس هي دولة براغواي بعد الانتخابات التي جرت فيها، والتي أتت بحكومة تناهض سياسة الولايات المتحدة. فحتّى «الحديقة الخلفية» للولايات المتحدة تنتفض ضد قرارات الإدارة.

الملاحظة الخامسة هي مسألة «تمويل» ما سينتج عن تلك «الترتيبات». فتوطين الفلسطينيين حيث يقيمون أو خلق أوطان بديلة أو إيجاد مناطق اقتصادية يتمّ من خلالها توظيف الشباب الفلسطيني تحتاج إلى تمويل. فالولايات المتحدة تقول صراحة أنها لن تموّل وتحثّ دول الخليج للقيام بتلك المهمة. وإذا فرضنا تلك الدول راضية عن تلك «الترتيبات»، وهذا ما نشكّ به، فإن إمكانية التمويل محدودة جدّاً بسبب تحوّلات سياسية واقتصادية جعلت من تلك الدول تفكّر بشكل جدّي مقاربة أوضاعها الداخلية لمنع الانفجار الاجتماعي الذي يهدّدها. فلا حكومة الرياض ولا حكومة أبو ظبي المستنزفتان بسبب الحرب العبثية على اليمن والإنفاق غير المسبوق على إشعال حروب وقلاقل في عدد من دول المشرق العربي تجعلها مؤهّلة لحمل العبء الذي تفرضه «الترتيبات النهائية».

ملاحظة أخيرة في «الترتيبات النهائية». فهذا المصطلح يذكّرنا بـ «الحل النهائي» للمسألة اليهودية في ألمانيا النازية التي اعتمدت سياسة الإبادة الجماعية للجاليات اليهودية في ألمانيا والدول التي احتلّتها خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية. فهل الإدارة الأميركية تفكّر بـ «حلّ نهائي» للفلسطينيين على الطريقة النازية؟

كل تلك «الترتيبات» تسير في عكس مسار الأمور، وخاصة في ما يتعلّق بموازين القوّة التي لم تعد لصالح الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني. فهذه الموازين كاسرة للهيمنة الصهيونية الأميركية ومعهما بعض الدول العربية. فكيف يمكن لتلك الترتيبات أن تلاقي أي نجاح؟ الردّ بالنسبة لنا يكمن في الاستمرار في مقاومة الاحتلال الصهيوني لكل فلسطين ودعم مسيرات العودة التي ينظّمها الشعب الفلسطيني المبدع في ابتكار وسائل المقاومة، ودعم محور المقاومة الذي يقف سدّاً منيعاً ضد كل المحاولات المشبوهة.

الأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

UK’s Labor Party Passes Motion to Ban Arms Sales to «Israel»

Local Editor

Delegates of the UK Labor Party voted Tuesday to ban arms sales to the “Israeli” entity over its abuses against the Palestinians. This party policy that could be translated into official government policy if and when the party is elected to lead the United Kingdom.

The motion was passed at the party’s annual conference in Liverpool.

The unprecedented resolution noted that “the majority of Palestinian people were forcibly displaced from their homes” during the Nakba and condemned the “aggressive attempt to rewrite history and erase the victims of the 1948 war.”

It called for an “independent international investigation into ‘Israel’s’ use of force against Palestinian demonstrators,” an “immediate and unconditional end to the illegal blockade and closure of Gaza,” and “a freeze of UK Government arms sales to ‘Israel’”.

The motion noted that amongst those martyred during the Palestinian protests of recent months are paramedics, journalists, women, and children, while than half of the injured were hit with live fire by snipers as they approached the border with the “Israeli” entity.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) Chair Hugh Lanning said: “We have witnessed extraordinary scenes of solidarity today and the Labor Party has done the right thing by recognizing the longstanding injustice of the entity’s violation of Palestinian rights.

