Jewish dissident Israel Shamir
Ian Buckley | 23.08.2002 22:15
Readers may recall that I briefly mentioned Israel Shamir in these pages a little while ago. Shamir, a very elegant stylist, produces some of the most interesting and outspoken articles available today on the theme of Zionism and its impact on world affairs. His boldness has already cost him his post on the Jerusalem Haaretz newspaper.
Naturally, Shamir - despite being Jewish himself - has been derided as an ‘anti-Semite’ a ‘self-hater’ and also as an associate of so called far-right extremists (do they mean us?). Of his association with the Spotlight, he wittily commented that this US populist/nationalist paper had never called for the extermination of anyone -- which was rather more than could be said of some Israeli papers. Shamir's work definitely deserves to be better known.
The cynical ‘anti-Semitism’ slur is so often used as a means of controlling well-meaning but timid people who have just begun to wake up. Shamir deals with this matter in a typically clear and robust fashion:-
‘I met with many people who have been branded with the scarlet letter of the anti-Semite. These so-called anti-Semites object to the policies of the organised Jewish community, of the unholy alliance of Sharon and Abe Foxman, Gusinsky and Mark Rich, Conrad Black and William Safire. I concur with them wholeheartedly, as it is not a question of prejudice.
‘The professional ‘anti-Semitism-fighters’ know this very well. Their true purpose is not to fight anti-Semitism, but to frighten ordinary Jews into submission.’
There's racism and racism
Cherie Blair for one could have saved herself some embarrassment if she had read Shamir instead of ridiculous feminist tracts and tedious legal gobbledegook, for:-
‘An offence to the Jewish community is not considered a form of racism, as ordinary racism is tolerated with great ease, especially if it is directed towards Arabs (new enemies of Jews) or Blacks (old enemies of Jews). It is treated as a lese majesté (in the years of Jewish ascendancy in the Soviet Union (1917-1937), people were shot for an anti-Jewish remark).’
Now it's not generally considered to be ‘anti-British’ to state that Britain dominated India during the early part of the 20th century - that would be regarded as a bald statement of simple fact, and not a very interesting one at that.
So why should Shamir's comments about the Soviet Union cause great shrieks of annoyance? His blunt statement forms a neat contrast with the Gulag Archipelago, where Alexander Solzhenitsyn was surely trying to get the same information across in a very restrained, almost coded manner.
All nations and peoples - including the British - have discreditable episodes in their history, but in one special case we are supposed to suspend our critical facilities and judgement. It's not ‘bigotry’ or ‘hate’ to insist on a level playing field, and that the same standards should apply to everyone, which assuredly is not the case in Israel:
‘For years, the Jews protested the discrimination in employment and education. In our own state we created the system of total national discrimination. In our state-owned Electric company, out of 13,000 employees there are six Gentiles, 0.046 per cent. Gentiles form forty percent of the population between the Jordan River and the sea, but only one out of four has the right to vote. There are no Gentiles in the Supreme court, in the Government, in the Air Force, in the secret services. There is not even one Gentile on the board of the main Israeli liberal newspaper, Haaretz.’
Shamir's major message - which he hammers home time and time again - is that while Israel may present itself as a democratic and liberal state, it is in fact nothing of the sort. He also goes on to point out correctly that US support for this state causes some ludicrous policy distortions, which in turn are the major cause of conflict and instability in the contemporary world.
Indeed, America is already metamorphising into a sort of Greater Israel, with its recalcitrant and disillusioned ordinary citizens cast in the role of Palestinians. Given the present baleful trend of increasing ‘homeland security’, one can easily imagine a scenario in which the rights to free speech and to bear arms are cast aside. Goodbye, First and Second Amendments, you're out of date now in the one-time land of the free and home of the brave. That America has now become transformed into a sort of blundering Frankenstein monster for the Republic of Israel, a dog that's wagged by the tail.
The great British public gets agitated by possibly fake pictures of a Palestinian toddler dressed as a suicide bomber, but fails to note the utter madness on the other side of the conflict. If anyone doubts this, just consider carefully. the following words of Nick Cohen, who is incidentally a bitter opponent of British nationalism:-
‘If you have access to an internet search engine, type in Third Temple and you will find serious proposals from Jewish fundamentalists to demolish one of the holiest Islamic sites and replace it with a successor to Solomon's temple, levelled by the Babylonians, and the second temple, levelled by the Romans. Christian fundamentalists are as keen to get the bulldozers moving because they've been avowed that Christ won't come again until the Third Temple is up.’
In the books of Rabbi Chaim Richman, the construction of this temple is treated almost as a fait accompli, with only one element missing - the ashes of the red heifer required for its ceremonial purification. Richman babbles on about the "exciting drama" of finding the red heifer required for Israel's coming Third Temple - to say the least, a highly novel way to describe World War Three!
Naturally, the media take care not to publicise this story much - along with other similar ones, presumably thinking that the cumulative effect of such items would be to disturb the masses.
As Shamir asks in his essay ‘Joseph Revisited’: "If the Jewish media lords cheat you about Palestine, why do you think they are honest in any other way? Perhaps the suffering of the Palestinians should help the Europeans and Americans to notice the reefs ahoy their own ship."
