We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” ― Anaïs Nin
It doesn’t take a genius to see that people who are identified as Zionist and Jews are, somehow, over represented in many blunders in today’s world affairs. The pro-war, Neocon think-tanks were overwhelmingly saturated with Zionist Jews, and the ‘moral interventionist’ advocates within the media are also largely Zionist Jews. The ‘brains’ behind the so-called Bush doctrine i.e. The ‘War Against Terror’, were Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, and if that were not enough, at the heart of the financial turmoil we also find Jewish persons, and financial institutions that are clearly recognizable as Jewish – such as the Lehman Brother, Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, Bernie Madoff, and many others.
Here one must ask an obvious question – why should any Jew anywhere in the world be concerned in any way with these facts? Why should any Jewish person be concerned with actions or ideas that he or she probably has nothing to do with? Why should my Jewish neighbour, also subject to the financial turmoil and with no connection whatsoever with Madoff, Wolfowitz, David Aaronovitch or Lord ‘cash point’ Levy, be at all concerned with current financial or imperial blunders for which he has no responsibility? Why should my Jewish musician friends who have no ties to Israel, AIPAC, CFI, CST, Nick Cohen or Alan Greenspan feel guilty for crimes or actions taken by others just because they also happen to be Jewish? Would a Frenchman or an Irishman in America feel threatened or potentially discriminated against because of revelations that a few of their expatriates had been involved in a major colossal scandal?
So, the question I raise here is a simple one: why should any Jew feel guilty for crimes that are committed by other people – people he or she does not know and is not affiliated with? And the answer is equally simple – Jewish individuals have no reason to assume responsibility for actions committed by other Jews. But the truth of the matter is, that many Jews are extremely concerned about the current blunders: some feel guilty, and many – potentially at least – feel threatened. I would say that such a reaction merits our attention.
Amongst my other sins, I regularly monitor the Jewish media, and it is obvious to me that Jewish institutions are put on alert by any scandal that is even mildly associated with Jewish protagonists or institutions. Jewish media outlets give the impression that every blunder associated with a Jew is highly likely to turn itself into a wave of vile anti-semitism.
We are left to wonder then whether the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is actually justified, or whether it is simply driven by a ‘fantasy of destruction’.
In my latest book The Wandering Who I contend that Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is largely self-inflicted and has very little to do with the surrounding reality. Jews tend to regard themselves as a tribe and most Jews are subjected to a degree of cultural and racially driven indoctrination. On the one hand, the religion of Judaism teaches its followers that “all of Israel are responsible for one another” (1) (Kol Yisrael areivin zeh l’zeh); while on the other hand, the non religious, secular, emancipated Jews who identify politically, ideologically and socially as Jews they also operate within Jewish ethno-centric settings. Even within the Palestinian solidarity movement we find Jews who operate within ‘Jews only’ cells such as JBIG (Jews for Boycott Of Israeli Goods) and IJAN (International Jewish Antizionist Network). Somehow, they also feel primarily ‘responsible for one another.’
This reading of contemporary Jewish communities may reveal why many Jews are alarmed by crimes committed by other Jews – Jews whom they don’t even know.
I can think of three reasons for such a situation:
- Projection: Because some Jews regard themselves as a racially exclusive tribe, they tend to believe that others - non Jews - will also regard them as such. In other words, many Jews project their own ethno-centric symptoms onto the Goyim i.e. They think the Goyim are as racially driven as they are.
- Guilt: Because some Jews tend to regard themselves as a racially exclusive tribe, they feel guilty for not stopping those members of the tribe who are involved in some major blunders.
- Conjunction –- both 1 and 2.
It is increasingly clear then, that at the heart of the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish bigotry we find Jewish racial orientation, manifesting itself in various forms of projection and guilt. Though it is clear that Jews do not actually form a race, there is little doubt that Jewishness - and especially Jewish secular discourse - is racially, or at least tribally driven. Not many people are aware of the racial tension between different Jewish communities such as Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. In Israel the blood donation of Black citizens with Ethiopian background is disposed of for ‘medical reasons. Israel legal system is saturated with discriminatory racist and supremacist laws against the Arab and non-Jewish population.
To a certain extent then, the fear of anti-Semitism inherent to the Zionist and Jewish secular political discourse is fuelled by the belief that the ‘other,’ i.e. the Goy, may well be equally driven by a similar racist ideology.
Some Jews, it must be said, might offer reasons to reject the above explanation: they might argue that Jewish history (i.e. that endless chain of Shoas), proves that ‘the sons of Israel’ would be justified in being on a constant state of alert. Jews, they might say, should be constantly aware that their neighbours might turn against them at any given moment.
I suggest that we are dealing here with a ‘chicken and egg’ situation: while some Jews would agree among themselves that anti-Semitism is largely an ‘irrational disease’, a few historians such as Bernard Lazare were brave and honest enough to ask why and how exactly, Jews have managed to bring so much pain on themselves.
Things got a little heated at Old Trafford yesterday, when Liverpool player Luis Suarez refused to shake the hand of Man United’s Patrice Evra before the match. A complaint from Evra, following a game between the two teams in October last year had resulted in Suarez receiving an eight match ban and a £40k fine. Evra, who admitting telling Suarez that his sister was a whore, claimed Suárez racially abused him “at least 10 times”.
At half time, Evra is said to have squared up to Suarez in the tunnel, “thus sparking a melee as United and Liverpool players pushed and shoved each other with police taking up to five minutes to restore order and calm”.
Worth noting though, is the fact that despite being found to have used insulting words, including a reference to Evra’s colour, Suarez has received support from fellow Uruguayan footballers and the supporters and management at Liverpool, who stated:
It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said ‘I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist’. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.
Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person’s skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.
Man U on the other hand appeared convinced of Suarez’s guilt, with Alex Ferguson declaring Suarez disgrace to Liverpool Football Club and suggesting he should not be allowed to play for Liverpool again.
Even before the match began, police attempted to seize all copies of the Man U fanzine ‘Red Issue’, declaring the image shown above to be “potentially offensive” and threatening to take “appropriate action against anyone either found selling this particular fanzine or provocatively displaying the image in public.”
That relatively trivial incidents are distorted out of all proportion by the mainstream media, which generally continues to ignore the systemic racism which marginalises whole communities, is leading to a distorted debate. Over zealous policing and censorship of the debate is likely to do little to bring about equality. As John Barnes put it:
We’re making a mountain out of a molehill. We are not the custodians of moral value in the world, we think we are but we’re not. There’s worse things happening in the world, worse things happening in the country, everything should not be laid at footballers’ doors.”
In Gaza, a football match was used to highlight one of those under-reported worse things happening in the world. Last week, Palestinians and internationals defiantly staged a match in the loosely defined Israeli buffer zone which is enforced with a deadly shoot to kill policy, robbing the already besieged Gazans of 30% of their arable land. Taking place during the weekly protests against the buffer zone, the match was in honour of Vittorio Arrigoni, an international activist, who died in April 2011 after being taken hostage by a group of Palestinian dissidents, and Mustafa Tamimi, a Palestinian activist who died last year after being shot in the face with a tear gas cannister.
The furore over the handshake snub forced Liverpool and Suarez to issue an apology today. Yet somehow it seems unlikely that the media will turn its attention to the ongoing siege of Gaza , and help create a furore that stops the deadly racism that blights the lives of Gazans every day.
Two deaths – 7579.1 miles apart, one in Gaza and one in Los Angeles, U.S.A. No one could have missed the headline news today that Whitney Houston has been found dead in a room at the Beverley Hills Hotel.
The B.B.C. have the news of Whitney’s death as the headline “Whitney Houston’s Death Stuns Music World”. Such is the world today where celebrity news, though undoubtly tragic as any death at a young age is, takes precedence over the myriad of other stories that might have been headlines.
One such story that would never have made the headlines is of a 71 year old man in Gaza, Palestine. The B.B.C. manages to mention the death, but of course he is a nameless person. The headline reads “One killed in Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza Strip”. For the B.B.C. and many of their readers, Abd Al Kareem Al Zaitouna is just a statistic. According to the Israelis he is no doubt a “terrorist”.
So who exactly was Abd al Kareem? Well all I know is that he was a 71 year old man who was a guard at a chicken farm in the Zaitouna district of Gaza. The chicken sheds pictured here after they were razed to the ground are described in some news stories, as “barracks”. You have to look at the picture of the destruction and wonder at how much heavy weaponry and high-tech equipment was used to destroy a corrugated steel structure. No problem of course, American tax payers will pick up the bill. The question as to just why anyone would leave a 71 year old man to guard an army barracks and just how some chicken sheds pose an existential threat to Israel, is one anyone with a modicum of logic or common sense should be asking.
The fact is that Israel can kill anyone they like in Gaza. They can kill using a massive array of weapons from automatic guns fired by women sitting in control rooms miles away, they can fire from naval vessels in the sea off the coast of Gaza, they can fire from the F16′s or helicopters overhead. The civilians of Gaza are under constant threat of death from one of the most sophisticated and heavily armed armies in the world.
We should all do what we can to highlight and challenge injustice. So I thought, so that Abd Al Kareem does not remain a nameless, faceless statistic, just another fatality in Gaza, I will give him a name and a face by publishing his picture.
On 7th February 2012 Ben Mullins, Brenda Brown, Francis Clark-Lowes, Penny and Jim Porter and Valerie Phillips (Phil) gathered in Brighton, UK, to discuss the Foreword and Chapter 1 of The Wandering Who? (Winchester and Washington DC, Zero Books, 2011).
According to your point of view, this work is either ‘a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world’ (John J. Meersheimer, review quoted at the beginning of the book) or ‘On Jewish identity Atzmon has nothing new to say’ (Tony Greenstein)
Before we started to look at the book, we had a discussion about how our meetings would be organised and what our purpose would be. There was some difference between those who simply wanted to study the text and those who believed our aim should be to draw conclusions about campaigning. We resolved this by agreeing that everyone should take what they wanted from the meetings, but that our focus should initially be on the ideas expressed in the book.
We will be meeting monthly for a year, looking at a couple of sections of the text each time, facilitated in rotation by one of the group. Participants are asked to read the relevant chapters for the next meeting in advance, so that we can concentrate on a couple of key elements at the meetings without them being taken out of context.
This time we started on the phrase: ‘… tribalism can never live in peace with humanism and universalism’ (p. 1). There was some discomfort with this polarity, dualism, dichotomy or whatever else you might call it. Are universalism and humanism as identities entirely credible, and is tribalism necessarily a bad thing? Phil had spent some time in Namibia where she had seen the beneficial side of tribalism. Indeed we wondered if Jewish tribalism was necessarily a problem? We would be returning to this subject as it was clearly central to Atzmon’s view of the world.
‘I didn’t see the Palestinians around me’ (p. 2). This referred to Atzmon’s upbringing in Israel, and led us to discuss the whole nature of exclusion as a psychological phenomenon. We wondered, for example, whether the colonial type of mentality is essentially different from, say, ignoring beggars in the streets of Brighton. Perhaps the question was one of degree rather than of categorical difference. We all agreed that it was particularly pronounced in Israel, and that for Zionism to work it needed to be.
‘… the people who excited me most were actually a bunch of black Americans – people who had nothing to do with the Zionist miracle or with my own chauvinist, exclusivist tribe’ (p. 3). We reflected on crossing cultural boundaries, what enabled it, and why it was rare, at least in the case of primary identities like nationality and religion. Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia (London, Routledge, 1936) was mentioned because it dealt specifically with this subject. Most people, according to Mannheim, are trapped within the identity provided by their own cultural group. It is only people who somehow don’t fit who are able to cross cultural boundaries. As a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who settled in London, this was, of course, his own case.
‘… the binary opposition Jew/Nazi was in itself a result of my Judeo-centric indoctrination’ (p. 6). We were agreed that no group had a monopoly on good or evil, humanism or inhumanity.
‘I grasped that Israel and Zionism were just parts of the wider Jewish problem … hardly any commentator is courageous enough to wonder what the word Jew stands for … a taboo within Western discourse’ (p. 15). Received wisdom has it, of course, that a clear distinction can be made between the terms Zionist and Jew. This led us into a discussion about whether generalisations about groups, especially negative generalisations, can be justified. The view was expressed that generalisation is a crucial element of thinking.
Lastly we considered Atzmon’s division of Jews into three categories: religious Jews, accidental Jews (by birth) and ideological Jews, and his view that only the last was a problem. We wondered whether it was so easy to distinguish these categories, and whether categories one and two didn’t also lend their support, often unconsciously, to Jewish ideology.
Not surprisingly with a group of people keen to engage in discussion, we hadn’t covered the whole of the two sections of writing we set out to study. Nor did we reach any very firm conclusions; rather we raised a number of pertinent questions. In other words, Atzmon’s ideas were put on the table and looked at critically in preparation for our further meetings. All members of the group have been consulted in preparing this report, and the same procedure will be followed with future reports which will again be posted on this site.
The following is a recent data dump on pastebin, minus the credit cards, Hacktivists from the ‘Zcompany Hacking Crew’. I post it here on deLiberation because after all the fuss over China and Russia using their veto in the UN here we have a list Resolutions that have been blatantly ignorned by Israel and usually vetoed by the USA. ~ Jonathon
200+ Credit Cards from U.S.A and Israel Leaked by Zcompany Hacking Crew.
Only Israel, the United States, and a few U.S. allies, clients, and dependencies continued to deny recognition of the Palestinians as a people with the PLO as their legitimate representative. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the long-held position of the United States and Israel, combined with the rise in international influence of the Palestinians since 1967, often placed the U.S. government in an untenable position.
In “Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About US-Israeli Relationship” (Lawrence Hill Books, 1995) author/former Congressman Paul Findley makes the point that Israel, with the collusion of the power elite on our continent, has been successful over the decades in keeping the United Nations on the sidelines in efforts to find a solution to the Middle East problem and to create real peace:
UN Resolutions against Israel
- Resolution 106: . . . Condemns Israel for Gaza raid
- Resolution 111: . . . Condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people
- Resolution 127:. . . Recommends Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem
- Resolution 162:. . . Urges Israel to comply with UN decisions
- Resolution 171:. . . Determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria
- Resolution 228:. . . Censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control
- Resolution 237:. . . Urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees
- Resolution 248: . . . Condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan
- Resolution 250:. . . Calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem
- Resolution 251:. . . Deeply Deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250
- Resolution 252:. . . Declares Invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital
- Resolution 256: . . . Condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation’
- Resolution 259:. . . Deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation
- Resolution 262: . . . Condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport
- Resolution 265: . . . Condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan
- Resolution 267: . . . Censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem
- Resolution 270: . . . Condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon” * Resolution 271: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem
- Resolution 279: . . . Demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon
- Resolution 280: . . . Condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon
- Resolution 285: . . . Demands immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon
- Resolution 298: . . . Deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem
- Resolution 313: . . . Demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon
- Resolution 316: . . . Condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon
- Resolution 317: . . . Deplores Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon
- Resolution 332: . . . Condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon
- Resolution 337: . . . Condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty
- Resolution 347: . . . Condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon
- Resolution 425: . . . Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon
- Resolution 427: . . . Calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon
- Resolution 444: . . . Deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces
- Resolution 446: . . . Determines that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
- Resolution 450: . . . Calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon
- Resolution 452: . . . Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories
- Resolution 465: . . . Deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program
- Resolution 467: . . . Strongly Deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon
- Resolution 468: . . . Calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return
- Resolution 469: . . . Strongly Deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians
- Resolution 471: . . . Expresses Deep Concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
- Resolution 476: . . . Reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
- Resolution 478: . . . Censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
- Resolution 484: . . . Declares it Imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors
- Resolution 487: . . . Strongly Condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility
- Resolution 497: . . . Decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith
- Resolution 498: . . . Calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon
- Resolution 501: . . . Calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops
- Resolution 509: . . . Demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon
- Resolution 515: . . . Demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in
- Resolution 517: . . .Censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon
- Resolution 518: . . . Demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon
- Resolution 520: . . . Condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut
- Resolution 573: . . . Condemns Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
- Resolution 587: . . . Takes Note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw
- Resolution 592: . . . Strongly Deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops
- Resolution 605: . . . Strongly Deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
- Resolution 607: . . . Calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
- Resolution 608: . . . Deeply Regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians
- Resolution 636: . . . Deeply Regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
- Resolution 641: . . . Deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 672: . . . Condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
- Resolution 673: . . . Deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
- Resolution 681: . . . Deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 694: . . . Deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
- Resolution 726: . . . Strongly Condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
- Resolution 799: . . . Strongly Condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
WE WILL NOT SLEEP. WE WILL NOT REST WE WILL COUNTER YOUR OPPRESSION WITH EVERY BREATH. WE ARE ZHC UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL