كيف ستعيد أميركا تشكيل العالم بعد أوكرانيا

 السبت 2 نيسان 2022

رأي أسعد أبو خليل

ملامح مرحلة جديدة في تكوين العالم وتوزيع القوى والقوّة فيه ترتسم بسرعة. الحكومة الأميركيّة في طور تأنيب الضمير (الإمبريالي) ومراجعة الذات (الحربيّة). هي غير راضية عن شكل الكوكب. كانت تظنّ أن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي سيضمن لها السيطرة على الكون لأجيال وأجيال. ما مِن إمبراطوريّة تظنّ أن سيطرتها يمكن أن تزول أو أن تضمحلّ. ضمان الاستمراريّة الأبديّة للسطوة الأميركية هي الشغل الشاغل لمخطّطي البنتاغون. كان واحد من أولى أعمال وزير الدفاع الأميركي الأسبق، دونالد رامسفيلد، تشكيل لجنة من الخبراء والمؤرّخين لاستخلاص دروس عن انهيار الإمبراطوريّات في التاريخ (أتى ببرنارد لويس، المستشرق الصهيوني، من أجل أن يشاركهم انطباعاته عن الخطر الإسلامي وعن دروس انهيار الإمبراطوريّات الإسلاميّة.). كل تقارير «استراتيجيّة الأمن القومي» التي تصدر عن كل إدارة جديدة تكون مهووسة بالأخطار المحتملة من جهات محدّدة، خصوصاً الصين. لم تكن أميركا تحسب حساباً للخطر الروسي. هي اليوم في مرحلة إعادة النظر. من المرجّح أن هناك إعادة تنظيم للميزانيّة العسكريّة والاستخباراتيّة لرصد ميزانيّة أكبر لمواجهة الخطر الروسي (الكونغرس زاد على رقم الميزانية التي طلبها منه بايدن). لا تزال أميركا تستخف بالقوّة الروسيّة مقارنة بخوفها من الخطر الصيني الداهم. القوة الاقتصاديّة هي أهم عناصر القوّة في الحسبان الأميركي لأنها هي التي تؤهل لميزانيّات عسكريّة ضخمة. ميزانيّة روسيا العسكريّة لا تصل إلا إلى 8 في المئة من الميزانيّة العسكريّة الأميركيّة العملاقة. اللحاق مسألة صعبة، والحصار الاقتصادي الخانق الذي باتت أميركا تتقنه لخنق الشعوب فعّال للغاية في إضعاف القوة العسكريّة. وحدهما إيران وكوبا، أوجدتا طرقاً ووسائل للخروج من الحصار الجائر بخسائر أقلّ (نسبيّاً، لكن الـ«إيكونومست» اعترفت قبل أسابيع أن اقتصاد إيران أفضل ممّا كان وممّا تريده له أميركا).

ميشال مورو غوميز ــ كوبا

أميركا غير راضية عمّا يجري في أوروبا اليوم. هي كانت واثقة أنها حاصرت روسيا وستمنعها من ممارسة أي نفوذ خارج حدودها. حتى في داخل حدودها، هي كانت ناشطة في التجسّس وفي الاختراق عبر منظمات المجتمع المدني ومن قبل الإعلام المُسمّى «جديد» و«مستقل» (ماذا لو أطلقنا على الإعلام المُموَّل من إيران وصف «المستقل» كما تطلق وسائل إعلام «جديدة» على نفسها وصف المستقلّة فقط لأنها تتلقّى التمويل من حكومات ومؤسّسات أوروبيّة رجعيّة، لكنها تجزم أن لا أجندة عند حكومات أوروبا لأنها منزّهة). وكان أي معارض روسي، ولو لم يحظَ بشعبيّة في بلاده، يتلقّى تغطية واسعة وبطوليّة في إعلام الغرب. وكل معارض روسي يمرض، يكون هدفاً لمؤامرة من بوتين. وقبل أسابيع نشرت صحف غربيّة خبراً عن مقتل صحافيّة روسيّة كانت قد انتقدت بوتين. هكذا كانت العناوين. لكن عندما تقرأ الخبر تدرك أن الموضوع هو عنف شخصي، وأن صديقها قتلها وأنه ليس من أسباب سياسيّة لما جرى. ولنتذكّر أن يحيى شمص (المتهم بصلات مخدراتيّة) تلقّى تغطية واسعة في إعلام الغرب فقط لأنه معارض لحزب الله. فلنتوقّف لبرهة عند هذه المفارقة: تلقّى يحيى شمص تغطية في إعلام الغرب أكبر بكثير من تغطية النائب محمد رعد، الذي نال أكبر عدد أصوات في آخر انتخابات. هذا يعطينا فكرة عن معايير وحسابات الغرب (أشكّ أن واحداً من المراسلين الغربيين، أو واحدة، التقت بمحمد رعد). أميركا قلقة من التحدّي الذي لاقته من بوتين في هذه الأزمة. لم تكن تتوقّع ذلك مع أنه كانت هناك مؤشرات على نقمة روسيّة-صينيّة من سلوك الغطرسة الأميركي والذي تجلّى في الغزو الغربي لليبيا.

الحكومة الأميركية غاضبة جداً وهذا يظهر في سلوكها. حظر الإعلام الروسي وإصدار تنبيهات تويتريّة عن روابط لإعلام معاد ــــــ مع دولة ليست أميركا في حالة عداء رسمي معها ــــــ يشي بحلول مرحلة جديدة في العلاقة الدوليّة وفي إدارة الوضع الداخلي. ما إن تحرّك الجيش الروسي حتى اضمحلّ الخلاف في الداخل الأميركي وأصبح اليسار الصغير في الكونغرس الأميركي متحمّساً للحرب، ويشارك القوى المتنفّذة في الحزبيْن في عنفوان الوطنيّة والإصرار على السيطرة الأميركية الكليّة. لم تعد مساحة النقاش في الغرب كما كانت حتى في سنوات الحرب الباردة. كانت هناك إمكانيّة مناقشة فرضيّات الإدارات الأميركيّة عن الاتحاد السوفياتي، لكن هذا غائب اليوم. تجول بين الصحافة الأوروبيّة والأميركيّة ولا تجد أي مساحة نقديّة. ليس هناك من رأي معارض أو مختلف. حتى الكتّاب الذين يعارضون ــــــ أو كانوا يعارضون ــــــ توجّهات إمبراطورية الحرب سكتوا، لا بل أسهموا من خلال كتاباتهم في المجهود الحربي (هالني مثلاً كتابات ميشيل غولدبيرغ، الكاتبة في «نيويورك تايمز»، والتي عرفتها بعد 11 أيلول وكانت في موقع «صالون» من القلّة المعترضين على التعامل الأميركي مع المسلمين).

ماذا ستفعل أميركا في خلال الأزمة وبعدها. على الأرجح أن الإدارات المتعاقبة ستلجأ إلى جملة من السياسات والأعمال بما فيها:

أولا- تدعيم حلف شمال الأطلسي وزيادة الإنفاق العسكري فيه. ألمانيا باشرت بزيادة الإنفاق العسكري وسيكون مطلوباً منها الأكثر. ألمانيا أعلنت على الفور زيادة إنفاقها العسكري بنسبة 112 مليار دولار، ممّا يزيد نسبة الإنفاق من مجمل الناتج القومي إلى 2 في المئة من 1.53 في المئة والتزمت ستّ دول في حلف شمال الأطلسي بزيادة الإنفاق العسكري بنسبة 133 مليار دولار. حتى السويد الحيادية المسالمة التزمت بالزيادة. وسويسرا ضربت بحياديّتها التاريخيّة عرض الحائط كي تمتثل للمطالب الأميركيّة بالإذعان والطاعة من قبل كل دول أوروبا، في «الناتو» وفي خارجه. ونسبة الـ 2 في المئة من الناتج القومي على الإنفاق العسكري كانت قد وصلته دول اليونان وكرواتيا وبريطانيا وإستونيا ولاتفيا وبولندا ولتوانيا ورومانيا وفرنسا ــــــ وهذه النسبة كانت قيادة «الناتو» قد طلبتها. أميركا كانت في مرحلة إعداد للمعركة المقبلة. وبدلاً من تخفيض عدد أعضاء الحلف، ستصرّ أميركا على زيادة الأعضاء وقد تصرّ في مرحلة لاحقة على ضمّ أوكرانيا إلى الحلف لاستفزاز روسيا واستدراجها إلى مواجهة عسكريّة. وليس مستغرباً لو أن أميركا أصرّت على حيازة ألمانيا على السلاح النووي (تحتفظ أميركا بسلاح نووي على الأرض الألمانيّة بالرغم من معارضة الشعب هناك لذلك في السبعينيّات والثمانينيّات). وعدد الأسلحة النوويّة الأميركيّة في أوروبا غير معروف (سرّي) وهو يُقدَّر بـ 100 منتشرة في ست دول على الأقلّ. وهذا السلاح نُشر منذ الخمسينيّات ولم يؤثّر انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي على وضعه. أي أن أميركا تستعمله ليس فقط لتخويف الاتحاد السوفياتي بل لبسط سيطرة أميركيّة تامّة على القارّة.

ما إن تحرّك الجيش الروسي حتى اضمحلّ الخلاف في الداخل الأميركي وأصبح اليسار الصغير في الكونغرس الأميركي متحمّساً للحرب

ثانيا- التفكير الجدّي في إنزال السلاح النووي التكتيكي إلى الميدان. والسلاح النووي التكتيكي هو سلاح يقضي على أحياء في مدن بدلاً من تدمير مدينة بكاملها. و«نيويورك تايمز» نشرت قبل أيّام مقالة تحاول فيها جعل فكرة استعمال النووي التكتيكي مقبولة من العامة. وقد أدلى مسؤول استخبارات سابق في أميركا برأيه، وقال: «لا يمكنك إدارة الخدّ الأيسر كل الوقت». والحديث عن السلاح النووي التكتيكي سبق هذه الأزمة. ومن المعروف أن أميركا هدّدت نظام صدّام به. ففي اللقاء الشهير قبل الحرب في 1991 بين جيمس بابكر وطارق عزيز، هدّد جيمس بابكر، في تلميح كان أقرب إلى التصريح، بأن أميركا ستردّ بصورة فظيعة إذا أصاب جنودها سلاح كيماوي عراقي (لم يكن النظام العراقي يملك سلاحاً كيماوياً كما هو معروف). وأميركا كانت على وشك استعمال النووي التكتيكي في معارك تورا بورا في أفغانستان كي تهدم الجبال فوق رؤوس المختبئين فيها عندما أصيبت بالحنق من الفشل في العثور على حليفها السابق، أسامة بن لادن. طوّرت أميركا بعدها قنبلة الـ«مواب» وهي قنبلة ذات قدرات تدميريّة هائلة لا يفوق قدرتها إلا السلاح النووي. ولم تتوقّف أميركا عن رمي الـ«مواب» على أفغانستان ــــــ التي لم تعانِ، بنظر إعلام الغرب، وإعلام التمويل الغربي إلا بعد مغادرة جيش الاحتلال الأميركي لها.

https://33abe0676e26405add2d42ea62ee16e9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة

ثالثا- جعل حلف شمال الأطلسي حلفاً عالمياً. لقد رُفعت مرتبة قطر في التحالف مع أميركا. في الوقت الذي كان فيه حكام العرب ينتظرون الفرصة للقاء بايدن (الذي لا يزال يرفض مهاتفة محمد بن سلمان)، دعا بايدن الأمير القطري إلى لقاء خاص وحميم في البيت الأبيض، وتمّ الإعلان عن رفع مرتبة قطر إلى «حليف أساسي من خارج الناتو». واللقاء بين بايدن والحاكم القطري سبق الحرب على أوكرانيا وهو تضمّن حديثاً عن مدّ ألمانيا وأوروبا بالغاز القطري (يبدو أن أميركا كانت مستعدّة جيداً لهذه الأزمة، قبل أشهر من التدخّل العسكري الروسي). ولقد أخذت قطر مرتبتها الجديدة على محمل الجدّ وهي تحاول جاهدة الظهور بمظهر الدولة الغربيّة في عواطفها الجيّاشة نحو الشعب الأوكراني. لم يلقَ شعب فلسطين هذه العاطفة الجيّاشة من قطر من قبل. إعلام النظام القطري لم يكن في هذه الأزمة إلا اجتراراً لإعلام حلف شمال الأطلسي، وتتعامل «الجزيرة» وغيرها مع أوكرانيا أنها هي قلب العروبة النابض.

رابعا- إيلاء الحلفاء بين الأنظمة الاستبداديّة أهميّة أكبر وتولية مصالحهم في العلاقات. أسابيع فقط من الحرب الروسية على أوكرانيا وأميركا تصلح علاقاتها مع النظام السعودي والإماراتي. النظام القطري لا يحتاج إلى عناية خاصّة لأنه مطلق الطاعة والولاء ومرتبته التحالفيّة ارتفعت في نظر واشنطن. والنظام السعودي عبّر عن امتعاضه في حديث مع «وول ستريت جورنال» عن كثرة الإشادة الأميركيّة بالحليف القطري. لكن تحفّظ الحكومة السعودية والإماراتيّة، وحتى حكومة العدوّ، عن اعتناق موقف «الناتو» بالكامل (بالنسبة إلى روسيا) أزعج الحكومة الأميركيّة. لكن بدلاً من رفع العصا بوجه الحلفاء، عمدت واشنطن إلى إرضائهم وتكرار مواقف الدعم والتعهد بالدفاع عن أمن النظام. لم تعد أميركا تتحمّل رقصات توازن بينها وبين العدوّ الروسي. وأميركا هي اليوم في حالة عداء مطلقة ضد روسيا. والحلفاء من أمثال السعودية والإمارات سيحظون بالمزيد من الدعم الأميركي، السياسي والعسكري. سنسمع عن شحنات سلاح جديدة وعن قواعد أميركية جديدة وعن وفود وزيارات كثيرة. والحاكم السعودي الشاب بات في موقع تفاوضي حول صعوده إلى العرش، وحظوظ نيله الرعاية الأميركيّة لصعوده باتت شبه محسومة. الاهتمام بطغاة الخليج كان بادياً هذا الأسبوع، حيث حرص وزير الخارجية الأميركي، أنتوني بلينكن، على ترضية محمد بن زايد ومبعوثين سعوديّين. والأكاديمي الشاب، غريغوري برو، على حق عندما علّق قائلاً إن هذا الاهتمام من قبل إدارة بايدن بالأنظمة الاستبداديّة بالخليج ينسف نظريّة هنتنغتون من أساسها.

خامسا- حظر التسليح الروسي. هناك قانون أميركي من عام 2017 يُعرف بأحرفه الأولى، قانون «كاتسا» وهو يفرض عقوبات على الدول التي تدخل في عقود مع روسيا في مجال الدفاع والاستخبارات «بصورة كبيرة». أي إن القانون ضبابي وهو كان يفترض أن يعاقب تركيا والهند لاستيرادهم شبكة «أس 400». لكن مرتبة الحلفاء أدّت إلى التساهل كما أن علاقة تركيا بروسيا وبأوكرانيا أفادت أميركا لتمرير رسائل. لكن مساعي التفاوض التركيّة قد لا تكون مُحبّذة في واشنطن لأن أميركا تريد من هذه الحرب أن تستمرّ إلى ما لا نهاية لو أمكن من أجل استنفاد طاقات وموارد روسيا. وقد كتب ديفيد شينكر (عرّاب نخبة «ثوّار» لبنان) مع زميل له من «مؤسّسة واشنطن» مقالة في «وول ستريت جورنال» يدعوان فيها إلى التشدّد في العقوبات على الحلفاء الذين يستوردون السلاح من روسيا. لن تتساهل أميركا في هذا الخصوص بعد اليوم. أي إنه من المتوقّع أن تزيد المبيعات الأميركية من الأسلحة.

اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة

سادسا- التعامل مع مثلّث القوة في العالم. ريتشارد نيكسون نظر إلى توزيع القوى في العالم ورأى أن العالم المثلث الأقطاب يحتّم محاولة طرف فيه جذب طرف آخر له. هذا ما حفّزه على تجاوز موانعه العقائديّة من أجل أن يبيع تايوان ويغضّ النظر عن عدائه المرضي ضدّ الشيوعية لكسب الصين إلى صف أميركا. لم تصبح الصين حليفة لكن كل ما يحتاجه المُخطّط في العلاقات الدوليّة أن يكون طرفه أقرب إلى طرفٍ ثانٍ من الطرف الثالث في المثلّث. وهذا ما حصل وأضعف الموقع السوفياتي. كان وضع الاتحاد السوفياتي سيكون أفضل بكثير لو أنه اعتنى أكثر بإصلاح العلاقة مع الصين لتفويت الفرصة على التآمر الأميركي ضدّه. اليوم، أميركا في موقع صعب. كيف تقترب من الصين أكثر وهي تكنّ عداءً نحو الصين يفوق عداءها نحو روسيا؟ والعلاقة بين الصين وروسيا ممتازة وهي أوثق بعد أزمة أوكرانيا لأن الصين تحتاج إلى تعاون روسي من أجل اجتراح سبل تجاوز العقوبات الأميركية القاسية والوحشيّة (هي وحشيّة على الشعوب قبل أن تكون ضد الأنظمة). ومهما حاولت أميركا أن تُبعد الصين عن روسيا، فليس لديها ما تعطيه للصين غير تخفيف حدّة العداء الشديد. وتخفيف حدة العداء لا يغيّر من التخطيط الاستراتيجي الأميركي الذي يتعامل مع الصين على أنه الخطر الأكبر. أميركا كان لديها الكثير لتقدّمه للصين في عام 1970: عضويّة مجلس الأمن وطرد تايوان من الأمم المتحدة بالإضافة إلى إنشاء علاقة ديبلوماسيّة، بالإضافة إلى التعامل مع الصين على أنها دولة أكبر مما كانت في حينه. ماذا تستطيع أن تقدّم أميركا للصين اليوم؟ اعتبارها دولة عظمى وهي كذلك من دون مبالغة أميركية ديبلوماسيّة.

سابعا- جرّ روسيا إلى حروب إنهاك. هناك نظريّة أن الحرب الروسية في أوكرانيا لم تكن إلا فخّاً نصبته أميركا لها. وأميركا تحمّست كثيراً لهذه الحرب وكان واضحاً أنها كانت تعدّ لها. كانت القوّات الأميركيّة قد انتشرت في أنحاء مختلفة من أوروبا خصوصاً في بولندا، بالإضافة إلى تولّي أجهزة الاستخبارات الأميركيّة مهمّة تقرير أجندة الصحف الأميركيّة. فتحتُ ثلاث صحف من باب التجربة: «نيويورك تايمز» و«واشنطن بوست» و«غارديان» البريطانيّة. نفس الأخبار والعناوين موجودة في الصحف الثلاث، ومنسوبة كلّها لمصادر عسكريّة واستخباراتيّة أميركيّة. كانت الصحف البريطانيّة تتميّز عن الصحف الأميركيّة لكن ذلك تغيّر منذ الحرب في سوريا حين تطابقت التغطية بالكامل وأصبحت الـ«غارديان» أكثر تصلّباً في الصهيونيّة وفي تأييد آلة الحرب الأميركيّة من صحف أميركا. قد تصل أوكرانيا وروسيا إلى تسوية لكن أميركا ستعطّلها. طلع المبعوث الأوكراني إلى مفاوضات تركيا بين الطرفيْن بتصريحات متفائلة لكن وزير الخارجيّة الأميركي سرعان ما أبطل مفعول التفاؤل وخفّض منسوب الترحيب بشأن التقدّم في المفاوضات. أميركا تبحث عن حرب أفغانستان جديدة كي تغرق روسيا في حرب لا تنتهي إلا بانهيار الدولة. ليس هناك من تعداد للسلاح الذي هطل على أوكرانيا، لكن تذكّر أو تذكّري أن حتى السويد والنروج شاركت في الحرب الأوكرانيّة.

ثامنا- التركيز على دول العالم النامي في الاستراتيجيّة الأميركيّة لصنع تحالف عالمي ضد أعدائها. الصحف الغربيّة ضجّت بقوّة التحالف العالمي الذي تقوده أميركا (طبعاً تحت مسميّات الحريّة ــــــ وتحالف الحريّة هذا يضمّ مستبدّين من كل حدب وصوب)، لكن الوقائع في تصويت الجمعيّة العاميّة للأمم المتحدة أثبتت عكس ذلك. كانت أميركا تريد أن تحصل على إجماع كل دول العالم لكن تحالفها كان غربيّاً صرفاً. دول كبرى في العالم النامي حاولت الحفاظ على مسافة من موقف أميركا. الهند وجنوب أفريقيا والصين وباكستان كلّها تحافظ على علاقة وديّة مع روسيا. ستضطرّ أميركا إلى إنفاق المزيد من المال وشحن المزيد من السلاح وشنّ المزيد من الحروب لجلب المزيد من دول العالم النامي إليها. لقد فضحت هذه الحرب الطابع العنصري الصارخ للتحالف الغربي ومعاييره. لم يعد ممكناً ستر طبيعة سيادة العنصريّة البيضاء في صلب التحالف الغربي. لا يمحي ذلك الترحيب بمسؤول من هذه الدولة الآسيويّة أو نشر خطاب وزير الخارجية الكيني الذي هو في الأساس أداة بيد الإدارة الأميركيّة. (واختفى وزير الخارجية الكيني عن الساحة بعد خطابه في الأمم المتحدة، والذي أرادته البروباغندا الأميركيّة أن يصبح شهيراً لأنها استعملته بصورة عنصريّة كي تُكسي عدوانيّتها بلسان فرد أفريقي).

تاسعا- الحرب الدعائيّة ستستعر أكثر من أي وقت. رأينا ذلك على مرّ الأسابيع الماضية. «واشنطن بوست» (وهي أكثر مطبوعة ملتصقة بأجهزة الاستخبارات الأميركيّة) دعت جهاراً إلى تكرار تجربة الحرب الباردة في شنّ «حرب ثقافيّة» ضد روسيا وغيرها من أعداء أميركا. لكن الصحيفة نسيت أن الحرب الثقافية الماضية تضمّنت نشر عقيدة بن لادن وصحبه حول العالم لأن تلك العقدية كانت مؤاتية ضد الشيوعيّة.

نحن في مرحلة قلقة ومضطربة من العلاقات الدوليّة. صحف الغرب (وتوابعه في بلادنا) مشغولة بالتدخّل العسكري الروسي في أوكرانيا. لكن التدخّل الأميركي في أوكرانيا لا يقلّ عن تدخّل روسيا. هل من شكّ أن ضبّاطاً أميركيّين يقودون كل العمليات العسكريّة الأوكرانيّة؟ هل من شك أن هناك شركات علاقات عامّة تكتب خطب القادة الأوكرانيّين (لقد علمنا رسميّاً أن شركة علاقات عامّة استأجرتها حكومة بايدن كي تكتب خطب سفيرة أوكرانيا في أميركا). أميركا لن تتوقّف، هي ستستمرّ لأنها في طور الانتقام من تحدّي روسيا لها. والانتقام الأميركي، كما رأينا بعد 11 أيلول، أبشع بكثير من عوائد القبائل العربيّة القديمة.

* كاتب عربي ــــ حسابه على تويتر
asadabukhalil@

“Israel” – Beyond Apartheid

September 30, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Fra Hughes

Many observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and “Israel”.

Apartheid (/əˈpɑːrt(h)aɪt/, especially South African English: /əˈpɑːrt(h)eɪt/, Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit]; transl. “separateness”, lit. “aparthood”) was a system of institutionalized racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South-West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s.

20 years on from the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, in conjunction with the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, held in Durban South Africa, where are we now?

The use of the law, in this case, an unjust and immoral law in South Africa by the minority white Dutch Afrikaans and the minority white British colonial invaders, was designed to keep white Europeans, in the ascendancy in South Africa.

Thirteen percent of the population who were white-ruled sixty-eight percent of the population who were black with an Asian community representing the remaining nineteen percent.

First, they ruled through a brutal military occupation, using the gun.

Then they ruled through a brutal racist government using repression and separation laws.

It was the use of apartheid laws that legalized and enforced a system of ‘separateness’. A system of dual apartness which left the races unable to socialize, congregate or work together as brothers and sisters, equal and indivisible under the constitution.

In South Africa, they legalized colonial white supremism through parliamentary statute, police enforcement, and judicial sentencing.

The first apartheid law passed in 1949 was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This was followed by the Immorality Act of 1950 which made it illegal for many South Africans to marry or have sexual relations across racial lines.

The Pass laws were designed to force black people to live in designated areas, corralled as it were, like animals in a pen, thereby making them available as cheap labor for white farmers.

It was the coming to power of the African National Party in 1948 who created the apartheid laws and system of governing South African society, that reinforced the racial discrimination already self-evident in the country. A series of Land Acts gave more than 80% of the land to whites and banned Black crop sharers from working the land.

A series of discriminatory, racially biased laws, saw the permanent separation of the races, alongside a parallel system of separate transport systems, public lavatories, and housing districts.

In effect, the National Party which won the 1948 parliamentary elections on the slogan of Apartheid meaning ‘separateness’ created a privileged white minority class that used the indigenous black South Africans as a labor pool to work on the farms, clean their homes, as a subjugated underclass, kept in perpetual poverty, in appalling substandard housing units in shantytowns with poor education, poor health, and poor social provision.

Like all colonialists, they strove to keep the people apart by fomenting sectarian tensions between the regional ethnic groups in order to prevent a unified opposition to their racist endeavor. They encouraged black-on-black violence in the townships and in the countryside.

A land of milk and honey for the white supremacist colonial invaders beside a land of despair, oppression, and governmental indifference for the natives.

Apartheid lasted for 50 years in South Africa and only officially ended when the ANC, African National Conference which had historically opposed the apartheid system and fought a legitimate war against the unjust white only parliamentary system, finally came to power in 1993, when the majority of citizens were given the right to vote and they elected Nelson Mandela as the first Black President of the Republic of South Africa,

It can be claimed that not much has changed for the indigenous peoples of South Africa, While it is true they have a majority black representative government, the whites still own the land. White farmers still get rich while employing cheap black labor.

The captains of industry are still white although a new elite cadre of black politicians and civil servants may now live in gated (separate) communities, much of the pain of being poor, disenfranchised, and black has changed very little for so many.

A new black capitalist class also rides high above the black dispossessed workers and those who go to bed hungry.

Many observers and organizations make parallels between the apartheid segregated Society of South Africa, the Jim Crow racial segregation laws of North America, and “Israel”. The use of Israeli-only roads and Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank are prime examples of Israeli separation laws.

The discrimination against black African Americans is again reflective of the white European racism that underpins white American society. It is mirrored in the majority of the white legislator, judiciary, police, and army aficionados in power in American civil society and in the corporate, business, and banking sectors.

White Americans control the levers of power and influence, in the media as well as on Capitol Hill.

The continued destruction of black Afro American society through the widespread use of drugs, criminal gangs, poverty, underinvestment, governmental neglect, police brutality, judicial repression, are continued proof if it were needed, that a white European colonial mindset underpins discrimination and racial prejudice in societies where white Europeans want to maintain an internal hegemonic position of superiority which is then reflected in their foreign policies of exploitation and subjugation, in order to maintain white economic privilege in the countries of the EU, North America, Canada, and Australia.

All the countries I have mentioned above are guilty of genocide, racial intolerance, oppression, military adventurism, and ethnic cleansing.

Is “Israel” any different?

“Israel” is a white European colonial settler state.

It has followed all the steps taken by previous white European settler-colonial states such as South Africa, North America, Canada, and Australia,

It has colonized, subjugated, ethnically cleansed, and marginalized the indigenous populations of the country they have militarily conquered and supplanted.

“Israel” has its Nations state Law which many international observers see as a template for a Jewish only Israeli state that separates non-Jews and others from playing an active role in the state.

“Israel” now has usurped 85% of historic Palestine.

To me, apartheid is an abhorrent manifestation of a supremacist ideology that seeks to separate one from the other, to create disharmony, bitterness, hatred, and a divided dysfunctional broken society based on racial or religious purity.

“Israel” fulfills all these roles but it does so much more.

An apartheid state might use the law to discriminate. It may use the law to repress and isolate those it seeks to subdue but it doesn’t bomb kindergartens, schools, hospitals, and bakeries, does it?

It may have separate roads and separate housing areas but it doesn’t shoot countless children in the legs for throwing stones or bringing water to the kids resisting an illegal occupation, creating crippled boys, does it?

It does not shoot paramedics and leave the wounded to bleed out on the street to die, does it?

It does not murder physicists in another jurisdiction, indiscriminately bomb bridges and civil infrastructure in neighboring countries, does it?

It does not count the calorific intake of those it is legally responsible for, to break their will to resist, to withhold food, medicine, vaccines, fuel in order to impoverish and emasculate an entire population of 1.8 million people, does it?

It does not bomb neighboring countries that are not at war with it, deny building permits to the indigenous population while simultaneously dismantling their homes in a land you are illegally occupying, and forcing homes owners to destroy their properties. To detain citizens under Administrative detention, internment without trial. To murder, maim, imprison, torture, and kill at will with impunity, is this Apartheid? I think not. Yet these are the everyday actions of a rogue unaccountable state immune to international law and international sanctions, actively supported protected, and facilitated by the other white European ethnic colonies that Israel aspires to be.

“Israel” is Beyond Apartheid.

We must find a new way to describe “Israel” based on its everyday practices of Ethnic cleansing, murder, colonization, dispossession, and expansion.

We must call “Israel”, not an Apartheid State which it is, but an Ethno cleansing pariah genocidal rogue state, because that it was, it does? That is what it is. That is what we must call it.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

One Racism; One World

2 Aug 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Bouthaina Shaaban

Any wrong or racist attitude may eclipse the truth for some time, but it cannot do so forever.

Syrian sculptor, Rami Wakkaf

When the black movement in the US raised the motto “Black Lives Matter”, after the killing of George Floyd, the rest of the world should have joined by raising the motto “human lives matter”. So many people in different countries in the world have forgotten that they belong to one human race and one human family, either due to the colors of their skins and eyes, or due to the advanced positions their countries have reached in different domains. Amidst the hard competition we witness among people in different areas, it may well suit some to discriminate against others and belittle their achievements in order to get them out of their way. Athletes competing for medals are perhaps the most exposed to this kind of racism, which lately started to infect unusual territories, such as education and art, which until recently were thought to be totally safe from such practices. 

As London Art Biennale is a huge landmark for artists from all over the world, it is important to relate here to our dear readers an important incident that has taken place in 2021 London Art Biennale. The Syrian sculptor, Rami Wakkaf, responded to the invitation to participate in this Biennale by sending two of his works, which were very well received and bought almost immediately by the Biennale. Accordingly, he applied for a visa to attend the event, but of course he was not granted a visa because he is Syrian. 

After waiting patiently for the art judges, Rami was told that one of his works has got the prize for the best sculpture in the Biennale. Of course, he was very happy and excited and put the happy item on his Facebook and received congratulations and requests for media interviews. 

The next day, and perhaps after the Committee was reminded that he is Syrian, and no need to say that Syria is subjected to coercive US measures, he received a second email, which read that “the vote was very close, and during the jury recount, the artwork by Jason Briggs won that particular prize by one vote,” expressing sincere apologies for the mistake. 

Is it possible that the first email, which was sent to inform Rami Wakkaf that his work won the first prize, was sent before the final counting of the votes and before a final decision was made by the committee to choose this work? There is no doubt that the works of Rami Wakkaf would outlive the Committee’s decision and would receive the attention and celebration they are worthy of. 

Any wrong or racist attitude may eclipse the truth for some time, but it cannot do so forever. Racism is the antithesis of everything human, creative, and exceptional. 

It is the tool of those who fail to achieve and to appreciate the excellence of the achievements of others, and always for the wrong reasons. 

People in our region never used to believe that such things may happen in a Western country as they have an exaggerated idea of the absolute moral behavior of the West. But as means of communication are bridging distances, the truth is closer at hand. 

The West cannot indulge in racist practices, whilst keeping its moral superiority or its claims that it provides criteria for human behavior and ethics. It has to choose one or the other, or the choice will be made anyway. 

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Palestinians in Chicago Defeat Extremist Pro-Israel Candidate in Local Elections

April 12, 2021

A protest in Chicago, calling on Sharon Brannigan to resign.(Photo: US Palestinian Community Network, via Twitter)

The Palestinian community in Chicago, Illinois, succeeded in defeating extremist right-wing and pro-Israel candidate, Sharon Brannigan, in the local election, news agencies reported yesterday.

According to news agencies, the Palestinian community mobilized other Arab communities and supporters of the Palestinian cause to take part in a campaign to ensure Brannigan does not win in the Palos Township Council of Chicago election race.

A great crowd forming for the first Palos township meeting in a year, calling to #ResignBrannigan & saying NO to white supremacy! Sharon Brannigan, a Palos township trustee member, has faced zero accountability for the racist comments she’s made about Arab & Muslim communities. pic.twitter.com/MV1HAxZnx2

— US Palestinian Community Network (@uspcn) March 16, 2021

Brannigan is said to have carried out “many bigoted attacks on Arab Americans and other neighbors.”

Palestinians, Arabs, and their supporters participated in the campaign against Brannigan using the hashtag #ByeBrannigan.

Brannigan and the town’s board attempted to silence the community but they consistently failed, even after they hired a security company to bully protesters and call the Palos Hills police, leading to the arrests of five leaders of the movement, Fight Back news website reported.

USPCN is reposting this statement from the #ByeBrannigan Campaign.

Our Chicago chapter played a leading role in the #ResignBrannigan fight, and congratulates #ByeBrannigan on this great victory.

Read full statement: https://t.co/kWssq1Uj6N pic.twitter.com/ZAhIzjr6r3

— US Palestinian Community Network (@uspcn) April 8, 2021

Protesters were vindicated, however, when the judge deemed Brannigan’s testimony “contradictory”, dismissed the case, and “essentially affirmed the right of protestors to chant and challenge Brannigan and other trustees at the township meetings,” according to an October 2020 statement from the Arab American Action Network.

Incumbent Assessor Robert Maloney appeared to win with 62 percent of the unofficial vote, however, results reported by the Cook County clerk’s office last week are unofficial until certified and all mail-in and provisional ballots are counted. The canvass deadline is April 27.

(MEMO, PC, Social Media)

America’s Race Reality: Inhuman, Insane, Incoherent

August 14, 2020

by Ilana Mercer, published with the authorization of the author

Racism is a lot of things. One thing it is not:

A white child, aged five,  executed by a black man with a shot to the head, as the tyke rode his bike. Ask the cultural cognoscenti. They’ll tell you: That’s never racism.

Otherwise, almost anything involving the perpetually aggrieved black community counts as racism.

Students hoist a “thin blue line” flag in solidarity with police: racism.

A black male is asked for his driver’s license: racism. Of course it’s systemic. Are you stupid, or something?

A white politician proclaims that “all lives matter”: Come again? Are you kidding me?!

A museum curator fails to commit to the exclusion of the art of white men, including, presumably, the Old Masters: not racism; white supremacism. Be gone with you, Rembrandt and Vermeer.

A black student struggles with English grammar. English grammar is ruled racist. Take that, Dr. Johnson!

This, even though, logically, it is more likely that our student is not up to the task or hasn’t tried hard enough; that his tutor is not up to the task and hasn’t tried hard enough—or all of those things combined.

As you can see, accusations of racism are seldom grounded in reason or reality.

Racism, then, is just about anything other than the point-blank execution of little Cannon Hinnant (white), on August 9, by Darius Sessoms (black), and the rape, the other day, by Dejon Dejor Lynn, 25, of an old lady: his 96-year-old neighbor.

From the media industry’s modus operandi, we may comfortably deduce that the raped lady is almost certainly white.

How so?

Fully 73 percent of the residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, are white. If the race of an unnamed victim of black crime is withheld, she’s most likely white. Were the victim Hispanic, the media industry would say so, and would forthwith withhold the picture and race of the “suspect,” so that the crime became an attack against a “minority.”

Similar black-on-white atrocities are a daily occurrence, documented, “in moving images,” by “the fearless and indefatigable journalist Colin Flaherty.” They are either ignored by the media industry or described as racially neutral.

In a powerful responsorial that is almost religious in cadence, Jack Kerwick, a Frontpage.com columnist, commands us to “say their names”:

David Dorn was a 77-year-old retired African-American police captain and family man. Say his name.

Paul and Lidia Marino, a couple in their mid-80s. Say their names!

Wendy Martinez: Say her name.

Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla: Teenagers tortured and murdered. Say their names.

Karina Vetrano: Attacked, sexually assaulted, and strangled to death while jogging. Say her name.

Phil Trenary: Treasury of the Chamber of Commerce in Memphis who was trying to rejuvenate the city’s economic life. Say his name.

Scott Brooks; Sebastian Dvorak; Serge Fournier; Tessa Majors; Dorothy Dow; Lorne Ahrens; Brent Thompson; Michael Krol; Patrick Zamarripa.

Say their names. (“Remembering the Victims of Black Violence – Black and White,” By Jack Kerwick)

The prototypical American victims of racial hatred were 21-year-old Channon Christian and 23-year-old Hugh Christopher Newsom, of Knoxville, Tennessee.

Their slaughter, in 2007, was dismissed as a garden-variety murder and rape. But there is no finessing the white-hot racial hatred seared into their mangled, white bodies.

Read the description of the crime in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and pray tell how white America can thus forsake its children by accepting the racial innocence of their defilers:

Five blacks—four men and a woman—anally raped Hugh, then shot him to death, wrapped his body in bedding, soaked it in gasoline and set it alight. He was the lucky one. Channon, his fair and fragile-looking friend, was repeatedly gang raped by the four men—vaginally, anally and orally. Before she died, her murderers poured a household cleaner down her throat, in an effort to cleanse away DNA. She was left to die, either from the bleeding caused “by the tearing,” or from asphyxiation. Knoxville officials would not say. She was then stuffed in a garbage can like trash. White trash. (pp. 35-36)

The object of hate is so often a remarkably beautiful woman or man. It is as if the aim is to forever obliterate beauty unattainable.

On the Dark Continent, the same dynamic was in play when “Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.” There,

… tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. The Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—had always been resented by the Hutus. The tall, imposing Tutsis, whose facial features the lovely supermodel Iman instantiates, had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th Century. On a deeper level, contends Keith Richburg, an African-American journalist, the Hutus were “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.” (Into the Cannibal’s Pot, p. 43)

Such was the murder of Tyler Wingate, “a 24-year-old man from Berkley [who] was brutally beaten to death after a seemingly minor car crash on Detroit’s west side [in July of 2019]. The crash and beating were caught on surveillance video from a nearby gas station.” (The Unz Review)

Undeniably, it is a kind of race-based annihilation of beauty unattainable, for that is certainly what poor Tyler Wingate was blessed with.

For America to have incorporated and assimilated the unreason of “racism” on such a self-immolating scale, as American society has done, is to be mired in self-contradiction. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was to be less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

This is where American society finds itself: less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

Patriots, please quit the “rest in peace” platitudes. Tyler Wingate and all the rest rage, rage from the grave.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s currently on Gab, YouTube, Twitter & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook.

Guess Which Surrender Monkey Won the Battle Of The Monuments?

Source

June 21, 2020

by Ilana mercer posted by permission for the Saker Blog

Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.

Mr. Hilton made the following feeble, snowflake’s case for the removal of the nation’s historically offensive statues:

It’s offensive to our Africa-American neighbors to maintain statues in public places that cause not only offense, but real distress. And it is disrespectful to our native-American neighbors to glorify a man who they see as having committed genocide against their ancestors. None of this is to erase history. Put it all in a museum. Let’s remember it and learn from it.

“What’s wrong with Camp Ulysses Grant,” Hilton further intoned sanctimoniously. He was, presumably, plumping for the renaming of army installations like Fort Bragg, called after a Confederate major general, Braxton Bragg.

Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.

Hilton, it goes without saying, is a follower of the State-run Church of Lincoln. To the average TV dingbat, this means that Southern history comes courtesy of the likes of Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln idolater and the consummate court historian.

“Doris Kearns Goodwin,” explains professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the country’s chief Lincoln slayer, “is a museum-quality specimen of a court historian, a pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men.”

When Doris does the TV circuit, evangelizing for power, she never mentions, say, the close connection between her great Ulysses Grant and Hilton’s “native-American neighbors.”

Yes, Doris, Steve: who exactly exterminated the Plains Indians?

Indian-Americans will likely be hip to the fact that the Republicans, led by General Sherman himself, supervised the genocide of some 60,000 Plains Indians from 1865 to 1890. The Plains Indians endured land dispossession that culminated “in the late 1880s, with the surviving tribes of the West being herded onto reservations,” writes DiLorenzo, in “The Feds versus The Indians.”

Primary sources notwithstanding, to make his case in this tract alone, DiLorenzo galvanizes sources such as L.A. Marshall’s Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972), John F. Marszalek’s Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (1993) and Sheridan: The Life and War of General Phil Sheridan (1992), by Roy Morris, Jr.

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant (commanding general of the federal army) in 1866, ‘even to their extermination, men, women and children.’ The Sioux must ‘feel the superior power of the Government.’ Sherman vowed to remain in the West ‘till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.’”

“‘During an assault,’ he instructed his troops, ‘the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.’ He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as ‘the final solution to the Indian problem,’ a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.”

Hilton, who believes in the Republican Party’s moral supremacy, can’t be expected to know that, in “eradicating the Indians of the West,” Sherman was delivering good old “veiled corporate welfare” to “a segment of the railroad industry, which heavily bankrolled the Republican party.”

Some things never change.

More so than The Other Worthies mentioned, “our native-American neighbors” have a tendency to harken back to a once-proud history. If they retain any historic memory, then, America’s First Nations should balk at serving on Camp Ulysses Grant, or at Fort William Tecumseh Sherman.

The folks Hilton dubs “our Africa-American neighbors,” on the other hand, are more vested in breaking and burning stuff to get what they want, which is, invariably, other people’s stuff, sometimes called “reparations.”

It follows that Conservatism Inc. usually uses American Indians as its perennial piñata, while generally acceding to the aggressive demands of African-Americans for permanent victim status. It’s to Hilton’s credit that he even mentioned Native-Americans, who have little political clout and even less of an extractive approach to politics.

Given the state of his knowledge, Steve Hilton can’t be expected to be familiar with Lord Acton’s nuanced thinking on the Confederacy. According to another good, English thing, Encyclopedia Britannica, Acton was “the first great modern philosopher of resistance to the state, whether its form be authoritarian, democratic, or socialist.” And this enlightened British thinker favored the Confederacy.

Lord Acton certainly supported, even admired, Robert E. Lee, and saw secession and states’ rights as a check on the sovereign will.

The general, surmised Lord Acton, was fighting to preserve “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will”: states’ rights and secession.

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

“Lee,” argues Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, “was the product of a pre-ideological society, whereas the ‘treason’ shouters [Lincoln and his accomplices] were [modern statists] products of post-French Revolution nationalism. [To them], the Union meant the machinery of the federal government, under the control of their party, to be used for their agenda.”

“But as the Southern poet Allen Tate put it, the original Union was a gentleman’s agreement, not a group of buildings in Washington from which sacred commandments were issued.”

The acolytes of the French Revolution have carried the day, in their nihilistic Jacobinism. Still, for its radicalism, America circa 2020, makes the philosophical descendants of the original Jacobins look positively clingy about their symbols and statues.

President Emmanuel Macron evinced the resolve the Anglo-American surrender monkeys are too feeble to feel, much less display:

Said Macron, “The [French] republic will not erase any trace, or any name, from its history … it will not take down any statue.”

Bravo, Monsieur Macron.

**

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. New on YouTube

Not Every Jewish Woman is Gal Gadot

June 11, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Deconstruction by Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: The DC Jewish Dyke march has been immersed in controversy,  its organisers banned marchers from carrying  rainbow Star of David flags. In the following interview Jill Raney a “mildly radical Southern queer Jewish feminist”  interviews  IfNotNow DC, a community partner of DC Dyke March. I have provided commentary for the interview, deconstructing and exposing the duplicitous nature of the Jewish anti Zionist argument. This interview is a crucial window into the Jewish Identitarian discourse and it provides proof,  yet again, that not every Jew is an Einstein and as the documentation of the march reveals, not every Jewish woman is Gal Gadot.

 Jewish dykes are welcome at DC Dyke March! Nationalist symbols are not.

https://medium.com/

Q: Are Jewish dykes welcome at DC Dyke March?

 A: Absolutely!

 GA: The question is whether Goyim are also welcome at this Purim celebration.

 Q: Why does it sometimes seem as though liberation for Jews and liberation for Palestinians are at odds with each other?

 GA: The obvious answer is that the two calls have nothing in common.  Jews are liberated and Palestinians are oppressed by the Jewish state. ‘Jews’ and Palestinians have little or nothing in common politically.

 A: Because white supremacy wants to divide us! Antisemitism structurally makes intersectional organizing more difficult by making Jews feel afraid of non-Jews. Zionism and the State of Israel are important to some Jews, but the particular way that the State of Israel was founded caused catastrophic harm to Palestinians. Antisemitism and white supremacy have pitted Jews and Palestinians against each other, and we say enough!

 GA: Did  “antisemitism and white supremacy” pit Jews and Palestinians against each other? NO! It is the Jewish State that commits crimes against the Palestinians in the name of the Jewish people and with the almost universal support of world Jewry and its institutions. It is blatantly duplicitous to blame  ‘White’ goyim for Israel’s crimes, although the accusation is symptomatic of the Jewish Left call.

 Q: What is antisemitism?

 A: “Originating in European Christianity, antisemitism is the form of ideological oppression that targets Jews. In Europe and the United States it has functioned to protect the prevailing economic system and the almost exclusively Christian ruling class by diverting blame for hardship onto Jews.”

— Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ), Understanding Antisemitism

 GA: When you refer to  the ‘Christian Ruling class’ who do you have in mind? Are you thinking of Goldman Sachs, or perhaps you mean George Soros or the Kushner Family, or might you mean Haim Saban, a major funder of the Democratic Party or perhaps  you are thinking of  Sheldon Adelson who takes care of both Bibi and Trump’s campaigns?  Who,  I wonder do the IfNotNow’s Dykes intend to fool by this deception?

 Q: What is Anti-Zionism?

 A: “‘Anti-Zionism’ is a loose term referring to criticism of the current policies of the Israeli state, and/or moral, ethical, or religious criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state. There has been debate, criticism and opposition to Zionism within Jewish thought for as long as it has existed…

 GA: This is revealing. In the good old days, anti Zionism was understood to be opposition to the ‘right’ of the Jewish State to form a Jewish homeland at the expense of others. But as a result of the domination by Jewish groups of the anti Zionist discourse anti Zionism has been diminished into just  “criticism of the current policies of the Israeli state.”  Here, we are treated to an exposition of the controlled opposition apparatus.

 There are also many non-Jewish anti-Zionists whose perspectives may be informed by moral criticism of the policies of the Israeli government, problems with the impact of Zionist thinking in Israel on non-Jewish residents, and/or a criticism of ethno-nationalism more broadly.”

— Jewish Voice for Peace, “Our Approach to Zionism.”

 Q: What is the difference between antisemitism and Anti-Zionism?

 A: Antisemitism is hatred of Jews for being Jews, also known as bigotry.

Anti-Zionism is criticism of the actions and policies of the State of Israel and/or criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state.

 GA: Once again, under her definition, Anti Zionism is not the rejection of the Zionist agenda i.e., the erection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It is merely criticism of Israel’s policies.

 Q: What is IfNotNow’s position on Zionism?

 A: A principle of our movement is: “We focus on what unites rather than what divides us…We do not take a unified stance on BDS, Zionism or the question of statehood. We work together to end American Jewish support for the occupation.”

 GA: IfNotNow could not be clearer, it is not even anti Zionist. It only opposes the occupation. In other words, it supports the existence of the Jewish State, and criticises only some of it policies.

 Zionism in practice causes many harms, but Zionism as a conceptual movement for Jewish liberation, and Israel as a place where Jewish people live and visit, are dear to many Jews. Most mainstream Jewish institutions assume all Jews must be Zionist and even hide from young Jews the reality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians, so many Jewish dykes are unfamiliar with the harms Zionism has caused to Palestinians. We can take seriously the harms Zionism causes to Palestinians and to some Jews, and also welcome Jewish dykes who hold a variety of perspectives on Israel and Zionism.

 GA: This is consistent with the Likud Party’s philosophy. Making plain that IfNotNow is a left field Jewish Hasbara project. We do not need Jewish “progressives” to advise us that “Zionism as a conceptual movement for Jewish liberation, and Israel as a place where Jewish people live and visit, are dear to many Jews.” This is what the ADL are there for .

 Q: I want to show that I’m a proud Jewish dyke! Are there things I should think about?

 A: Jewish dykes deserve to be proud of their Jewishness at DC Dyke March. Certain symbols of Jewishness have been co-opted by the pinkwashing movement, an effort to conceal Israel’s harms against Palestinians. Palestinian dykes deserve to be proud of their Palestinian-ness at DC Dyke March too, and we believe that Jewish and Palestinian dykes can celebrate shared liberation at DC Dyke March. Is it frustrating that Jews are uniquely expected to consider another marginalized group’s needs before showing our own pride? Absolutely! It is very frustrating that Israel violates Palestinians’ human rights in the name of Jews around the world.

 GA: Just out of  interest, is the notion of ‘Dyke’ a form of sexually orientated stance on human rights or is it a well informed position on global politics?  Would the DC Jewish Dyke organisers who are defined sexually (as queers)  and racially (as Jews)  welcome Aryan Dykes to their kosher protest? If not, why not?  

 Q: What happened at Chicago Dyke March in 2017 and why were people upset about it?

A: A few Jewish dykes who were associated with A Wider Bridge, an Israel lobbying organization that engages in pinkwashing, brought a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the middle of it, which looks a lot like an Israeli flag, a Zionist symbol. These dykes purposefully disrupted the march and harassed attendees during the rally. Organizers of the march, including other Jewish dykes, asked them to stop their disruptive, harassing behavior and to put the flag away. They told press that they felt as though they could not be openly Jewish at Chicago Dyke March. This caused many Jewish dykes who heard about the event to worry that they would be unwelcome or asked to hide their Jewishness in dyke spaces. The dykes associated with A Wider Bridge took advantage of common public misunderstanding of the difference between being proudly Jewish, and carrying a flag that represented Zionism. This can be confusing because the Jewish star has been co-opted by Zionism and the State of Israel.

GA: What entitles these Jewish Dykes to decide for other Jewish (Zionist) Lesbians how  to identify and what symbols represent them? Their statements here provide a window into the tyrannical and vile nature of the Jewish Identitarian discourse.

 Q: What is pinkwashing?

 A: Pinkwashing is the practice of a country or corporation presenting itself as queer-friendly and progressive in order to downplay their negative behavior. The State of Israel practices pinkwashing by promoting itself as a safe haven for queer and trans people. This distracts attention from Israel’s denial of Palestinian human rights, erases queer and trans Palestinians and some queer and trans Jews who don’t have a safe haven in Israel, and promotes the Islamophobic and anti-Arab racist narrative that Palestinian queers must be saved from Arab and Muslim society.

 GA: Is this true? Do we really turn a blind eye to Israel’s criminality simply because it pretends to be gay friendly? Do we fail to see that Israel locks Palestinians in open air prisons because Israel pretends to be LGBTQ paradise? Sorry to deliver the news. The Anti Israeli Pinkwash campaign is a classic controlled opposition apparatus. It is there to rehabilitate the moral validity of the Jewish Identitarian Left and it does so at the expense of the Palestinians. It diverts the struggle from the essential Palestinian cause of the right of return to irrelevant Jew-related issues to do with queer politics. 

 Q: Why is IfNotNow cosponsoring DC Dyke March?

 A: One of IfNotNow’s principles as a movement is “We show up for others. We stand with other movements, such as those working for racial, economic, and gender justice. We are building a world in which American Jews use our unique position to fight for the liberation of all people.” We are also here to show up for ourselves: there are a lot of Jewish dykes who are members of IfNotNow DC, and our work for queer and trans liberation and for Jewish liberation are deeply connected.

 GA: Since when do people who care for ‘all people’ dictate to others how they may or may not identify and what symbols to avoid? IfNotNow ought to be honest and admit that they really care for the Jews who think as they do. We are dealing here with an Orwellian synagogue. 

 Q: Can we talk more about the rainbow flag with the Star of David in the middle? What’s wrong with bringing that flag to DC Dyke March, and what are my other options?

 A: The flag that caused so much consternation back in 2017 was a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the middle that used the same proportions and line art as the Star of David in the middle of the Israeli flag. It was very specifically an Israeli flag and a rainbow flag merged together, a specifically Zionist symbol, not a neutral symbol of Jewish pride. DC Dyke March is a liberatory space for all dykes, and that includes liberation from violence, from cops, from militarism, and from nationalism. “We are asking people to not bring nationalist symbols because violent nationalism does not fit with our vision of queer liberation,” says a recent piece from DC Dyke March organizers.

 So DC Dyke March welcomes Jewish dykes and does not welcome nationalist symbols. What symbols of Jewish dyke pride are available to us? Paint a rainbow Star of David on your face! Scrawl the words YIDDISHKEIT DYKES across a rainbow flag, or a lesbian pride flag, a bi pride flag, an ace pride flag, a trans pride flag!

 Or if Yiddishkeit isn’t your thing, take your pride flag of choice and put a big menorah on it, or a Hamsa or a chai or a pomegranate, or a cool dinosaur wearing Star of David sunglasses and eating a bagel!

Wear a yarmulke, your rainbow tallis, maybe booty shorts that say Jewish Dyke across the ass! There are so many options! Go wild! See you there!

 GA: The Jewish Dykes certainly provide a list of kosher symbols. I could add a few: what about putting matzo balls in your bikini? Or gefilte fish in the bra? Maybe noodles dripping from armpits? I better stop now before I get too exited.  

New Zealand Massacre: The Hate That Australia Produced

Calling The Christchurch Terrorist a “Troll” is Unconscious Islamophobia

By Adam Garrie
Source

If people think that terrorists like Daesh and al-Qaeda do not have various internal code words and even unique dialects understood only by fellow extremists – think again. If people think that terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Syria do not use internet memes, videos and online discussion threads to promote their brand of hatred among the young – think again. If people furthermore do not think that Daesh and al-Qaeda thrive by manipulating a perverse shadow pop culture – think again.

Of course, most people realise that Daesh and al-Qaeda are as much about black web based propaganda as they are about committing acts of mass terrorism and as such, Daesh and al-Qaeda supporters are never called “trolls”, “shitposters” or purveyors of “irony”.

And yet, the white supremacist, anti-Muslim terrorist of Christchurch infamy has been described in  mainstream liberal western media as someone being “ironic”, being a “troll” and being a “shitposter”. All of these terms tend to refer to those who use an online presence to either exaggerate their own beliefs or parody the extreme beliefs of others in order to get an emotional reaction from those who do not realise that crude satire, morose hyperbole and elementary pranksterism are at play.

But no actual comedians (however crude) can be considered terrorists, even if they push the boundaries of free speech in order to make provocative points. And yet, the terrorist in Christchurch was no “troll” or  comical figure – he was a died in the wool terrorist, a cold blooded killer of the variety that in a different ideological context would have been a killer in the ranks of terror groups like Daesh, FETO and al-Qaeda.

Even if the Christchurch terrorist was being sarcastic during parts of his manifesto, this only goes to prove his a priori shamelessness which itself is substantiated by his ex post facto lack of remorse as has been documented by lawyers in New Zealand. This does not make him a social media troll but places him among the ranks of serial killers and Daesh terrorists who believe that their acts of violence elevate them to the level of holy figures when in reality they are nothing but wicked mass murderers.

While it could have been expected that those on the neo-fascist right would try and whitewash the Christchurch terrorist as a “troll” or a “shitposter”, the fact that so-called respectable media personalities have also done so, demonstrates that even among people who would publicly reject Islamophobia if given the chance, an unconscious Islamophobia is so pervasive in western societies that seemingly “mainstream” figures are de facto minimising the terrorist’s crime. They are doing so by relating the terrorist to crude online comedy. By contrast, the ridiculous things that Daesh supporters say online are uniformly labelled terrorist propaganda rather than “shitposting” or “trolling”.

While the western far-right have reacted predictably to the atrocity in Christchurch, liberals continue to get away with closet Islamophobia by providing a pseudo-intellectual explanation for terrorism that is nothing more than a verbose version of the extremism vocalised by the likes of self-described right wing troll Milo Yiannopoulos who wasted no time in trying to minimise the terrorist atrocity. The difference between mainstream liberals and self-identified trolls of the far-right is merely in the subtlety of the language that is deployed. The overall message from both the western far-right and from liberals is that white anti-Islamic terrorists deserve being copiously analysed and therefore justified through either conscious or unconscious subterfuge, whilst those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam (Daesh for example) deserve unqualified condemnation.

The reality is that all terrorism deserves only condemnation. The ideologies behind terror attacks might be useful at galvanising and recruiting useful idiots to commit horrific acts, but any decent member of any society ought to realise that terrorism has no religion, no race, no ethnicity and no singular ideology other than a generic ideology which permits and validates violence against innocent people.

Liberals in the west continue to expose themselves as unconsciously sympathetic to the same factions that are openly praised by the western fascist fringe. In the same way that a hyena is to be less feared than a snake, liberals have once again demonstrated that when it comes to normalising Islamophobia, they are the undisputed champions of hatred.