Zionist-dominated America still continues on its pre-determined course, with Britain in servile attendance, its latest heroic exploit being the obliteration bombing of an Afghan wedding party. But, assuredly, to use Shamir's analogy, more and more Europeans are noticing the reefs.
The Club
The British working-class lads - from Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow or South Wales - who go off on these senseless globalist wars usually choose this option merely as an alternative to the Job Centre queue. They are doubly the victims of what Shamir terms ‘The Club’ the neo-liberal élite who have consolidated their power over us during the last twenty years. As Shamir puts it in ‘The New Complaint of Portnoy’:-
‘Ordinary people still own most of the body parts of America and they are the muscle but the nerve system and brain have been taken over by the club of media lords and the managers of finance and trade, a new dominant power in the world.’
From a wrecked and poverty-stricken Argentina - under Peron one of the richest countries in the world - to a tattered United Kingdom, beset by collapsing public services, rampant poverty and racial conflict - ‘The Club’ still rules.
But its days are surely numbered. It is just as well that this is so, since a final doomsday conflict could well be unleashed as a consequence of ‘The Club's’ prejudices and preoccupations. Even without war, the present system has nothing to offer us except slavery and degradation. Shamir gives a chilling and succinct description of the forces that only nationalism now resists:-
‘The New World Order is, in religious terms, the beginning of the Kingdom of Anti-Christ, based on removal of all spiritual elements from our life. In practical terms, it is an ambitious attempt of total enslavement of Man.’
Most of Shamir's articles are available from the internet at
http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/archive.html.
All are interesting, but I would especially recommend ‘Apocalypse Now.’
Naturally, Shamir - despite being Jewish himself - has been derided as an ‘anti-Semite’ a ‘self-hater’ and also as an associate of so called far-right extremists (do they mean us?). Of his association with the Spotlight, he wittily commented that this US populist/nationalist paper had never called for the extermination of anyone -- which was rather more than could be said of some Israeli papers. Shamir's work definitely deserves to be better known.
The cynical ‘anti-Semitism’ slur is so often used as a means of controlling well-meaning but timid people who have just begun to wake up. Shamir deals with this matter in a typically clear and robust fashion:-
‘I met with many people who have been branded with the scarlet letter of the anti-Semite. These so-called anti-Semites object to the policies of the organised Jewish community, of the unholy alliance of Sharon and Abe Foxman, Gusinsky and Mark Rich, Conrad Black and William Safire. I concur with them wholeheartedly, as it is not a question of prejudice.
‘The professional ‘anti-Semitism-fighters’ know this very well. Their true purpose is not to fight anti-Semitism, but to frighten ordinary Jews into submission.’
There's racism and racism
Cherie Blair for one could have saved herself some embarrassment if she had read Shamir instead of ridiculous feminist tracts and tedious legal gobbledegook, for:-
‘An offence to the Jewish community is not considered a form of racism, as ordinary racism is tolerated with great ease, especially if it is directed towards Arabs (new enemies of Jews) or Blacks (old enemies of Jews). It is treated as a lese majesté (in the years of Jewish ascendancy in the Soviet Union (1917-1937), people were shot for an anti-Jewish remark).’
Now it's not generally considered to be ‘anti-British’ to state that Britain dominated India during the early part of the 20th century - that would be regarded as a bald statement of simple fact, and not a very interesting one at that.
So why should Shamir's comments about the Soviet Union cause great shrieks of annoyance? His blunt statement forms a neat contrast with the Gulag Archipelago, where Alexander Solzhenitsyn was surely trying to get the same information across in a very restrained, almost coded manner.
All nations and peoples - including the British - have discreditable episodes in their history, but in one special case we are supposed to suspend our critical facilities and judgement. It's not ‘bigotry’ or ‘hate’ to insist on a level playing field, and that the same standards should apply to everyone, which assuredly is not the case in Israel:
‘For years, the Jews protested the discrimination in employment and education. In our own state we created the system of total national discrimination. In our state-owned Electric company, out of 13,000 employees there are six Gentiles, 0.046 per cent. Gentiles form forty percent of the population between the Jordan River and the sea, but only one out of four has the right to vote. There are no Gentiles in the Supreme court, in the Government, in the Air Force, in the secret services. There is not even one Gentile on the board of the main Israeli liberal newspaper, Haaretz.’
Shamir's major message - which he hammers home time and time again - is that while Israel may present itself as a democratic and liberal state, it is in fact nothing of the sort. He also goes on to point out correctly that US support for this state causes some ludicrous policy distortions, which in turn are the major cause of conflict and instability in the contemporary world.
Indeed, America is already metamorphising into a sort of Greater Israel, with its recalcitrant and disillusioned ordinary citizens cast in the role of Palestinians. Given the present baleful trend of increasing ‘homeland security’, one can easily imagine a scenario in which the rights to free speech and to bear arms are cast aside. Goodbye, First and Second Amendments, you're out of date now in the one-time land of the free and home of the brave. That America has now become transformed into a sort of blundering Frankenstein monster for the Republic of Israel, a dog that's wagged by the tail.
The great British public gets agitated by possibly fake pictures of a Palestinian toddler dressed as a suicide bomber, but fails to note the utter madness on the other side of the conflict. If anyone doubts this, just consider carefully. the following words of Nick Cohen, who is incidentally a bitter opponent of British nationalism:-
‘If you have access to an internet search engine, type in Third Temple and you will find serious proposals from Jewish fundamentalists to demolish one of the holiest Islamic sites and replace it with a successor to Solomon's temple, levelled by the Babylonians, and the second temple, levelled by the Romans. Christian fundamentalists are as keen to get the bulldozers moving because they've been avowed that Christ won't come again until the Third Temple is up.’
In the books of Rabbi Chaim Richman, the construction of this temple is treated almost as a fait accompli, with only one element missing - the ashes of the red heifer required for its ceremonial purification. Richman babbles on about the "exciting drama" of finding the red heifer required for Israel's coming Third Temple - to say the least, a highly novel way to describe World War Three!
Naturally, the media take care not to publicise this story much - along with other similar ones, presumably thinking that the cumulative effect of such items would be to disturb the masses.
As Shamir asks in his essay ‘Joseph Revisited’: "If the Jewish media lords cheat you about Palestine, why do you think they are honest in any other way? Perhaps the suffering of the Palestinians should help the Europeans and Americans to notice the reefs ahoy their own ship."
Zionist-dominated America still continues on its pre-determined course, with Britain in servile attendance, its latest heroic exploit being the obliteration bombing of an Afghan wedding party. But, assuredly, to use Shamir's analogy, more and more Europeans are noticing the reefs.
The Club
The British working-class lads - from Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow or South Wales - who go off on these senseless globalist wars usually choose this option merely as an alternative to the Job Centre queue. They are doubly the victims of what Shamir terms ‘The Club’ the neo-liberal élite who have consolidated their power over us during the last twenty years. As Shamir puts it in ‘The New Complaint of Portnoy’:-
‘Ordinary people still own most of the body parts of America and they are the muscle but the nerve system and brain have been taken over by the club of media lords and the managers of finance and trade, a new dominant power in the world.’
From a wrecked and poverty-stricken Argentina - under Peron one of the richest countries in the world - to a tattered United Kingdom, beset by collapsing public services, rampant poverty and racial conflict - ‘The Club’ still rules.
But its days are surely numbered. It is just as well that this is so, since a final doomsday conflict could well be unleashed as a consequence of ‘The Club's’ prejudices and preoccupations. Even without war, the present system has nothing to offer us except slavery and degradation. Shamir gives a chilling and succinct description of the forces that only nationalism now resists:-
‘The New World Order is, in religious terms, the beginning of the Kingdom of Anti-Christ, based on removal of all spiritual elements from our life. In practical terms, it is an ambitious attempt of total enslavement of Man.’
Most of Shamir's articles are available from the internet at
http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/archive.html. All are interesting, but I would especially recommend ‘Apocalypse Now.’
Ian Buckley
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Shamir is both anti-jew and anti-worker
25.08.2002 21:39
Anti-semitism has no place in the
Palestine solidarity movement
A back-and-forth between Tim Hall and Israel Shamir on Shamir's embrace of anti-semitism, Le Pen, and left-right (red-brown) alliance
(Based on Communist Voice, vol. 8, #2, issue #29, June 20, 2002, but with the full text of the exchange instead of excerpts)
. Israel Shamir is a Russian Jew who immigrated to Israel in 1969, and served in the Israeli army. He later became a journalist and writer who has lived in various places around the world, a supporter of a left-wing zionist party (the Israeli Socialist Party, Mapam), and finally an advocate of justice for the Palestinians and of their right of return. And he is one of the few Israeli voices in favor of a unified state of Palestine/Israel.
. But he has also been involved in some strange dealing with the racist right-wing over the years. He has written for the Russian paper Zavtra (Tomorrow), which is a "red-brown" (left-right) paperit unites ultra-nationalists and anti-semites with the so-called "Communist Party of the Russian Federation", which regards state-capitalism and Stalinism as communism. His current writing is full of raw anti-Jewish ranting and advocates left-right unity with such notorious reactionaries as Le Pen. He regards Le Pen as an ally against globalization, has taken up the anti-immigrant cause, and spews out bigoted, anti-semitic trash, from the old nonsense about the Jews having killed Christ to the identification of neo-liberalism not with capitalism, but with Judaism. His article Dangerous Llaisons of April, and his subsequent defense of it, brought this aspect of Shamir's activities to the attention of Tim Hall, editor of the literary magazine Struggle (for more about Struggle, see the brief description of its spring issue on page 65 [or see the section of the CV web site devoted to the revolutionary literary zine Struggle]). Below we carry the resulting correspondence between Tim Hall and Shamir (Communist Voice vol. 8,#2 carried only excerpts). Shamir's own web site is www.israelshamir.net.
Israel Shamir: The Dangerous Liaisons (4-22):
Tim Hall objects (4-26):
Shamir's reply (4-26), followed by his reply to others who attacked his Le Pen article (4-26):
Tim's response to Shamir on Le Pen, immigration, and anti-semitism (5-3):
Tim Hall to Shamir (5-6):
Shamir's defense (5-8):
Tim on Shamir's alliance with Le Pen (5-16):
Shamir again defends alliance with Le Pen (two e-mails: 5-16, 5-18):
Tim denounces left-right unity (5-18):
Shamir mocks the left (5-18):
Tim denounces Shamir's unity with the left udner the anti-semitic banner (5-21):
The Dangerous Liaisons:
The Beginning of the End of the Jewish Post-War Ascendancy?
By Israel Shamir (April 23, 2002)
.
. The people of France have sent an important message to the world, by electing the traditionalist leader, Jean-Mari le Pen to the second round of the French presidential elections. It was not just a proof of general dissatisfaction, as NY Times claimed. The first round occurred while the Jewish troops besieged the Church of Nativity, starved nuns, shot priests, and despoiled the land of Christ. Israeli bulldozers worked around the clock covering mass graves of their innocent victims in the Jenin refugee camp, Jewish soldiers destroyed churches and mosques in Nablus, shot at the Holy Virgin in Bethlehem, while one hundred fifty thousand Jews marched in Paris and elsewhere, supporting the genocide in Palestine. Waving Israeli flags and draped in the blue and white colours of their national banner (the tricolour is dropped and forgotten), the Jews marched from the Place de la République to the Place de la Bastille in Paris, chanting in French and Hebrew and carrying signs that read "Yesterday New York, today Jerusalem, tomorrow Paris. "
. Today's Jerusalem is an unhappy city, its non-Jewish majority dispossessed, uprooted, pushed into ghetto and controlled by the brutal Jewish Border Police. Today's Jerusalem has the most advanced torture facilities, and there, thousands of kidnapped Palestinians are subjected to electric chocks, beating and humiliation. Today's Jerusalem is a place where only Jews can move freely and enjoy the fruits of civilisation. Should it be a model for tomorrow's Paris? Mais non, the people of France had experienced the German Nazi conquest in 1940s, and they did not want to try the Judeo-Nazi occupation.
. That was the main message sent by the French voter. We should thank General Sharon's brutality and ill-conceived solidarity of Jews in France with the génocidaire for this result. Until now, the Jews were divided in their tasks and purposes. In Palestine, they created a toxic, ferociously nationalist and religiously fanatic entity based on Hitler's Nuremberg Laws. Elsewhere, in France as well as in Britain, they promoted the pseudo-liberal paradigm of dismantling European national and cultural content in favour of the Judeo-American spirit. In Palestine, they shot at the church; in France, they undermined it by subterfuge. One law for themselves: extreme right wing nationalism of Sharon. Another law for the goyiim: liberal New Labour of Tony Blair.
. If the Jews would have sense, they would keep the inner dialectical unity of their pincer-movement attack as their best guarded secret. But they were inebriated by their successes. The spiritual teacher of Sephardic Jews, Rabbi Obadiah Joseph, ruled that Jews should not show their ascendancy in the world until they would be able to destroy the Christian Churches in the Holy Land. Now, with the Nativity besieged, they apparently felt the condition is fulfilled. Jews became united to an extent unknown since the days of Christ, and united by a common will, single purpose and a feeling of arriving to the pinnacle of power. XIntoxication of power and unity caused the usually cautious people to drop masks, to leave pretences. It seems the Jews call out 'Kill him', as two thousand years ago. This new openness provided us with a previously unheard-of insight into the soul of the Jews and their supporters.
. An authentic Jewish voice, Ron Grossman of Chicago Tribune[i] wrote, "As a self-proclaimed humanist, I ought to recoil in horror from the thought of tanks rumbling through a city, anybody's city. My head should hang in sorrow at televised images of street fighting (rather, massacres - ISH) in Bethlehem and Ramallah. But here is a hint: Don't lecture or preach to us. Forget about appealing to our better selves".
. Please note this plural 'us' before denying the obvious. The Jews do not hide anymore behind the useful but dated device of "Americans, French or British citizens of Jewish faith". It is again The Jews, a single body with a single mind. Forget about appealing to their better selves, as they have not got any. 'The better selves' were just a device.
. "No one can express the aspirations of most Israelis like the prime minister. This is not a war that was waged by Sharon, the "warmonger," this is the war of all of us", reports Gideon Levy, a man of heart and conscience, who was recently banned from the pages of the 'liberal' Haaretz. (I was banned ten years ago. Welcome to the club, Gideon!) "It will also be very difficult to blame Sharon for the consequences of the war, in the light of the sweeping support he has been given by the majority of Israelis. Nearly 30,000 men were mobilized and they reported for duty as one man, making the refusal movement, with 21 refuseniks currently in jail, irrelevant".
. The Jews abroad were just as awful as those in Palestine. Professor David D. Perlmutter wrote in LA Times[ii]: "I daydream--if only! If in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 Israel had acted just a bit like the Third Reich, then today Israelis would shop, eat pizza, marry and celebrate the holy days unmolested. And of course Jews, not sheiks, would have that Gulf oil'. Witty if snobbish Taki of the British weekly Spectator contributed the following anecdotal evidence of the new Jewish vehemence and single-mindedness: "On Easter Sunday, during lunch, the richest woman in Israel, Irit Lando[iii], suddenly burst into my house and began to harangue my friends and family about Adam Shapiro. Despite the fact she's one of my wife's oldest friends and was invited to drop in after lunch, I was extremely annoyed. I reminded Irit that my house was not Israeli occupied territory; that it was Easter; and knowing how I feel about the plight of the Palestinians, she should change the subject. Which she did, turning on the press, instead, and how they gave publicity to that godawful traitor Adam Shapiro".
. As few mavericks of Jewish origin like Adam Shapiro or marvellous Jennifer Loewenstein became increasingly marginalized, the Jews en masse rally to support Sharon and Israel. From Moscow to Brooklyn, from Marseille to Hampstead, the Jews speak in one voice. WE ARE ONE, proclaimed the headline of the Jewish Week. This vision of united, ready for the kill, Jewry could not but scare the French voter, and any thinking man. Le Pen was probably the only French politician totally opposed by the Jews.
. The French and the West European Left should learn the lesson before it is too late. Their liaison with the Jews became a liability and a source of embarrassment. Historically it was probably justified, but not any more. Even the Jewish stranglehold on media can not deliver the electoral goods. Instead of supporting Jewish agenda, the Left should compete with the Right by addressing problems of working class in the country and of the income disparity on the global scale. There should be no more immigration, and this task calls to stop the main creator of immigration, the unfair Judeo-American globalisation and Bush and Blair's War against Islam. In the forthcoming May elections in the UK, the Left should give the boot to Michael Levy's protégé Tony Blair, and turn to the tradition of Michael Foot.
. The electoral success of Le Pen could signify the beginning of the end of the Jewish post-war ascendancy. Inverting the slogan of French Jews, we say, "Yesterday Paris, Today Washington, and Tomorrow Jerusalem".
[i] http://www. chicagotribune. com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0204070422apr 07. s
[ii] April 7, 2002
[iii] I normalised the spelling of her name. Taki the snob had to spell quite an ordinary Jewish name Landoi (var. Landau) in the French way.
Tim Hall objects (4-26):
.
Dear Israel,
. From within Israel itself you have been a courageous voice in defense of the Palestinians, hailing their struggle and advocating a one-state, one-person-one-vote solution which would effectively dismantle the Zionist theocratic state if implemented.
. Hence it is with great disappointment that I read your April 25 article "The Dangerous Liaisons," which applauds the electoral success of the fascist Le Pen in France and raises the old fascist bogey of the "World Jewish Conspiracy," which you re-name the "Judeo-American spirit." You take up Le Pen's retrograde call to oppose immigration and you make a ludicrous claim that the French voter is faced with a "Judeo-nazi occupation. " You thus imply that those who voted for Le Pen inherit the tradition of the World War II anti-nazi Resistance. You even lay major blame for the present capitalist globalization on the Jews (it is hardly a Jewish monopoly, being an American-led imperialist globalization heavily supported by the EU and other capitalist powers). Factually, what you are saying is garbage. In its effect, it does nothing but help Sharon and the Israeli conquerors.
. Even if, as you claim, virtually all Jews were united in support of Sharon's brutality, that would be no reason to support Le Pen, a fervent defender of French colonial domination of Algeria. Le Pen's anti-immigrant call, which is obviously directed against Arabs and which you so shamefully embrace, is indefensible: at what point in history do you draw the line and declare that the immigrants who arrived before that date are "the true French" (or "the true Americans") and those who arrived later are "foreigners"? To play this game is to be a pawn of the cliques of billionaires who rule the world and use national/racial conflict to keep their working-class subjects divided and at war with each other.
. Factually, the "World Jewish Conspiracy" (you stress the Jewish part of what you call the "Judeo-American spirit") is also garbage. Yes, there are very powerful Jewish -- and, obviously, American -- capitalists. But there are also powerful capitalists of every other industrially developed nationality. Focusing all blame on only one or two nationalities among the ruling class lets all the others off the hook. Henry Ford and the majority of world capitalists were quite happy to finance Hitler to blame all the ills of the world on the Jews. It helped their class survive.
. Factually, again, the impression you give of all Jews being united behind Sharon is also false. Large numbers of anti-Zionist Jews took part in the big April 20th demonstrations in Washington, D. C. , and San Francisco. Progressive Jews are active in the militant pro-Palestinian student movement at the University of California Berkeley campus. Abroad, indignant Jewish voices have been heard in the UK and elsewhere denouncing Sharon's aggression.
. The present moment is certainly a turning point for the Palestinian struggle. It is also a turning point for the movement of solidarity with the Palestinians. Sharon's brutal aggression has horrified justice-loving people everywhere. It creates an unprecedented opportunity to expose Zionism and win people away from its influence. But in order to do that, we cannot transfer one ounce of our genuine hatred of Zionist brutality to blaming the Jewish people as a whole.
. That direction leads to fascism. I hope you will turn back from it.
Sincerely,
Tim Hall
Shamir's reply (4-26), followed by his reply to others
who attacked his Le Pen article (4-26):
.
Dear Tim,
. You misunderstood me! I quote myself: Some readers misunderstood me and thought I support Le Pen. Surely I do not: Le Pen is a bad guy in my books, but bad guys will be called to undo the excessive Jewish power if the good guys fail to do it.
Shamir
Responses to the Dangerous Liaisons by Israel Shamir
.
. My commentary on Le Pen's electoral success in the first round of the French presidential elections caused many responses, from exuberant "Yes, man. I agree with every word" of Gilad Atzmon, the Israeli musician and writer, to surly "Take me off your list. I'm seeking to have you banned from al-awda-unity"of the good Jewish American supporter of Palestinians, Stanley Heller.
. The discourse went by two distinct routes, one, referring to Le Pen, his policies and circumstances, including the question of immigration; two, is the usual 'fight against anti-Semitism' of our Jewish friends. Their texts are given below, while the original Dangerous Liaisons is in the very end.
. I hesitate to enter another debate of anti-Semitism. After Jenin massacre, during the vicious siege of the Church of Nativity, I am not sure we should give much consideration to fine feelings of our Jewish friends. Hundred years ago, a similar discussion went on between the Russian Bolsheviks (of Jewish or any other origin) and the Jewish Bundists. Bund guys felt the Jewish people are too special to get the general treatment. Years and aeons passed, but good people like Stanley (and I like and appreciate him and his work for the cause) do not succeed to get out of Bund mould. My good friend Miriam wondered, why I should annoy people by speaking of 'Jewish' soldiers, snipers etc instead of the 'Israeli' ones. Dear Miriam, Israel means Jews. That is the meaning of the word. The State of Israel means the state of Jews. Beside semantics, there are none but us Jews in power of Israel. Enough of this small game of distinction between Israel and Jews, as we witness mass unlimited support of Jews for Israel.
. If our Jewish friends' feelings are hurt, they are now in the same boat with the Muslims, terrorists to a man, with the Germans, willing executioners of You-Know-Who, with Europeans (White Supremacists) and the rest of mankind. This demand of a special treatment for the Jews is a source of Jewish neurosis. Why a Jewish Week may write, "We (the Jews) Are One", but I may not repeat: "the Jews are unified to an incredible extent"? Isn't it a case of having a cake and eating it, proclaiming unity within and forbidding the outsiders to see it?
. Stanley objects to an 'old canard' of Jews as enemies of Christ. We live in the strange days when old canards became true. Jews besiege the Church of Nativity, and probably will destroy it soon -- is it an "old canard" or reality? Hundreds of children are murdered in Palestine -- is it an "old canard" or reality? Senate and Congress of the US kowtow to the Jews -- is it an "old canard" or reality? Stan is sure that the Americans will forever stand by the Jews, right or wrong. Well, the success of Le Pen should teach him that it can change. He thinks that Le Pen won the hearts of French voters by his anti-Muslim views. How come, then, that he was tried twice for his "anti-Semitic" remarks, and never - for an anti-Muslim ones? I am not alone in my opinion: Naomi Klein of No Logo wrote: The hatred of Jews is a potent political tool in the hands of the right in Europe and in Israel. For Mr. Le Pen, anti-Semitism is a windfall, helping spike his support from 10 per cent to 17 per cent in a week.
. Some readers misunderstood me and thought I support Le Pen. Surely I do not: Le Pen is a bad guy in my books, but bad guys will be called to undo the excessive Jewish power if the good guys fail to do it. The paradigm of Chosenness makes no harm as long as it is kept separately from power. Being empowered, it becomes a source of great trouble for mankind, and eventually for the pretenders to the Chosenness. History is made of harsh but just stuff: at first, it offers the pretenders a peaceful way out. Whoever fails to take it, will learn a hard way. The Jews who rejected Christ's message of peace with neighbours were crushed by the Roman legions just thirty years later. The Jews, who rejected the peaceful message of togetherness, and moved from Left to Right, may yet live to regret it.
. As to the question of immigration, immigrants should be allowed to integrate fully in the lands they chose to live in. But an additional import of immigrants is disruptive and inhuman.
Shamir
Tim's response to Shamir on Le Pen, immigration, and anti-semitism (5-3):
.
Dear Israel,
. Your article "The Dangerous Liaisons" (4-23-02) was controversial for two things: its apparent support for the French fascist demagogue Le Pen and its denunciation of the entire Jewish people for the crimes of Zionism in the wake of Sharon's aggression.
. Answering criticism in "Responses to the Dangerous Liaisons" (4-26-02), you assert that you do not really support Le Pen. At the same time you reiterate your condemnation of the Jewish people.
. Let us take the Le Pen question first. You declare, in your defense: "Some readers misunderstand me and thought I support Le Pen. Surely I do not: Le Pen is a bad guy in my books, but bad guys will be called to undo the excessive Jewish power if the good guys fail to do it. " You claim that this is not supporting Le Pen. But what it really means is that you do support him: if the "good guy" (presumably here the Palestinians and the world's masses) can't defeat Zionist (you say "Jewish") reaction, you hold out hopes that Le Pen will perform a service to the world's people by doing it. I can't see any other meaning to this sentence and it does, in fact, constitute support for Le Pen. You are turning to a sleazy, vicious reactionary to fight your main enemy for you. Have you given up on the ordinary masses?
. Furthermore, there is the problem of your statements about immigration. You say you are only against new immigration. But the point is, to be democratic, to fight for the least oppressive situation for the workers under capitalism, we must be for the freedom to go from country to country in search of work. That's what most immigration is about. The severe interference with such movement by the authorities only condemns the workers to worse servitude by subjecting them to harassment, prison, deportation, etc. Keeping the workers in turmoil, keeping a section (the recent immigrants) without even the limited rights won by the earlier immigrants, only serves the rich bosses. But you have sadly taken up Le Pen's banner here as well.
. Finally, with regard to your present views on the "world Jewish conspiracy" (you stress the "Judeo" part of what you call the "Judeo-American spirit") being the core of world oppression, this is not only false but is very helpful to Sharon at this critical moment. Your answer to the complaints about the "Liaisons" article on this score are twofold.
. First, you state correctly that the world mainstream (imperialist, I would add) press constantly blames whole nations for the crimes of their ruling classes, as in the case of blaming "the Germans" for World War II, etc. So what right, you ask, do Jews have to complain when the same thing is done to them? True, the mainstream press does do this, in order -- consciously or unconsciously -- to pit one nation against another. But just when did you join the scurrilous, lying, jingoist mainstream press -- on April 23, 2002? [date of Shamir's The Dangerous Liaisons] I hope not. Inciting one nation against another only pushes the masses of each country closer to their rulers; progressive writers work to separate the masses of each country from their rulers, especially in oppressor countries like the U. S. and Israel.
. You look at the present situation and see considerable unity among Jews behind the Zionists. I think you exaggerate its extent. But when certain Jews write you in protest against your condemnation of them all, you answer that we can't worry too much right now about the feelings of "our Jewish friends. " Not only does this falsely suggest that progressive Jews are a minuscule number, but it misses the point altogether. The point is, no matter what is the actual number of progressive Jews, progressive people are duty-bound to expose the crimes of the Sharon war machine in the West Bank and use this exposure to split Jews and others away from Zionism. This is a historic moment. Never has the opportunity been greater to expose the reactionary nature of Zionism to the world's people, including to Jews. You, and all of us, are being tested.
. But at this historic moment, you have seemingly thrown up your hands in despair, as if to say, "The Jews? Oh, they're all in the pocket of Sharon. To hell with them! I'll sic Le Pen on the whole damn bunch!" Do you really think that Le Pen will help the Arabs who are being slaughtered by Sharon? The Arabs to whom you have, to your great credit, shown such support in the past?
. This is very sad. What if the American youth had taken this attitude to the American people in 1965-69, when B-52's and napalm were slaughtering Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians by the hundreds of thousands? But we didn't, and it's time for you to show that same spirit.
Sincerely,
Tim Hall
Tim Hall to Shamir (5-6):
.
Dear Israel,
. Last night I added the following comment to a set of brief comments which were made on the posting I left of our disagreement on Palestine Indymedia on 5-4-02:
. If anyone is still listening -- both Ilona and Roger accuse me of the same thing: essentially reading into Shamir's comments a support for Le Pen that is not there. I won't re-state what I said then but only add that if Shamir was not supporting Le Pen and his sort of fascist solution to the crisis, what then was the meaning of the the final two sentences of "Liaisons": "The electoral success of Le Pen could signify the beginning of the end. Inverting the slogan of the French Jews, we say, 'Yesterday Paris, Today Washington, Tommorrow Jerusalem. '? At the time Shamir was writing, "yesterday" could only have referred to Le Pen's electoral inroads before the general election saw him trounced. In the context of the article there is no other possible event that "yesterday" could refer to. So Shamir was positing first a Le Pen advance in France, followed by something similar in the U. S. and then something similar in Israel. So this is the slogan, the prospect, the path forward he is hailing the "Liaisons. " How can this not be seen as support for Le Pen?
. Furthermore, reading "Liaisons" again now, I am struck by its racist flavor. It sounds very much like a nazi diatribe against Jews. I am not saying that Shamir is a nazi, and I have stressed his services to Palestinian liberation and justice in general in the past. However, I can't stand by silent when an eloquent voice turns in what I firmly believe to be a dangerous direction.
Tim Hall
Shamir's defense (5-8):
.
Dear Tim,
. I am a great believer in unlimited free discourse, especially among comrades and friends. That is why, in comradely and friendly way, I would like to respond to you in brief.
. As I wrote, I do not support Le Pen. I also reject such conjectures as 'in fact, constitute support'. If I support somebody, I am perfectly able to express it. You write: 'You are turning to a sleazy, vicious reactionary to fight your main enemy for you'. In the same way, Stalin and Churchill united against Hitler. I am not over-choosy in choice of allies. Do not forget, I am an Israeli, and Israelis were friends with all sorts of fascists.
. As for immigration, you say, "we must be for the freedom to go from country to country in search of work. " Well, I am against it. I think import of workers from poor countries causes decline in standards achieved by workers of receiving country and a braindrain for the donor country. In your opinion, it is Le Pen's banner. But it is the line of Fidel Castro, as well. Read it in his wonderful book on Globalisation and Capitalism, published by Ocean Press in 1999.
. As for Jews, nowadays Jews constitute a new aristocracy, a new ruling class in your country, the US. That is why it perfectly OK to be against Jewish supremacy, in the same way as to be against supremacy of aristocracy in England, against supremacy of Brahmin in India etc. In no way it implies a racist rejection of a Jew, an aristocrat or a Brahmin: Trotsky was a Jew, Lenin was an aristocrat, as Michael Foot, and Nehru and Gandhi were Brahmins. Give it a thought.
Your friend,
Shamir
Tim on Shamir's alliance with Le Pen (5-16):
.
Dear Israel,
. You say you do not "support" Le Pen, you only "ally" with him. What's the difference? You are playing with words. Every alliance, no matter how critical, involves support. Everybody knows this. So you do, in fact, support Le Pen, while you call it only an "alliance. " But you won't admit it.
. I am harping on this question because you are choosing to rely on one reactionary (Le Pen) to fight another (Sharon and what you call the "Jewish aristocracy"). I am (and you formerly seemed to be) an advocate of relying on the struggle of the masses. To encourage hope that reactionary fascist dogs will help the people is to weaken the masses' struggle, in this case the Palestinian struggle and its solidarity movement worldwide.
. And what a reactionary you have picked to rely on! Le Pen is as fanatically against Arabs as he is against Jews. It's even reported that he tortured Arab fighters during the Algerian revolution! You are known as a supporter of the Palestinians. How can you reconcile the two positions?
. And your support for ("alliance with" -- excuse me) Le Pen is not even critical. You fervently embrace at least two of the main political positions of the contemporary European right -- opposition to immigration and opposition to supposed Jewish domination. This shows that your "alliance" with Le Pen is not a matter of mere words; it is an alliance of political positions. The more you defend it the more disgusting it becomes.
. You state that we in America live under the domination of a "Jewish aristocracy. " If you are speaking of the Jewish capitalists and their administrators, we are indeed living under them. But we are also living -- even more so -- under the heel of a "gentile (non-Jewish) aristocracy. " There's a word for this situation: it's called "capitalism. "
. Instead of single-mindedly supporting the masses, you are pinning at least some of your hopes on a fascist dog. Instead of splitting Jews away from Sharon, with your rhetoric against all Jews you are driving them into his arms, justifying his claim that Zionism is the only home for them. What a shame!
Sincerely,
Tim Hall
Shamir again defends alliance with Le Pen
(two e-mails: 5-16, 5-18):
Dear Timothy,
. Did Stalin support Churchill? No, he allied with him. That is the difference. Now we have a big enemy, that is globalisation. That is a common enemy for the Left and the Right. We should try and beat the enemy and then deal with the Right.
Sincerely,
Shamir
Dear Tim,
. The circumstances change all the time. Now, the main danger for the world is the double paradigm of Globalisation and Zionism pursued by the Jews. I make a difference between the Jews, i.e. the Jewish quasi-state, and Jews, or people of Jewish origin. Jews understand this difference. One may and should oppose the Jews, like one opposes the US. It does not mean one wants to kill Americans or Jews. Try to understand it. And try to stay away from sentimentalist nonsense 'disgusting', 'shame' - these are not Marxist words.
. Try also to see who is the most dangerous enemy - is it Le Pen or Mortimer Zuckermann?
Yours,
Israel Shamir
Tim denounces left-right unity (5-18):
.
. You are living in a never-never land, thinking that the left and the right have common interests and can unite. The right everywhere strives in every way to smash the organizations of the workers, the masses, the left. The right is an instrument of the wealthy capitalists, though it hides this fact with various kinds of protest rhetoric. This rhetoric has you fooled. Consequently you fail to see that this is a life-and-death fight. The lion will never lie down with the lamb. You are telling the left to act like a lamb towards the right but this will only help the lion devour us. Shame on you!
. Here in the U. S. we have learned from bitter experience to attack the Klan, the nazis, the white supremacists, the extreme right wherever they appear. If we don't they will certainly attack us. Since the early 1960's I have been personally involved in these clashes numerous times, in the civil rights movement, in the anti-Vietnam War movement, on workers' picket lines, while distributing communist literature and holding communist conferences, while marching against intervention in Nicaragua, etc.
. Your position only weakens the left. It is disgraceful.
Sincerely,
Tim Hall
Shamir mocks the left (5-18):
.
. Fat lot of good it made to you! You fought a non-existent Clan, and helped the Globalists and Zionists to carry a day. If you would clash with Sulzberger, Zuckerman, other media lords, you would do a good deed. White supremacists are nothing in comparison with the Jewish supremacists.
. How old are you, Tim? Do not you understand that things [have] changed since Viet Nam?
Sincerely,
Shamir
Tim denounces Shamir's
unity with the right under the anti-semitic banner (5-21):
.
. Even if white supremacists were a lesser threat than the Zionists, as you allege, that would not justify allying with them as you ally with Le Pen. I stress again, you are pushing the anti-Jewish rhetoric of fascism. Now you claim that it doesn't mean that you are against all Jews. Sure, and the white supremacists always had a token black or two that they "liked" while they attacked the rest of the black people.
. You state, in your May 17 email, "Now, the main danger for the world is the double paradigm of Globalisation and Zionism pursued by the Jews. " Evidently this means that the Jews are the main danger to the world. Goebbels would be proud. You must have carefully studied that trove of nazi memorabilia that you tried to sell to the notorious holocaust-denier David Irving.
. As for fighting the Klan versus fighting Sulzberger, et al, The New York Times was opposed to both the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movements. So we were simultaneously fighting the Klan and other rightists as well as their big capitalist backers. This is elementary. As for the Klan being "non-existent," as you claim, it certainly wasn't non-existent then, and if it is weakened now, it is because of the fight the masses have made against it. But apparently the Klan has remained significant enough for the editor of Zavtra, the Russian newspaper you have worked for, Aleksandr Prokhanov, to have invited the former Klan Grand Dragon David Duke to visit him for a month in Moscow in September 2000.
. Did you all have a nice chat about bringing the right and the left together to fight the Jews? Mr. Duke would love to have us stop fighting him. And so would you, since you consider it outmoded.
Tim Hall
jeff
Homepage:
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/29cLetters.html
"No place in the Palestine Solidarity movement"?
12.02.2004 15:02
Benjamin