PSC handed out more than a thousand Palestinian flags at the conference. In remarkable scenes, many hundreds of delegates stood and waved their flags inside the conference hall when the motion was debated and chants of “Free Palestine!” were clearly heard.

PSC director Ben Jamal said: “This incredible show of support and this historic motion demonstrate the strength of feeling at the grassroots of the party. Labor members want to show real solidarity with Palestinians

The issue was in the top four of all issues discussed Tuesday in Liverpool. The vote to debate Palestine was fourth after housing, school systems, and justice for the Windrush generation. It gained more votes than the issues of Brexit, and the National Health System (NHS).

During the debate on Palestine, the party deliberated on UK arms sales to the “Israeli” entity, voting to end them until an independent investigation into the murder of more than 180 protesters in Gaza since March 30 can be carried out.

Though conference votes are not binding on leaders, Jeremy Corbyn, a supporter of the Palestinian cause, has promised to recognize Palestine as a state if his party comes to power.

The anti-Semitism charges against Corbyn were rejected by him, his supporters, and Palestinians citing the entity’s attempt to shut down any criticism of its policies and abuse against Palestinians and its occupation of their land.

But not all Palestinians are overjoyed with the new policies. Some are critical of the UK’s stand on the Oslo agreement which supports the creation of two states. For UK-based Palestinian author and academic, Ghada Karmi said during a Palestine Solidarity meeting that Labor cannot go on supporting a “defunct idea”. She also asked the party to stop being apologetic about the “Israeli” entity’s atrocities and to confront the entity and call out its actions against Palestinians.

According to Hazem Jamjoum, a Palestinian-American academic, the British empire helped create the so-called “state of ‘Israel’”; hence, it has a greater responsibility to support Palestine. He also warned that the entity’s impunity regarding apartheid, racist laws and ethnonationalism is creating precedents all over the globe, which is witnessing an increasing identity-based nationalism in many countries.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Conflating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism a Dangerous and Useful Ploy for Zionists

JERUSALEM — (Analysis) According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, anti-Semitism is defined as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” This is also how anti-Semitism is understood by people in general. However, the state of Israel and Zionist organizations around the world do not want the term to be defined as only racism against Jewish people but also to include criticism and rejection of Zionism.

Jewish rejection of Zionism

The Zionist movement had no concern for God or Jewish law because the Zionist leaders were secular and their vision was to create a secular state. They claimed that Jews were a nation just like any other, even though clearly that is not the case. Jews in Yemen, in Iraq, in Poland or in the Holy Land itself had and continue to have their own distinct customs, clothing, culture and language. The only common thing that Jewish people around the world possess is their religion. This is true even today, when many Jewish people see themselves as secular. Jews in America have a distinct culture that is different from that of Jews in France or Iran or in occupied Palestine.

The Zionists secularized the Old Testament, treating it as though it was a historical document, which it very clearly is not; and, finally, the Zionists claimed that Palestine is the Land of Israel and that it is the land of the Jewish people and therefore they have a right to take it, even by force. They invented and spread the motto, “A Land without a People for a People without a Land,” even though clearly there were people on the land, the Palestinian Arabs. These people, in the eyes of Western colonizers, being non-European and not white, were just insignificant and invisible.

Jewish opposition to Zionism was swift and fierce and is well documented. The leading Rabbis of the Ultra-Orthodox community were very clear in their opposition and the points they made were as relevant in the early 20th century as they are today. According to Jewish law, the Jewish people are forbidden from claiming sovereignty in the Land of Israel. They were expelled by Divine decree as a result of their own rejection of God’s laws and are not permitted to return until such time as God sends His messenger to grant them permission to return. To claim, as many Zionist do, that God gave The Land of Israel to the Jewish people and therefore they are permitted to live there, and force another nation into exile in the process, contravenes the commands of the very God that they claim gave them the land.

AP_120304053909.jpg

God’s promise of the land to the Jewish people was conditioned upon their obedience to His laws. Having failed to so obey, they cannot simply claim it back. Furthermore, there is a prohibition on taking the land by force, dying for the land, or taking a life of another human being. Jewish law commands its followers to be loyal citizens in whatever country they happen to live.

Furthermore, in a book named Or Layesharim or Light for the Truthful, published in the year 1900, the rabbis of the early twentieth century warned of four major inevitable consequences should the Zionist movement be allowed to accomplish its goal of a so-called “Jewish state” in Palestine.

  1. Unprecedented violence to the Holy Land;
  2. Unprecedented tensions between Jews and the Palestinian Arabs;
  3. Jeopardizing the relations between Jews and Muslims;
  4. Casting doubt as to the loyalty of Jewish people in the countries in which they reside around the world.

Sadly, no one listened to the rabbis and, as things turned out, every one of their warnings became true.

Conflating anti-Semitism with rejection of Zionism

From early on, the Zionist movement and then the State of Israel have had a tense relationship with the Ultra-Orthodox community because of its clear anti-Zionist stance. Having grown up in Jerusalem I can recall how each year on particular days, including the Israeli Day of Independence, there would be processions at the Ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods where the Israeli flag would be burned.

The Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, which claims to be a civil-rights organization but is in reality a Zionist watchdog, maintains that “Anti-Zionism is a prejudice against the Jewish movement for self-determination and the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the State of Israel.” This is an interesting twist on Zionism and what it means to oppose it.

To begin with it is not prejudice to oppose Zionism. The Zionist movement has been around for over a century and has a clear track record of racism and extreme violence. Nor is it prejudice against the right of Jewish people to live in Palestine. The creation of the state of Israel came at an enormous cost and included genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the establishment of an apartheid regime. That is enough reason to oppose any movement.

The ADL also claim that BDS — the Palestinian call for a boycott, divestment, sanctions campaign against Israel — is anti-Semitic. On its website, it says that “ADL believes that the founding goals of the BDS movement and many of the strategies used by BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic.” It goes on to say that “the [BDS] campaign is founded on a rejection of Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. It denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination.”

BDS-001

However, the proclaimed demands of the BDS call, as stated on their website, could not be more clear nor could they be farther from what the ADL claims they are. Namely:

  1. Ending the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall.
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

These demands are all remedial and one can summarize them with three words: Freedom, Justice and Equality — three values that are perfectly congruent with Judaism and Jewish values and with which millions of Jewish people fully agree. Not one of these demands poses even the slightest danger to Jews anywhere. However, they are demands that the State of Israel opposes; and Zionist watchdogs like the ADL, which work in the service of Israel, falsely claim that such opposition to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism.

Unfortunately, many if not most people around the world are unaware that historically the Zionist movement and Zionist ideology have been at odds with world Jewry.

As it was then, so it is today: there are entire communities of Jewish people who reject Zionism. The anti-Zionist religious Jews are one such community and there are others, who are not religious and have rejected Zionism and live and thrive in countries around the world, as Jewish people have done throughout the vast majority of Jewish history.

Zionist concerns

It is safe to say that the Zionist establishment, concerned about its own legitimacy, decided to embark on this campaign to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Historically the secular, European Zionist establishment did succeed in convincing and applying pressure on governments and non-governmental organizations around the world to ignore the calls and opinions of traditional rabbis, and accept the Zionist state and consequently accept the claim that opposing Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism.

As a result of the growing support for the Palestinian cause and realization that Zionism as a movement is responsible for the inexcusable crimes committed by Israel towards the Palestinian people, consecutive Israeli governments felt the need to stop the growth of anti-Zionist sentiments around the world and began a campaign to conflate criticism and rejection of Zionism with racism and anti-Semitism.

This has reached ridiculous proportions, as when the self-appointed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, took it upon itself to define anti-Semitism and began a campaign to have its definition accepted by governments and non-governmental organizations around the world. This is how we reach absurd situations like the one in the U.K., where the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who has fought racism his entire life, is accused of anti-Semitism.

