From Bibi to Herzl

September 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Zionism vowed to make the Jews people like all other people. Israel promised to be the fulfilment of the Zionist aspiration. But the reality on the ground proved otherwise. It didn’t take long before Israel became ‘The Jewish State’ – a state like no other. In this talk, I present a new outlook of the Zionist project and its collapse. I can now throw new light on the most peculiar anomalies in Zionist history, such as labour Zionist brutality towards indigenous Palestinians in ’48, the rise in the prominence of the holocaust in Israel after ’67 and the current manufactured antisemitism hysteria.

I do apologise for the quality of the sound, we work hard to improve it.

Advertisements

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The Zionists secularized the Old Testament, treating it as though it was a historical document, which it very clearly is not; and, finally, the Zionists claimed that Palestine is the Land of Israel and that it is the land of the Jewish people and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

Correctly Defining Modern Zionism

Correctly Defining Modern Zionism

The Ugly History of the Christian Zionist Movement, Starting in 1909

Source

Mike King

It seems highly likely that the founder of the movement was backed by wealthy Jewish interests intent on building popular support for Zionism.

Though Sugar and I, er, “The Editorial Board” of The Anti-New York Times take great delight in bitch-slapping libtards and pointy-headed intellectuals, it is important to emphasize that not all of America’s insane people are found on the political “Left.”

Though “Christian Zionists” are much closer to our views on social, political and economic matters, their dangerous lunacy when it comes to blindly supporting “the chosen people” and Greater Israel as “end times” requirements calls for an equal-opportunity beat down of these irrational maniacs.

The size and power of the Christian Zionist hordes (aka Evangelicals and Baptists) are no secret to anyone who understands anything about American politics. What is not commonly understood, even among these crazies, is how exactly they got to be so ziotarded in the first place.

Sugar, fire up the Time Machine and set the dial to 1909, please.

   
Some estimates put the numbers of Evangelical Christian Zionists as high as 40 million. These misguided fanatics are even more zealous in their love of Israel that the Jewish Israel Lobby!Cyrus Scofield was a small time politician and career criminal. In 1873, he was forced to resign his position as a District Attorney because of crooked financial transactions which included accepting bribes, stealing political contributions, and securing bank notes by forging signatures. He served jail time for forgery charges.

A heavy drinker, Scofield later abandoned his wife and two daughters. His wife finally divorced the drunken crook in 1883. As so many con-men do, Scofield.soon claimedto have “found Jesus. He later claimed to have obtained a Doctor of Divinity degree, but “Minister” Scofield’s degree has never been verified.

In 1909, after several mysterious trips to Europe and New York, Scofield published the notated reference Bible that still bears his name. The added side notes in “the Scofield Bible” inject a very weird “End Times” prophecy into Christianity. Because of Scofield’s altered Bible, today’s Christian Ziotards believe that Jesus will return to save his followers (The Rapture), but only after Israel is established and that “God will bless those who bless Israel.”

This biblical alteration, at the hands of a known criminal, marks the beginning of this powerful force in American politics that has mentally infected many millions of otherwise decent people with Scofield’s poison. Yes indeed — the Scofield Bible was very good for Zionism!.The question remains: who did the con-man Scofield meet with while in New York and Europe?

 
Jew agent / ex-con Cyrus Scofield and his “study bible” led many millions of Christians to turn a blind eye to Palestinian suffering and actually worship the people who hate Christianity.These Old Testament fanatics who call themselves “Baptists” really need to read what the original “baptist,” John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ are actually quoted as saying, in the New Testament, about the chosenites that they love so much:

Matthew 3:7 — John the Baptist calls out Jewish high priests (Pharisees and Sadducees) as “vipers”

But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Matthew 3:9 — John the Baptist to Jewish priests, refuting the “chosen people” concept:

Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.

Matthew 23:15 — Jesus to Jewish priests, on converting gentiles to Judaism:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hellas you are.

John 8:44 — — Jesus to the Jewish priests on their ungodliness

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

And there are plenty more gems like those in the New Testament, as well as the famous incident in which Jesus made a whip and chased the money lenders out of the temple. Yes, it’s true, Christo-Ziotards. According to the contemporary definition of the term, your lord and savior, Jesus Christ, was quite the “anti-Semite” TM — which is why those very same Pharisees “lobbied” the Roman Governor of Judea to torture and crucify him.

How’s that for irony?!

   
THE CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS NEED A BIBLE LESSON! 1. Jesus Christ was always ripping on and contradicting the Jewish bosses. 2&3. The Pharisees then pressured the Romans to kill him.


Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that the alliance between Evangelicals and Israel is growing stronger.

Boobus Americanus 2: These Christian Zionists are really crazy. They want end times to come and need Israel to be blessed so they can be zapped into the rapture.


Edward Gibbon said it best: History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”


Source: TomatoBubble

Palestine, Syria, ID Politics and the West

July 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Interview by Dina Y. Sulaeman – Indonesia Center for Middle East Studies

http://ic-mes.org/politics/interview-with-gilad-atzmon/

Dina: In your book, “The Wandering Who”, you wrote extensively  about Jewish identity politics. Is ‘identity politics’ special for Jews?

Gilad: No, not at all. In my new book, ‘Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,’ I present a universal approach to identity politics.

Jewish identity politics is a model for identity politics in general. In the west, we have witnessed the evolution of gay ID politics, black ID politics and so on. ID politics operates to teach people to speak and think ‘as a’;  ‘as a black’, ‘as a lesbian’, ‘as a feminist’, ‘as a Muslim’, etc. It is an attempt to break apart all the established and traditional social structures. Why? Because, the Jewish elite is fearful of the old structures, they tend to believe that anti-Semitism is rooted in the established edifice and in working people being united. The Frankfurt School and thinkers like Wilhelm Reich managed to revolutionise society– in the name of ‘progress,’ we are now divided and detached from our ‘reactionary’ roots.  But it is devastating that the left has been united against working people forging a cohesive identity… this is very strange because the left is supposed to look after the working people and unite and inspire them to action. The left in the west is disturbed by the fact that the working people always vote for the flag, for the right, for the nationalist, for Trump, for Hitler and so on. Accordingly, modern ID politics is a project that developed out of this unique intellectual and political bond between the left and Jewish intelligencia. The Jews are better at ID politics than any other group for an obvious reason. For the  gay, the black, the Muslim, the feminist or the lesbian, ID politicsis a new thing.  Jews have been doing itfor 3000 years — Jewish culture is identity politics.

It would be reasonable to argue that ID politics is an attempt to Jewify (as opposed to Judify)  the entire social order. It has been a project that has caused some devastating cultural, social and political impacts.

Dina: So, there are differences between the  ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaic’ thing.  In your book, you said that the problem, in Palestine for instance,  isJewishness rather than  Zionism. Can you explain it?

Gilad: It is confusing. Jewishness is the belief that the Jews are somehow special, chosen, privileged and should enjoy and celebrate their privilege. Not all Jews subscribe to this idea, but many of them do. Even the Jewish anti-Zionist will say, ‘listen to us, we can say something that you (goyim, gentiles) can’t, we as the Jews in the movement,  give you a ‘kosher stamp.’ They are  basically claiming that ‘we are privileged’.  Even Jewish anti-Zionists subscribe to hard corechoseness. Norman Finkelstein, whom I admire intellectually, used  to say, I can say it because my mother was in a concentration camp.  What about you Dina? Your mother wasn’t in Auschwitz, can you still think or express your thoughts ? Or support Palestine? Or do you have to send your mother to Auschwitz before you make a judgment on Israel or other aspects of Jewish power? Choseness is, unfortunately, embedded in Jewish thinking.

Zionism is just one symptom of Jewish choseness. Interestingly enough, and this is my first time I have said this in an interview, some people, including some of my best friends, say that ‘Judaism was hijacked by Zionism.’  I say NO.  It is the other way around — Zionism was hijacked by Jewishness and eventually Judaism.

Zionism was initially an anti-Jewish movement. Zionism started in  the late 19th century. It proclaimed that Diaspora Jews were an ugly parasitic identity; they didn’twork, they didn’tfarm, they were traders and bankers, capitalists, usurers, exploiters and so on, ..but this wasn’t entirely their fault. It had happened because Jews  didn’t  have a land of their own. “Once we settle in Palestine, all of that will change.”  And, indeed, they went to Palestine and for two weeks they worked on the land and built factories.  But then they found out that the Palestinians were cheaper [labour] and they all became Jews again.   It is amazing that Zionism was a secular movement that promised to ‘civilise’ the Jew. But then ideological Zionism was hijacked by Jewish exceptionalism and later by Judaic choseness. While early Zionism operated to defeat choseness, Israel and Zionism have little to offer but chosenism.

There is a problem with certain interpretations of Judaism. I do accept that some  orthodox  interpretations of Judaism may defy supremacy. But I’ve yet to come across any Judaic perception that I can accept as ethicalor universal. Judaism is not a universal precept:

  1. It’s tribal. It does not refer to  “us” as humanity, it is, instead, all about  “us” the Jews.
  2. There are no ethics in Judaism. In Islam or Christianity, you are expected to  take action based upon belief such as’ jihad,’ you purify yourself. In Judaism‘ethics’ is replaced by ‘commandments’ and ‘mitzvoth’, you follow rules to do this and that, and rules not to do that and this. You are not supposed to make an independent judgement. They tell you, “don’t kill, don’t steal.” Human beings do not need to to be told not to kill, theyknow it’s ethically wrong. In Jerusalem, regulations replace ethics!

Dina: but then when we say that the root of the Palestinian problem is Jewishness (not Zionism), they will call us anti-Jew or anti Semites.

Gilad: It is not nice, but this is a tactic that has been used to silence the discussion. However, we are not talking here about individual  people, we are referring to ideology and we are supposed to be able to criticize ideology. But, as we can see, some Jews don’t want us to do that, and for an obvious reason!

Do you have identity politics here in Indonesia?

Dina: well..yes… We have some Muslim groups that keep saying that the muslims are oppressed by the Chinese and the Christians; they accused the government of being pro-Chinese/Christian.

Gilad: I’m not familiar with Indonesian society and politics, but you just confirmedwhat I have been saying –identity politics is always used as an attempt to weaken the hegemonical structure.

As a nation, we enjoy  the ability to mobilise  as one people. It doesn’t matter if you are Muslim, Christian, or Hindu, we are together, caring for each other, because we share the same land, and our most important values as a country are health, education, and work (production, manufacturing). If I speak instead ‘as a Muslim,’  ‘as a Christian,’  ‘as a woman,’  ‘as a lesbian,’ I contribute to the breaking of society into sectors. The most interesting thing about the sectorial break is that each sector is a cosmopolitan one. If I define myself as a Muslim identitarian then the border of my identity is not the physical border of Indonesia, it extends to Malaysia, the Middle East, the Balkans and even Europe and the United States. If I define myself as a gay, the border also transcends  beyond my country. This is exactly how Jewish identity operates. Jews, as we know,  are not attached to any piece of geography, it is a cosmopolitan  identity.  Zionism initially attempted to defy Jewish cosmopolitanism.

In America, for instance, I speak about the patriots vs. the identitarians, the patriots who see themselves primarily as Americans. So you can be black, you can be gay, you can be a Jew, but you say: I’m an American who happens to be black, I’m an American who happens to be a Jew, I’m an American who happens to be gay. But the identitarians  see themselves primarily as sectarians:   I’m a gay who lives in America, I’m a Muslim who lives in America.  And it’s a very big difference. Because if you are primarily gay, your primary interest is in promoting gay rights and gay interests, for example, to have a dedicated hospital for AIDS. If you are black, you want to see special budget allocations for black people and their needs. But for patriots, whoever they are, the most important thing is a new factory so that we, as a collective (gays, black, Jews, women etc) , have a good reason to wake up in the morning and go to work.

Dina: So in your view, nationalism is very important, right?

Gilad: If global capitalism is a problem, and I thinkit is, then, national socialism may be the answer. What I mean by national socialism is localism combined with equality. I don’t mean racism, I’m anti racist. I am also opposed to tyranny. I would say that my vision of national socialism is similar to that of George Orwell. It is patriotic yet humanitarian: anti racist and anti tyrannical.

Dina: Now I want to talk about Syria with you. Do you think the Syrian conflict distracted public opinion towards Palestine?

Gilad: It did, this is a very clear observation. The crisis in Syria is a hideousdisaster and it has definitely distracted attention from Palestine, and who benefits from that? Israel, of course. This is why it shouldn’t surprise us that the major players in the creation of this crisis were Israel and its supportive Jewish Lobbies. And it shouldn’t surprise us that Israel and the Jewish Lobby are now changing sides. In the beginning they supported Al Nusra, now they seem to be with the Russians. Turkey has switched sides too, they still don’t like Assad but they prefer Assad to having a Kurdish State on their eastern border . So we are dealing with a level of deadly global opportunism. Many within the the pro-Palestinian activist network  are also changing sides, they were anti Assad initially and are now pro Assad.

The Palestinian leaderswere not very politic here. The Assad regime was very supportive of Palestine. Hafez, Bashar’s father, fully supported Hamas. It was devastating  to see how quickly Hamas decided to oppose Assad. I understand why it happened… Qatar, the Saudis, the Sunni alliance, the Muslim Brotherhood. I don’t like to criticize Palestinians and their politics  but they were not very clever here.

Dina: ok last question, what is the future of Palestine?

Gilad: I don’t think that we are moving toward a peace negotiation, a peace plan or an orchestrated reconciliation. When people talk about two states, what they really mean is two Jewish states. But I believe that within the next 20-30 years we will see a Palestinian majority on the land. It’s a just a matter of time. Here I agree with Abbas. Everybody likes to hate Abbas. But Abbas understands that time is on the side of the Palestinians. For Abbas demography is the one and only Palestinian bomb.

Dina: So you don’t agree with jihad?

Gilad: I didn’t say I am against jihad. If Palestinians resist, they will always get my support. They live in hell and I will always support them. This is my role. But I’m not in position to advocate a solution or push a political or military mantra. I see myself as a (Hebrew speaking) Palestinian,  but I don’t live there. I cannot urge people to get themselves killed while I live comfortably in London. I cannot tell them to sit and wait either. It is not my role. My job as an intellectual is to try to explain what is happening. Abbas says that if we engage in active war, they [the Israelis] will throw us all out, they will kill us, they have no mercy, and he is absolutely right. So, we just have to sit and wait;  this land will be Palestine from river to the sea.

Dina: do you refer to  demography?

Gilad:  Absolutely!

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders

Local Editor

03-07-2017 | 15:29

‘Israeli’ opposition leader Isaac Herzog confirmed that he, along with Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited leaders in the Arab world, saying: “I met with leaders that have never been seen by ‘Israeli’ eyes. The political process I was in charge of was huge, and it gives hope of building a Palestinian state,” ‘Israel’ Hayom reported.

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders


Herzog, however, said he was “not ready for any one-sided step,” the newspaper added. “There is an alternative coalition in our hands. Proper work might defragment Netanyahu’s coalition,” he added.

Herzog’s remarks were made on the eve of the preliminary elections of the Zionist “Labor” Party which will take place on Tuesday to elect a new president.

Estimations, however, show that none of the candidates will win 40% of the votes, the required percentage for someone to win, expecting to hold another round next Monday.

Source: Zionist Media, Edited by website team

“Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis”

Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist

Trump’s election is having fascinating consequences. Today the New York Times ran a long piece titled, “Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump,” by Omri Boehm of the New School saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction: liberal American Jews have “identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics.”

Boehm’s most startling point is that Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis. Hannah Arendt is happy today.

The piece will greatly increase the pressure on liberal Zionists to choose one idea or the other, and to stop denying the existence of apartheid.

Boehm says white nationalist Richard Spencer helped to blow up the liberal Zionist hypocrisy in his famous encounter with a Texas rabbi when he said he admires Israel for its ethnic purity and the rabbi had nothing to say. Some of Boehm’s hammer blows:

by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right…

insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion…

Boehm never comes out and uses the term “racist,” but he might as well.

Trump has changed the map.

As long as liberalism was secure back in America and the rejection of liberalism confined to the Israeli scene, this tension could be mitigated. But as it spills out into the open in the rapidly changing landscape of American politics, the double standard is becoming difficult to defend…

[T]he following years promise to present American Jewry with a decision that they have much preferred to avoid. Hold fast to their liberal tradition, as the only way to secure human, citizen and Jewish rights; or embrace the principles driving Zionism.

By the way, the denial of the right of return is racist:

Opposition to the Palestinians’ “right of return” is a matter of consensus among left and right Zionists because also liberal Zionists insist that Israel has the right to ensure that Jews constitute the ethnic majority in their country. That’s the reason for which Rabbi Rosenberg could not answer Spencer.

And then this verboten history: Zionists collaborated with “anti-Semitic politics.” With Nazis:

The “original sin” of such alliances may be traced back to 1941, in a letter to high Nazi officials, drafted in 1941 by Avraham Stern, known as Yair, a leading early Zionist fighter and member in the 1930s of the paramilitary group Irgun, and later, the founder of another such group, Lehi. In the letter, Stern proposes to collaborate with “Herr Hitler” on “solving the Jewish question” by achieving a “Jewish free Europe.” The solution can be achieved, Stern continues, only through the “settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine.” To that end, he suggests collaborate with the German’s “war efforts,” and establish a Jewish state on a “national and totalitarian basis,” which will be “bound by treaty with the German Reich.”

It has been convenient to ignore the existence of this letter, just as it has been convenient to mitigate the conceptual conditions making it possible.

This is an opinion piece by an outsider, not a New York Times article. Hell and everything else would freeze if the NYT started writing news pieces which presupposed Zionism as actually practiced is racist. They won’t do that yet. They might conceivably start writing articles where people with that view are treated respectfully as they express it, rather than hiding the view from readers or treating people who express it as moral lepers.

Many of Boehm’s arguments have been made on the left for years, of course. The liberal Zionists chose to ignore them and talk about the two-state solution. They are losing that luxury. Though, expect some pushback from the Zionist forces inside the New York Times.

The Times would never have run this piece if Boehm were not Israeli. Just as the newspaper insisted, according to the late Tony Judt, that he identify himself as Jewish when he defended Walt and Mearsheimer in 2006. There are double standards in the press too.

 

%d bloggers like this: