Zionism and Anti-Semitism: Argument / Counter-Argument

by LAWRENCE DAVIDSON

A Lack of Originality

One thing that characterizes dogmatists is a lack of originality. You buy into the dogma and that’s it. Your worldview is complete—and so are your rationalizations, defensive pronouncements and complaints.

I have been an opponent of the Zionist dogma for almost fifty years (wow!) because it (1) denies Palestinians their civil and communal rights; (2) corrupts many Jews with a siren song of racially based nationalism; (3) undermines the concepts of international law and human rights and (4) seduces the U.S. government into supporting Zionist ethnic nationalist ambitions.

During the last twenty years I have noticed that the arguments used by the Zionists to defend their policies and practices have been quite consistent. This can’t be because they are convincing, since they are clearly losing the battle for public opinion. It may be that being a dogmatist simply robs you of any originality and flexibility.

Recently I was again struck by this consistency when I read a brief piece published on 12 December 2018 in the New York Times (NYT) by David Harris, chief executive officer of American Jewish Committee. The piece, entitled “Why Anti-Zionism Is Malign” (“malign” here meaning malevolent) was written in reaction to an earlier (7 December 2018) NYT editorial column by Michelle Goldberg entitled “Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism”.

The Harris piece lays out some of the basic Zionist arguments in defense of Israel and their complaints about opposition positions. That being so, I thought it presented a good opportunity to briefly run through these points and, not for the first time or the last, debunk each in turn. So here goes.

Arguments and Counter-Arguments

Argument One: Anti-Zionists are really anti-Semites.

For anyone with an accurate historical view of anti-Zionism and an accurate definition of historical anti-Semitism, Harris’s assertion is hard to understand. From the historical perspective it is comparing apples and oranges. The only way to merge the two is by realigning reality.

Zionism is a political dogma that insists on an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine. It operates like a political party line.  Anti-Semitism is the age-old prejudice against Jews as Jews. The way the Zionists attempt to realign the world so that the two different concepts merge is by making the false claim that the State of Israel represents every Jew on the planet. If you buy into that claim, it seems to follow that anyone who is critical of Israel must also be critical of Jews per se.

In her December 7 column Michelle Goldberg called this proposition into question when she noted that “There’s a long history of Jewish anti-Zionism or non-Zionism, both secular and religious,” and this testifies to the fact that “it’s entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot.” Harris and his “committee” claimed to be “outraged” by this fact-based claim.

And what are we to make of the following point, also noted by Ms. Goldberg? If many Jews do not support Zionism or Israel, there are a number of anti-Semites who do. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is courting them as potential allies.The case may be that to take up the cause of ethnic nationalism you have to be a bigot.

Argument Two: “To deny the Jewish people, of all the peoples on earth, the right to self-determination surely is discriminatory.”

One big problem here: many anti-Zionists do not actually deny Jews of the “right of self-determination.” What they really stipulate is that the Jews (or any other people) should not realize self-determination through racist policies, that in this case, deny another people (the Palestinians) of self-determination.This is one of the Zionists’ moral blindspots—the inability to see, or care about, the real consequences of their actions and ends. The use of the phrase “of all peoples on earth” implies a sense of exceptionalism that (as in so many other cases past and present) excuses all manner of crimes through the process of special pleading.

Argument Three: “To single out Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, for demonization and isolation, while ignoring egregious human rights violators aplenty, once again smacks of anti-Jewish hatred.”

There are three parts to this claim: (1) that Israel is “the only liberal democracy in the Middle East”; (2) that it is being singled out for demonization and isolation while others are ignored; and (3) this process must be an expression of “anti-Jewish hatred”. Basically, there is a lot of whining going on here.

Alas, Israel is not a liberal democracy. It has always been the case that its ideologically driven aim is to give full political and civil rights to Israeli Jews only, and to this end it has used democratic facades to hide the truth. As a consequence, Israel has worked itself into an apartheid state status—an apartheid is a crime against humanity under international law.

The belated realization of this fact by “liberal Zionists” has created a lot of angst. If liberal Jews are increasingly alienated by Israeli behavior, just how liberal can that country be?

As to the use of the term “demonization”: it simply does not apply. The bases for criticizing Israel are drawn from the standards of International law and the universal declaration of human rights. There is no wild mud slinging here. The charges of Israeli racism are fact based.

To complain that those critical of Israel aren’t equally critical of others reminds one of the little kid who, when caught being really bad says, ‘Hey, what about those other guys’? As if catching him in the act, while not simultaneously chasing after others, somehow taints the accusation that the kid is a delinquent.

There is also the fact that if anti-Zionists appear to treat Israel differently, it is because the Zionist state has earned its special place of blame. How so? Agents of the Zionist state have worked for decades, and all too successfully, to arrange U.S. and other Western support of racist and illegal expansionist Israeli policies and practices. As Michelle Goldberg again suggests, the result is the corruption of “fundamental American [and other Western] values” and, one might add, the waste of billions of dollars in tax-payer money. That being the case, the Zionists deserve “special scrutiny”.

Argument Four: The Israelis have always wanted peace. However, their “efforts to forge a peace deal with the Palestinians” have been “spurned time and again” for over 70 years.”

This is an ideologically skewed version of the “peace process.” It is, of course, true that both parties have made repeated peace proposals. However, those made by Israel would have always resulted in an unsustainable Palestinian mini-state, essentially disarmed, economically under the thumb of Israel, and open to incursions by its powerful and paranoid neighbor. This might appear to Zionists such as David Harris as a good faith effort at peace—his questionable view of reality could make it seem that way—but no Palestinian could agree to what would be a surrender of their national rights.

Conclusion

Zionist presentations of their case, at least to the general public, almost always come in the form of knee-jerk reactions to various forms of criticism. This was certainly the case of David Harris’s presentation, written out of “outrage” at the rather mild criticism of Zionist positions offered by Michelle Goldberg (herself Jewish).

Harris offers no new ideas, no compromises, and certainly no mea culpas. Under the circumstances the confused and uncertain reader might approach the seeming impasse of argument and counter-argument this way: it is perhaps not an issue of what is “real.” Dogmatists of every sort have a hard time assessing objective reality. It is more a question of what sort of a world do we want to be “real”? Are the notions of international law and human rights a better or worst basis for our world than ethnocentric nationalism and religious exclusivity? We know the Zionist answer to this question and just how sensitive they are to any challenges. What then is your preference?

Dumb and Dumber: How Zionist lies about Syria and fake news will make you laugh again

By Jonas E. Alexis

































































































































The Ayatollah Khomeini predicted in 1979 that “international Zionism” seeks “to swallow up the material resources of the countries it has succeeded in dominating,” and it “exploits the oppressed people of the world by means of the large-scale propaganda campaigns…”



 

Children in Syria are important to CNN–but not children in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, whom the US has been killing since the Iraq war.

…by Jonas E. Alexis

If you have lost your sense of humor because of the political conflict in Syria and elsewhere, perhaps the Zionist media and Neocon puppets will indirectly help you find it again. And if you have been studying the Israel/Palestine conflict for years, then NWO agents will persuade you to take laughter seriously.

Now, this is CNN just a few days ago:

“Dozens of supporters of president Bashar al-Assad are the latest victim of Syria’s brutal civil war.”

Read the statement again and pay close attention to the spin the network put on it. Context is not part of the Zionist Mafia at all, and everything has to be manipulated in order to fit a particular weltanschauung. Obviously CNN was up to something here.

Keep in mind that the Zionist Mafia and puppets of the Israeli regime have been saying ad nauseam that Assad was responsible for the current gas attack, which they said has killed dozens of people. Then CNNcame on the political scene and started propounding vague statements about the incident. In other words, the network again was implicitly trying to con their viewers into believing that Assad gassed his own supporters!

Now, no matter how you slice it, this Zionist move turns out to be completely dumb.[1] With the help of Russia, Assad was militarily winning the war against ISIS. He was also protecting the minority of Christians in the region. Even the Economist, of all places, had to admit:

“The leaders of Syria’s local churches have generally looked to President Bashar al-Assad as their protector; and their feeling that only Mr Assad guarantees their lives has deepened as the conflict has polarised, with fundamentalist Sunni fighters, murderously hostile to all other faiths, on one side and government forces backed by Shia militias and Russian air power on the other…

“Just like Iraq, Syria hosts an array of Christian confessions, distinguished by the positions their forebears took in church councils of up to 15 centuries ago. Some are in communion with Rome, others with Greek and Russian Orthodoxy, still others have subtle doctrinal differences with all the above but keep friendly terms with their co-religionists elsewhere.

“Whatever they believe, virtually all have accepted Russia’s renewed claim, originally dating from the 19th century, to be the protector of Christians in the region. ‘Russia has given hope to the people of Syria,’ according to Patriarch Ignatios Ephrem II, leader of the Syrian Orthodox church. Given the situation of their co-religionists, Western church leaders have hesitated to make strong statements about Syria. To defend Mr Assad seems morally outrageous, but calls for his removal risk sounding like a death-knell for fellow Christians.”[2]

To their credit, the BBC and the LA Times have reported the same thing.[3] So, there was no way for Assad to act against his own interest by gassing his own supporters at all. And CNN would want us all to believe that Assad is so delusional and psychopathic that he would drink the blood of his own devoted followers!

Again, one needn’t be an intellectual to realize that this is absolutely and positively dumb. But because NWO agents have abandoned all forms of rationality in the political landscape, they have no choice but to posit one incoherent statement after another and then expect much of the world to take them seriously.

For NWO agents, a political move is incoherent if and only if it contradicts their essentially diabolical enterprise. Truth, facts, evidence, and honesty are not part of their mental processes. What they are concerned about is fulfilling an ideology, which is essentially Talmudic, diabolical, and is against all mankind.

That is actually the worldview of the CIA and the Israeli regime, and they are all part of the Deep State. Gordon Duff has recently done a great job exposing these people in Syria:

“Abd Alkader Habak rushes a wounded boy to an ambulance after a bomb attack Saturday in Syria. Photographer Abd Alkader Habak calls himself an ‘anti-Assad’ activist. He works in areas controlled by al Qaeda and turns out ‘fake news’ photographs of Russian bombing victims and other minor holocausts staged for western audiences. This is false flag terrorism at is sickest. He works closely with a CNN producer named Waffa Munayyer, who we know to be an officer in Israeli intelligence.

“The children on who were killed with their families were fleeing those Habak works for. His people killed them. He was there to be part of it. As Jim W. Dean so often says, ‘You just can’t make this stuff up.’ Habak and his friends had been shelling these kids and their families since 2014, had cut off their food supplies and water, had made their lives a misery because they continued to hold out against terrorist rule.

“We see [Habak]…running with a child, identified in the CNN article as a dead child. Problem is, Habak works for the people who killed the child, he is a paid propagandist for Jabat al Nusra that blew up the bus. He was brought there with the bombers themselves who couldn’t resist one last terror outrage, this time dragging one of the bodies of their victims out of the wreckage and defiling it for propaganda purposes, something done all the time in Syria.”

CNN and the Deep State almost certainly knew that people will eventually know the truth. But they don’t give a damn about what people think because they are not interested in telling the whole truth. They are interested in blatant lies, colossal fabrications, deceptions, and assassination. The Deep State in particular is so desperate to get rid of Assad or any government they do not like that they are summoning dumb things virtually every week.

The U.S. government is now saying that “Syria’s government helped create a rebel bastion — then attacked it with poison gas”![4] If these people have not been duped by the New World Order ideology, they would never been able to come up with crazy statements like that.

The logic is pretty straightforward: any entity that dreams about regime change in Syria is inexorably saying that Christians must die in the region, terrorists must win, and bloodshed has to occur at ANY cost. This is diabolical and we know that the Israeli regime has been trying to do exactly that in Syria.

The Ayatollah Khomeini predicted in 1979 that “international Zionism” seeks “to swallow up the material resources of the countries it has succeeded in dominating,” and it “exploits the oppressed people of the world by means of the large-scale propaganda campaigns…”[5]

If you think that Khomeini was wrong, then you are morally and intellectually blind. Just take a casual look of what is happening in Syria.

---

[1] No doubt that an MIT professor is saying that the gas attack in Syria was staged. Tareq Haddad, “MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged,” International Business Times, April 17, 2017.

[2] “Aleppo presents a moral dilemma for Christian leaders,” Economist, December 18, 2016.

[3] “Syria’s beleaguered Christians,” BBC, February 25, 2016; “Syria Christians fear life after Assad,” LA Times, March 7, 2012.

[4] “Syria’s government helped create a rebel bastion — then attacked it with poison gas, the U.S. Says,” LA Times, April 18, 2017.

[5] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August, 2015.

The Iranian Crisis from the Point of View of a Progressive Arab

WRITTEN BY ADIB S KAWAR

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic regime that since day one of its life had dedicated itself to confront colonialism and Zionism, and expelled the Zionist diplomatic mission to the Shah’s imperial court and handed its premises to the Palestinian Arab people, an act that international Zionism had never forgotten. The New republic replaced an autocratic imperial regime, which cooperated with the American intelligence organization, CIA, to overthrow the first democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mosadiq and reinstalled the Shah on his imperial peacock’s thrown. As well known the Shah allied himself with international colonialism and Zionism, Zionism the long arm of colonialism in the Arab homeland and its neighborhood, and declared enmity to any power that steps in to support Arab resistance and struggle for its independence a liberation.   

                  

The Arab proverb says: “If my libeling came from the blemished it’s a testimony that I am complete”. This exactly applies to one of the leading Zionist terrorists who was one of the founders of the Zionist entity and still continues with his endless mission of plundering, terrorizing, destructing, threatening its neighborhood with woe and grief and whatever, he is none other than the president of the Zionist entity, Shimon Peres, who said while addressing the Jewish Agency (with wishful thinking), “It is difficult to say who shall disappear first in Iran, uranium or the miserable regime, and we are hopeful that it will be the regime”, Peres who is considered to be the father of the “Israeli” atomic bomb arsenal of 200 to 400 A bombs that are used to threaten anybody who would “threaten the security” of the rogue state of “Israel” continued to say, “Fighting the leaders of the Iranian regime is more urgent than fighting its bombs (atomic)”. Peres attacked the Supreme leader of the Islamic Republic by saying, “how dare he claims that we asked the Iranian people to go out to the street and threaten their lives”.  Surely the old fox who keeps repeating the above quotes live, Ali Khamenei as us all are well aware that Peres and his Zionist gang are (The Zionist Entity) are all the time after United States administrations to grant them the green light to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations, which Iran keeps confirming that they are meant for civil purposes and not for military use, and if the U.S. is not willing to join the Zionist entity in its proposed attack on Iran is to be given the green light to do the job by itself, and possibly utilizing only mini A bombs, we assume that the hesitation of the American administration is due of its fear that its strategic Zionist ally could be wiped out by an Iranian retaliation.

Another member of the Zionist clique, minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Yaalon, repeated Peres’ wishful thinking saying: “Iran’s wave of protestations shall lead to a revolution under the presidential nominee former prime minister for ten years, Mir Hussein Mousavi, against the Islamic regime.  Mousavi and his wife brought new winds that are represented by openness, so I shall repeat that there will be a revolution in Iran.” Yaalon added: “In spite of this it shall not change anything regarding the nuclear matter, but what happened is encouraging for the west, which is related to a wide look towards what is happening in the region represented by the confrontation between ‘Jihadism’ and the west”. Which we are sure means resistance against the Zionist project in Palestine and its neighborhood that Iran supports and arms, so it is the prime enemy of colonialism in  its deferent forms that Zionism is today’s most outstanding example.

On the other hand the Zionist Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, with his wishful thinking too, mixes between the Iranian People and the long ago deposed Shah by the same people, he told the German paper, Bildt: “There is no conflict between ‘Israel’ and the Iranian people that would have changed its government had it been free in its election.  Good relations between Iran and ‘Israel’ is possible if a new leadership takes hold of the government”. Netanyahu is trying to remind us of the “peaceful relations”, which were prevailing between ‘Israel’ and the Shah’s regime in the old days, and added: “I believe that the mask had fallen from over the face of the regime in Iran, and what we see there is a great thirst for freedom among a part of the population”. Do we have to remind Netanyahu of then unending struggle of the indigenous population of the land that Zionism invaded and occupied and trying to fully replace them in it, why should he care for a people that he and his gang are threatening to bomb, and not for the great thirst for freedom among a part (all the Palestinian) of the population.

Here too we have former Zionist minister of war, Shoal Mofaz, who is of Iranian descent and well known for practicing repression, targeted assassinations, organizing land theft in addition to all sorts of assaults against the indigenous Arab people of Palestine, Mofaz told Chanel 2 of the “Israeli” TV: “There is no dispute regarding Iran’s ability to cross the technological line, it progresses daily on development of atomic energy, Iran is a great rocket power, and if it is able to own the atomic it shall form a great existential threat for ‘Israel’,” so it is natural for him to claim that.“The Iranian people is connected with the west, and aims at becoming like other peoples away from repression’s authority, and fear that controls its fate.” Which is what his victims had been fighting for since decades, for the Zionist entity, as Mofaz said, Iran is an existential threat and for putting it at hold from threatening its Arab neighborhood. 

The Zionist entity’s attack on Iran, though claiming that is forwarded against the ruling Iranian regime and no the Iranian people. The Zionist entity is simply the spearhead of western colonialism, which is still dreaming to retain its influence and control of the “third world” politically, militarily and economically, but matters are slipping out of its control starting with the twentieth century successful independence movement, and what happened in China twenty years ago namely the failed ‘Tiananmen’ square, revolution. Which though was a call for democracy and free speech, but with western interference it was meant to be a “right that was meant to be wrong”.

On the subject Arab writer, Dr. Fayez Abu Chamailah, wrote in his article entitled Iran shall go out stronger. “Twenty years ago foreign powers conspired against China, their aim was to prevent the Chinese people from reaching a position that they are in today. Incitement took place when journalist, workers and students started gathering in ‘Tiananmen’ square demanding democracy and right of expression, and succeeded with American and western support in starring millions of hungry Chinese, in the midst of a big roar in the western media for freedom of expression, and spreading the teachings of democracy, but China that is dreaming of a better future, knew the goal behind these gatherings in ‘Tiananmen’ square, and dealt with the agitators who are stirred by foreign powers in how to protect China’s interests, and succeeded in overcoming the difficult internal test, and escaped from the conspiracy, to become twenty years later the feared international economical power.” And, as well known the United States is calling on China to become its lifeguard to pull it out of its financial and economical crisis.

Fehmy Huwaidy, an outstanding Egyptian Arab political, writer wrote describing the Iranian elections in his article, ‘Iran if it becomes moderate’, “I am not comparing elections in Iran, for example, with in England, but in comparison to elections in all the Arab homeland, true it is incomplete in  its first episode, as the Council of the Protection of the Constitution gives itself the right to accept certain nominees and refuses others, but during its following episodes Iranian presidential elections are always marked with seriousness and relative fairness, candidates competed with outstanding  severity, and the authority always took an impartial position in relation to all of them. The Chinese official Television broadcasted documentaries showing the life story of each of them, it also broadcasted the debates that took place between them live, and thus the Iranian people were put in the picture in a balanced manner about each of them before the elections.”

As a progressive Arab I am not supposed to theoretically ally myself with a theological regime, but from the point of view of our interest as Arabs fighting colonialism and Zionism, and as the present Iranian regime is among the very few forces that support our cause especially the Palestinian cause, and its Arab resistance organizations, we owe the Iranian regime gratitude, and we are ready to defend it against its foreign and certain internal critics and enemies. Noting that not all of them are classified under the same category. Not all of them are seculars in contrast to the theological regime, and many of them held very high posts under it and for long years. we don’t claim that they are all in the service of or ally themselves with Colonialism and Zionism, though some so-called nationalists criticize Mahmoud Ahmadi Najad for being too lenient with Arabs, and in particular Sheikh Mahdi Kharoubi criticized Najad in one of their political debates for being the first Iranian president to visit the United Arab Emirates, which we suppose is due to the conflict regarding the three Arab Gulf occupied islands.

Also Fehmy Huwaidy added: “Among the very moderate there are some who go further in their extremism(!!!) by considering that there are no advanced or developed and nationalist states with a promising future in the region except Iran and Israel, thus it is very important to tighten relations between them so as to become a locomotive that pulls the region from its backwardness, and there is  more than one researcher  in Iranian strategic matters who expressed this idea in papers that were discussed in strategic circles.” This is a very dangerous trend of thought to follow by some Iranian so-called intellectuals. Such so-called intellectuals should be categorized among colonialists who are still dreaming of an imperialist Iran, and cannot realize that Zionism has no permanent friends. Though the Zionist entity would never have seen light had it not been for British’ great help, Zionist leaders committed terrorism against British forces occupying Palestine and preparing Zionist colonialists to be ready to uproot the indigenous Arab population. A more recent example is Zionist spying against all present and former administrations starting with the White House itself.

Engineer Mir Hussein Mousavi in a lecture he delivered in one of Tehran Universities raised the motto of “Iran first”, while other reformists criticized Najad’s government for the help it extends to Hezbollah’s resistance in Lebanon and Hamas movement in Palestine, as considering it as a waste of Iranian people’s money, as well as other signs meaning disconnecting Iran from resistance and the Palestinian cause, and support the settlement of the Palestinian question, their excuse is simple and could be marketed easily, namely Iran is not an Arab country, and thus should not overbid its Arab neighbors and be more Arab than Arabs!!!

 

Such trend of thought and action is enough for the west that is known for its unlimited support to the Zionist entity to express its joy and high appreciation of the reformist movement to destabilize Iran and its regime, which has nothing to do with the standard slogans of democracy, freedom of expression and free elections. We don’t have to return to old history and remind the west about the above mentioned example of free election that brought Prime Minister Muhammad Mosadiq to rule and the fall America’s puppet Shah Muhammad Reza Bahlavi, we just return to the very recent history, namely the free and democratic Palestinian election conducted about three years ago, which brought Hamas to power, but instead of being hailed and complemented, Gaza was put under severe siege by the Zionist entity and its western and some so-called Arab moderate regimes that are repeating the same attack on Iran. 

To close we quote our friend Raja Chmayel’s the following piece of sarcasm, that fits our article: 

1979 the US Embassy in Tehran was visited and now someone wants a re-match …. The War on Iran has started Regardless who has won those elections, the man who wanted to wipe off Israel from the Map , is going to be punished.The Regime that helped Hamas and Hezbollah will be punished………… The culture that calls USA and UK as being the devil and puts questions marks on the Holocaust will be punished……… They shall gather, all the bad-looser-of-the elections all the chic-high-society all the dissidents for whatever cause all the modernists and pseudo-liberals all the jet-set of Tehran all the Parrots and the Monkeys imitating the West everyone who does not like theocracy all the supporters of westernisation all the Nike and Gucci fashion-fans of Tehran Promise them Heaven on Earth, and 25 Starbucks within the first year and 145 Mac. Donald's as well…. And start a fancy-uprising from within thereafter the son of Shah shall return to his throne and Oprah Winfrey shall direct the new Iran TV stations owned by Fox and Judd Bush..     It is called The Western Democracy