If one wants to eradicate anti-Semitism, one should fight to end all forms of racism; supporting Israel is supporting racism. Claiming that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitic is a false, shameless claim.

By Miko Peled
Source

Jews and Gentiles

September 10, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Family_Quarrels_or_The_Jew_and_the_Gentile-1113x640.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Early Zionism was a significant and glorious moment in Jewish history; a moment of dramatic epiphany fueled by self-loathing. The early Zionists promised to save the Jews from the Jew and to liberate the Jew from the Jews. They were disgusted by the Diaspora non-proletarian urban Jewish culture which they regarded as parasitic.  They promised to bond the new Hebrews with labour and soil. They were convinced that they could transform what they saw as a greedy capitalist into a new ‘Israelite hard working peasant.’  They believed that they could make the ‘international cosmopolitan’ into a nationalist patriot, they believed that they knew how to convert Soros into a kibbutznik: they were certain that it was within their capacity to make Alan Dershowitz into a Uri Avneri and Abe Foxman into a peacenik. They promised to make Jews into people like all other people while failing to realize that no other people really want to resemble others.

Zionism has been successful on many fronts. It managed to form a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Jewish state is a wealthy ghetto and one which is internationally supported. But Israel is a state like no other. It is institutionally racist and murderous.  It begs for American taxpayers’ money despite being filthy rich.  Sadly, Zionism didn’t solve the Jewish problem, it just moved it to a new location. More significantly, not only did Zionism fail to heal the Jews as it had promised to do, it actually amplified the symptoms it had vowed to obliterate.

Accordingly, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitsm should be regarded as a Zionist admission that the task of making Jews people like all other people has been a complete failure. No other people have so intensely and institutionally engaged in the suppression of other people’s freedom of speech. Jewish and Zionist bodies work openly and in concert to silence every possible criticism of their state. The real reason for the fight to make the IHRA definition law is that the Zionist position on antisemitism is indefensible.  If the Jews need a special definition of hatred against them (as opposed to a definition of hatred that includes hatred of any people based on race or religion) it proves that, at least in the eyes of the Zionists who push for the definition, Jews are somehow different.

In addition, and for quite some time, history laws and regimes of correctness have been employed to block our access to the Jewish past. This is paradoxical given the fact that the Zionist project is a historically driven adventure: while Zionists often claim their right to self determination on their so-called ‘historical land,’ no one else is allowed to critically examine the Jewish historical past. The Jewish past is, instead, what Jews consider to be their past at a given moment, and as the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand suggests, this so called ‘narrative’ is often an ‘invention.’  No one is permitted to look into the validity of claims made about Jewish participation  in the slave trade. Gentiles are not entitled to look into the role of Jewish Bolsheviks in some colossal communist crimes. The Nakba is legally isolated by walls of Israeli legislation. And it is axiomatic that no one may freely engage in critical thinking on any topic that is even tangentially related to the holocaust. For my suggestion that Jews should self reflect and attempt to understand what it was that led to the animosity against them in the 1930s, I am castigated by some Jewish ethnic activists as a holocaust denier.

French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard taught us that history claims to tell us ‘what happened’ but in most cases it actually does the opposite: it is there to conceal our collective shame. To suppress their shame, Americans build holocaust museums in every American city rather than explore their own slave holding past. Rather than deal with their dark imperial history, the Brits allocated a large part of their Imperial Wars Museum to a Holocaust Memorial. Both American and British holocaust museums fail to address the shameful fact that both countries largely blocked their gates to European Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. According to Lyotard, the role of the true historian is to unveil the shame, removing layer after layer of suppression. This painful process is where history matures into ethical awareness. And then, there is no examination of responsibility for historical wrongs in the Zionist narrative, for the notion of shame, that instigated the Early Zionist ideology, is totally foreign to Zionist culture and politics.

Israel not only couldn’t be bothered to build a Nakba museum: it does not even acknowledge the Nakba. Zionists didn’t express remorse that their Jewish state deployed snipers to hunt Palestinian protestors, killing hundreds and wounding thousands of them.

Neither Zionists nor Israelis feel the need to find excuses for the fact that their laws are racist: Palestinian Israeli citizens are 7th class citizens and the rest of the Palestinians who live in Israeli controlled territories are locked up in open air prisons. Zionism doesn’t have to deal with shame because shame involves uncanny introspection, it entails humility, ordinariness.   Unlike the Americans and the Brits who made other people’s suffering into their empathy pets, the Zionists, the Israelis and Jews in general are clearly happy to celebrate the primacy of Jewish suffering while making sure everyone else adheres to this principle.  Zionism skillfully put into play the means that suppress criticism all together. But by doing so, Zionism essentially blinded its followers to its own crimes, and it put an end to the dream to become people like all other people.

Although Zionism was an apparatus invented to fix the Jews, to make them ordinary, it had the opposite effect. It made it impossible for its followers to integrate into the rest of the nations as a people amongst people. While Zionism was born to obliterate choseness, as it was practiced it was hijacked by the most problematic form of  Jewish exceptionalism. Interestingly enough, today, just ahead of the Jewish new year, Haaretzrevealed that 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosen. I guess the rest see themselves as exceptional.

 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

If some Zionists out there are still committed to the original Zionist dream, then owning the shame that is attached to the Zionist sin is probably the way forward. Because as things stand at the moment, the only public figure who insists upon seeing Jews as people like all other people and actually act upon it is, believe it or not, Jeremy Corbyn.

Tomorrow (9-11) in Manhattan I will dig into the history of Zionism from Herzl to Bibi:

From Herzl To Bibi Poster.jpg

 

Ibrahim’s Palestine…

Hussein Samawarchi

Traveling is a wonderful activity. It lets you see other parts of this beautiful Earth and the wonderful people living throughout. All, of course, given that your journey has not been a forceful one, just like that of Ibrahim.

Ibrahim, an elderly gentleman I had the pleasure and honor of meeting in Latin America, was an incredibly educated 84-year-old Palestinian with a memory so vivid, he could describe colors of clothes he had seen 75 years ago. He truly was a universal human that got along with everyone he met. Sometimes, we would be seated in a café enjoying coffee and he would start chatting with strangers across tables. It is actually how I met him; an elderly stranger who introduced himself as a refugee from Palestine asked me if I was from the Middle East on account of my facial features and a friendship followed.

An unforgettable hometown

You would think that a man who has lived his adult life in so many different countries would not remember the place where he was born; or, at least, would not be so attached to it.

This was not the case with Ibrahim. During the time that I knew him, Palestine always found a way to surface in our conversations. He spoke about the country where he was born and raised with so much pride. Actually, one of the first things he ever told me was “Ana min Beit Jala” (Arabic for: I am from Beit Jala), and he said it with a gleamy face and dreamy eyes. He remembered how, although they were a family of five at home, their house almost always had at least three more people sleeping there.

Ibrahim’s father belonged to an educated elite who held secret night meetings to organize a resistance against the British and the danger of the new population being injected into the country. According to Ibrahim, he would share a big bed with his two other siblings and his mother while his father and friends would stay up most of the evening writing leaflets against what had become an inescapable national tragedy.

Uncle Dawood’s oranges

Ibrahim always spoke of the oranges of Palestine. He liked to repeat the story of how his father had a best friend called Dawood who happened to be a Palestinian Jew. Dawood lived in what Ibrahim calls ‘the old Jerusalem’ and was a great supporter of the movement against the British occupation. Ibrahim refers to his father’s best friend as ‘Ammoo Dawood’ as a sign of respect (Ammoo in Arabic means Uncle.)

The story Ibrahim liked repeating was that Ammoo Dawood never came to visit without bringing something along with him – usually sweets or concentrated homemade juice. It’s an Arab custom to bring something along when visiting someone’s home. That evening, when Ibrahim and his siblings were about to sleep, Dawood had come to sleep over and had brought oranges with him. They could smell them in their bed; the scent remained in their house for two days. Ibrahim says that the scent of Palestinian oranges is still stuck in his nose after all these years. He always follows this short story with the statement ‘no wonder they wanted to steal our land.’

The death of a priest

Dawood informed his best friend that he was going to take his family to live in England because they were all in danger. Ibrahim remembers that day especially well because it was when Dawood had come to visit in a car loaded with gifts. He had brought them many things from home including a phonograph and all the provisions of the kitchen. His father was very sad that day.

Dawood told them a story of how a Zionist gang had attacked a priest the night before. How they ransacked his house and left him dead after piercing his hands, feet, and abdomen. He also told them that most 1948 Arabs were receiving death threats by those European immigrants and many are leaving.

Goodbye Deir Jala

After that day when Dawood had come to bid them farewell, nothing was the same again. Ibrahim recalls his father being distant most of the time. The evening meetings had come to an end and his mother would peek out of their window whenever the slightest sound of footsteps outside was heard. Palestine had become a dangerous place for Palestinians. He could hear his parents arguing frequently; his mother wanted to leave to Jordan or Egypt but his father wanted to stay – she was very scared for her husband’s life; a few of his friends had been assassinated. He remembered his father being furious and saying “They sold us.”

The day finally came when Ibrahim’s father did not return from work. Witnesses reported that he was abducted by three men with pistols in the old town. He was never heard of after that.

Shortly after, the mother took her three children to Chile.

Home

Ibrahim continued his few remaining teen-age years in Chile where his mother had found a job in a textile factory whose owner saw great potential in him. He had him trained as a machinery technician and then sent him to Italy and Germany for further specialization. From there on, life smiled at him – Ibrahim worked and lived all over Latin America and became a champion swimmer and mountain climber.

Chile was a country that gave him security and a new chance at living up to a full potential. He always called it “Mi Pais” which means “My Country.” But, he referred to Deir Jala as “Home.”

Ibrahim’s sparkly blue eyes shut for the last time earlier this year. A few days before passing away, I visited him at the hospital and he said to me: “Don’t worry my friend, I am not dying until I see the Galilee” in reference to Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s historical statements regarding Palestine’s northern region. See, Ibrahim followed up on Sayyed (Hassan) Nasrallah’s news without fail.

Zionists have stolen the wrong country. Palestinians do not see Palestine as land, they see it as the one and only HOME. No amount of illegal settlements or “Israeli” terror can take that away. Looking into Ibrahim’s eyes whenever he mentioned Palestine was seeing an intense passion for the return to what was rightfully his. May you rest in peace Ibrahim, your grandchildren will be planting an orange tree for you in Palestine soon.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Jeremy Corbyn, Jewish Assimilation and the Lobby

August 21, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

reed corbyn.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Although the following quotation is from an old text that refers to an earlier era and different geo-political conditions, it provides an impeccable analysis of the current Zionist campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and the false alarm of antisemitsm.

“The ghettoized Ashkenazim (both in their Communist and their Zionist organizations) were inspired to obstruct emancipation by every possible device (including assassination in the last resort) while the story of their persecution was hammered, as an intimidatory warning, into the consciousness of the Western Jews and, as a rightful claim for succour, into that of the Christian West.

The Gentile politicians of the West presented these fictions to their peoples as truth, for they had found that powerful Jews, in all countries, were able to assist parties favoured by them with money, press support and votes; the return they required was support for the cause of the “persecuted” Jews in Russia and for the ‘return’ to Palestine. In effect this meant that politicians who sought these favours had to subordinate national interest to two causes ultimately destructive of all nation-states: the revolution (communism) and the ambition to acquire territory for the dominant race (Zionism).”* Douglas Reed 1955.

According to Douglas Reed the threat of antisemitism is designed primarily as a means to prevent Jewish assimilation. In The Wandering Who? I show that the fear of assimilation is not exclusive to Zionism, the Jewish political left and Jewish anti Zionism serve the same objective. By giving a place in the Jewish world to ethically inclined Jews they prevent such Jews from integrating with humanity as equals. The mechanism is straight forward: ‘You do not have to become a Goy in order to oppose Israeli criminality, you can just join JVP and oppose Israel ‘as a Jew.’ Similarly, you don’t have to oppose Corbyn’s detractors as an ordinary Labour member, you are better off celebrating your Jewish privilege and support Corbyn as a member of Jews for Jeremy or Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL).

Exclusively Jewish ‘dissenting’ bodies serve another crucial purpose: they operate to exclude gentiles from sensitive Jew-related discourse. Palestine solidarity has been dominated by Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist political bodies for more than a decade. These bodies have never been interested in solving the Palestinian plight; they have never echoed the Palestinian core demand for the right of return. Instead they have called for the ‘end of the occupation (practically legitimizing the Jewish State within pre 67 lines),’ the ‘Two States Solution,’ and BDS measures against Israel. Instead of fighting for the Palestinians’ right to return to their land, they have produced a noisy exchange between Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’s’ over Jews’ right to BDS. Thanks to the Jewish solidarity groups the discourse of the oppressed has been shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

The same dynamic has been affecting Corbyn’s support campaign. Britain’s NO 1 anti racist doesn’t need a ‘kosher certificate’; from a supportive Jewish lobby. He doesn’t need the ‘as a Jew, I believe in Jeremy’ declarations. The same dynamic that obliterated the Palestinian Solidarity movement has so far had a disastrous effect on Corbyn’s supporters. They foolishly positioned  the ‘good Jews’ at the forefront of their campaign and let the campaign for the leader of the largest British national party be reduced to an internal Jewish spat in a greater Judeo-centric battle against assimilation.

Reed continues, “The Gentile politicians of the West presented these fictions (of Jewish persecution)  to their peoples as truth.” This is an unfortunately apt description of Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s call for Corbyn’s resignation over the ‘antisemitism’ crisis. Our PM, Therea May, also accused Jeremy Corbyn of allowing anti-Semitism to ‘run rife’ in Labour.  But why do they openly act this way? Do they really believe that antisemitism is ‘rife’ in the UK?

Back in 1955, decades before AIPAC was formed and the Conservative Friends of Israel was exposed as Israel’s long arm, Reed provided a possible explanation of current British political maneuvering.  They do it because they “found that powerful Jews, in all countries, were able to assist parties favoured by them with money, press support and votes.” Reed argues that Western politicians who accept the lobby’s favours scarify their national interests. This observation from 1955 explains why Britain and the USA have been fighting Zio-con wars and the prospect of world peace is progressively fading away.

When Douglas Reed died in 1976 his entire prolific career as a journalist and a commentator was dismissed. The Times‘ obituary condemned him as a ‘virulent anti-Semite.’  During my intellectual career I have learned that too often it is the so called ‘bigots,’ ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ who understand the world and its meaning better and ahead of anyone else. I guess that the take home message is: when they attempt to burn a book, make sure that this text is at the top of the pile next to your bed. If they attempt to silence a voice, attend to this voice before you do anything else. Because Jewish power is the power to obliterate the discussion on Jewish power.

* The Controversy of Zion – Douglas Reed pg. 177 to upload pdf of Reed’s book click here

To support Gilad’s legal cost

 

 

The Holocaust and its Deniers

August 02, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2018-08-02 at 18.13.01.png

By Gilad Atzmon

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’

This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.

In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.

If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust’s message.

Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.

In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.

Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”

Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.

Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’

The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.

 

%d bloggers like this: