"It's difficult to admit the obvious"
political world

Semitic reality - or antisemitism- voices in discussion

adm.|Sunday, April 10, 2016

Under the presumption that the worlds affairs are constructed from  multiple layers  and they are multi faced, it is conceivable to ask for the ontological question of the aniti-semenitism and to pay attention to the term so called Semitic reality. And the reality is in any and every tragic events Jewish interests or Israelites them self were attacked by Islamists. Starting from Islamabad, Argentina, the recent attacks in Paris 11.13.15:  The sole and exclusive objects of attack were seven Jewish owed establishments (unsuccessful stadium attempt). The Islamists started to kill first the owners of the establishments, later their employees and at the end the costumers and guests. December 3 2015 in San Bernardino USA the attacker as a primary goal took a person of Jewish origin. In Istanbul, on January 19, 2016 the primary and only goal of the attack was the Israeli excursion members.  The self-destructing attacker found the members of the Israeli excursion, fallowed them and on the proper time he exploded the deadly charges. In it’s worth to remark that, on March 23 2016 in Brussels the attackers took their aim at American Airlines only.As stated in the research papers Jewish population is only 6% of entire Semitic population.  And in that regard  from ontological point of view ,Semites are attacking Semites and vice versa, and the rest of the question generated from  these attacks  is remained as a derived form the core conflict between Semites them selves.

 Aniti- Semitism:The essence (in answer to Fr. Szczerbinski’s article “Anti-Semitism in Poland from non-Jewish prospective)*, or semitic reality only?  The author of this article( Fr Szczerbinski) is an expert in Jewish-Polish relations, and is very knowledgably familiar in the Judaist thoughts and the Judaism in particular. His voice could be considered  an official stance of catholic milieu in the scientific exchange and the   conversation between Jews and Poles... He is also a head of the Institute of the Jewish Cultural Institution, as well as part of the Christian dialogue between Judaism and Christianity in particular Catholicism.       In the title he admits existence of  anti-Semitism in Poland, providing the different meanings of the term as well as stating that “any attempt at subsuming (anti-Jewisness, anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism-M.B.) under the term anti-Semitism” is unfounded and unjustifiable” (p.149). Father Szczerbinski started his consideration from an epistemological point of view by defining alienation as:   “isolation from the rest of the community (ibidem), or question of brotherhood as “not unequivocal”. In that perspective, he attempted to find some ultimate causes for Poles’ behavior against Jews in terms of alienations and brotherhood.  In attempt to ultimately define the so “called “anti-semitism he went to  enumerate  the several reasons as  he considers most important: a) being strange  or  alien(p.150) to the  rest of the society they are living in,  b) stereotypes(e.g. Jew-backed communism and Polish national anti-Semitism, p. 158 ) and  ambiguous attitudes of nations towards the Jews living in Diaspora( common interests of Jews and , fear and aversion against the others) with  prejudices and ,one-sidedness (p.151), c) reflection on past events, d) financial, economic, political, social, moral , national, and religious factors: Jewish competition, their social status, life style, different attire, different habits,  different language and culture,  e) Jewish identity reflected  by saying:”one-because I’m Jew and “other” because I’m gentile”( p. 152), g) Jews considered as  frequent champions  and advocates of communism (p153) and Jewish- Soviet collaboration,  h),denial of “any redeeming value to Judaism since  synod in Yawne in 90” A.D.(When Jews and  Christians went separate ways),  k)superiority of Judaism over Christianity and vice versa(to be considered),  l) Zionism and anti-Zionism-Jewish attitudes about  existence of the State of Israel.       It seems that Szczerbinski’s most interesting statement is:” It’s not opportunistic to say that every   one of these phenomenon have an implicit or explicit moral dimension.  According to Fr. Szczerbinski, the problem, however, does not concern semantics but the essence of the phenomenon” (p.157) and following Father Chrostowski’s arguments he said that for Jews this is the best formula in semantics, because they “, (Jews-M.B.) got used to it”, “it allows ( to the Jews-M.B.) persisting with their long-lasting convictions”,    and when most of the people had been complaining that researchers  in anti-Semitism “are almost exclusively ethnic Jews ”is in the Jewish favor”. At the end of the article Father Szczerbinski states that an undeniable right is: “to exist and develop in accordance with their own identity... Coexistence may appear as condemnation to some and destiny for others… This cannot occur at the expense of losing one’s own identity… tolerance is not a call for non-Jew for a complete acceptance or rejection of everything that is Jewish. The art of living entails a skillful oscillation between alienation and acceptance. This polarity is a measure of humanity in our mutual relations” (p.158).  The question was posed by Father Szczerbinski, but no any  satisfied answer about the essence, when he considered the topic in the title of the article considered.  Essence of the phenomenon. “This problem, however, does not concern semantics but the essence of the phenomenon”, as Szczerbinski stated. What is it? It seems that Father Szczerbinski, by enumerating the causes and phenomena of the question, he attempted to show he mixed-up the essence of the question and its appearances, symptoms, causes and effects of the complicated phenomenon, without any direct reference to the existing persistent moral questions. Alienation and identity show certain attitude, which are attributed to the moral behavior. As Ludwig Hirschfeld stated;” The biggest Jewish tragedy is not the fact that anti-Semite hates the Jews, but that benign and good people say:” Honest man, despite that he is a Jew”.  By this statement Mr. Hirshfeld extrapolated -according to my opinion- the essence of the anti- Jewisness (according to some anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, Anti-Israelis etc.) which is the moral attitude of Jews ? toward each other,  and toward  other humans and world affairs.2.        Mr. Itzak  Dickman (Tadeusz Mazowiecki) tried to pay attention to that question in his article in 1962 in “Wiez”1... He wrote about sociological phenomenon of groups’ relations in the terms of “superiority- inferiority” being the essential attribute of Jewish moral attitude in the social lives’ fabric and person-to-person relations.   For our purpose the moral attitude is defined in the terms of being productive in the course of the productive life, or parasite in the societal life according to the social institutional moral imperatives.  And Jews were to be considered in those terms, as well according to their own moral imperatives found in the Jewish Decalogue and Talmud. These types of  norms are  supposed to be strange to the value systems presented in utilitarian ethics , but corrected in the Christian ethics , when  the social person is productive in the certain period of his life,  is then entitled to the social benefits in his  later  life’s stages when he is unable to work. Coming from the prospective of the former , some governments tried to blame the “unproductive “(some called it parasite)  including Jews for social problems, in order to cover its own incompetence, or to blame somebody else for governmental mistakes.     The  topics of the  social integration to the named nation ( patria) , and the  alienation, assimilation,  integration,  Jewish “otherness” had its sources in the  Jewish cultural value systems , when  according to the former  assimilation is a  flaw  for somebody’s ”Jewisness” and  considered to be  inferior in the Jewish value systems.  In the  terms of national integration  this is a more complex topic  that usually is imagined, in particular in the Jewish mentality in Poland, when Jewish collaboration in order to survive (in Jewish terms this same behavior was considered appropriate) in the short term, but it was considered as treason by Polish governmental establishment or the general public. Such moral attitude showed a disintegrating role of that function, and it was,- or is considered creation of  artificial obstacles to enrich and to survive and develop such a particular nation and its citizens. In this sense Jews had been neglected with   full knowledge of the elementary moral principles in the host countries. In particular, Jewish involvement in the economic solidarity competition had been shown, that in Jewish terms it meant elimination of competitors, who usually were Gentile considered as subhuman and judged according to the Jewish maxim:”You don’t allow to the Jew to live, when you take part of his business and give to somebody else”. Jewish involvement in the usury,  arenda (yearly lease of the land property to Jews. They could get as much money as possible from leases  and Jews paid to the leasers minimum agreed), slavery commerce, money laundering, financial governmental consulting activities and  banking system ownership are considered in the moral terms  not only as an economical endeavor,  but  from the Jewish side,  gentiles were considered  by Jews differently than ethnic   Jews. The tendencies to create monopolies in political, scientifically researched topics, banking, economical, social, governmental enterprises are considered being of a Jewish origin, and they had a moral attribute considered to be created by the Jews, so as to be responsible for it.This way of thinking is attributed to “good, benign and honest people”, who had been considered by Jews as gentiles.  They had been called in common language as the average members of the different communities’ (benign, honest and good people), “patria” (particular country) members included .At the end this is a moral problem created by Jews themselves and the goal for everybody is the fight about the dignity and morality of the person as such, with his plurality of needs, rights, and obligations without adding the nationality,   or ethnic attribute like Jew, Pole or other ethnicity, or nationality for that matter. In the end the dignity of all people (See more about Jewish distinction between Jew and Gentile, moral imperatives proposed in Talmud, religious concept of the Sacred Convent) should be equal. The morals of the Jewish tribe, Israeli nation, other Jewish influenced entities, “Proselytes”( in particular: converted Jews with their Post-Jewish  mentalities  transplanted into gentiles ‘moral and cultural  behavior) ,converted Jews assimilated, but their influence into the socio-economical influence became essential to consider the phenomenon of anti- Jewisness, or other terms used by Father Szczerbinski to that regard describing anti-Jewish attitudes abandoning  stereotypes passed by interested themselves , or their neighbors.  It conducted us to the term “Semitic reality” as it is on the ontological level. At the end the Jews are not hated as Jews belonging to certain race, or nation, but they are unwelcomed due to their moral behavior and conduct. Jewish moral principles confessed and codified in the Talmud, they had been observed over the centuries. At the present they are well verified in the Jewish conduct. *Studia Gnesnensia tom XXVI(2012) p.149-159 1. The Conference taken place in Warsaw 04.08.1960 2.  Ludwig Hirschfeld , Story of   One Life, Boston 2010 Abstract. Father Waldemar Szczerbinski- an expert in the field proposed some very interesting point of view in topic considered loosely as “anti-Semitism”. He had been discussed the phenomenon of so called anti-Semitism from non- Jewish prospective.  According to this author, Father Szczerbinski did not continue his thoughts, when enumerating only the phenomenon and apparent causes of the anti-Semitism. He stopped short to go to the essence of the problem. This author wanted to follow thru and attempted to let the reader to the core of the problem, without any outside influence proposing the new term Semitic reality instead of so called ”anti- Semitism”, or other “antis”. Marian Baginski Ph.D.  Author: Jedwabne Massacre (in English), Patria Publishers 2014 P.S.Under the presumption that the worlds affairs are constructed from  multiple layers  and they are multi faced, it is conceivable to ask for the ontological question of the aniti-semenitism and to pay attention to the term so called Semitic reality. And the reality is in any and every tragic events Jewish interests or Israelites them self were attacked by Islamists. Starting from Islamabad, Argentina, the recent attacks in Paris 11.13.15:  The sole and exclusive objects of attack were seven Jewish owed establishments (unsuccessful stadium attempt). The Islamists started to kill first the owners of the establishments, later their employees and at the end the costumers and guests. December 3 2015 in San Bernardino USA the attacker as a primary goal took a person of Jewish origin. In Istanbul, on January 19, 2016 the primary and only goal of the attack was the Israeli excursion members.  The self-destructing attacker found the members of the Israeli excursion, fallowed them and on the proper time he exploded the deadly charges. In it’s worth to remark that, on March 23 2016 in Brussels the attackers took their aim at American Airlines only.As stated in the research papers Jewish population is only 6% of entire Semitic population.  And in that regard  from ontological point of view ,Semites are attacking Semites and vice versa, and the rest of the question generated from  these attacks  is remained as a derived form the core conflict between Semites them selves. Emigrants, political refugees and theirs acts, or  strange , out of ordinary behavior is the reaction to the ultimate cause of the conflict- specific, unfound elsewhere moral behavior of the Jews. The political associations, governmental policies and politics and the exploitation of the conflict are secondary in the world politics.   Moral  objections are voided in  this opinion- one of many- ,but  this Opinion is to be considered due to the fact that it is dealing  with the Jewish conduct.  P.S 2.  Alan Hart:” The only people who can stop the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism gathering momentum are the Jews themselves, with those who are citizens of the European nations and America taking the lead.” Alan Hart “There are two definitions of anti-Semitism in its Jewish context. One was born in real history and represents a truth. The other is part and parcel of Zionist mythology and was invented for the purpose of blackmailing non-Jewish Europeans and North Americans into refraining from criticising Israel or, to be more precise, staying silent when its leaders resort to state terrorism and demonstrate in many ways their absolute contempt for international law.Anti-Semitism properly and honestly defined is prejudice against and loathing and even hatred of Jews, all Jews everywhere, just because they are Jews. Anti-Semitism as defined by Zionism, the colonial, ethnic cleansing enterprise of some Jews, has come to mean almost all criticism of Israel’s policies and actions, in particular its oppression of the Palestinians, and, also, criticism on the basis of revelations from the documented truth of history which expose Zionism’s propaganda for the nonsense it is. Put another way, anti-Semitism as defined by supporters of Israel right or wrong is anything written or said by anybody that challenges and contradicts Zionism’s version of events. In effect Zionists say, “If you disagree with us, you’re anti-Semitic.”My own view is that such a catastrophe will happen unless the citizens of the mainly Gentile Western world among whom most Jews live are made aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism. As I have previously written and never tire of repeating, knowledge of this difference is the key to understanding two things. Almost everything you've been conditioned to believe about the making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel is not true. It's not true that all the Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 left their homeland voluntarily. Most were driven out by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. It's not true that Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the "driving into the sea" of its Jews. Israel's existence has never, ever, been in danger. And it's not true that Israel never had Arab partners for peace. It's Zionism that has never been interested in peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.” Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent with a vast first-hand knowledge of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.                    
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent with a vast first-hand knowledge of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.  His first book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker? was published by Sidgwick & Jackson in 1984 and subsequently in several updated editions over a decade, in America by Indiana University Press as ARAFAT. In the early 1970s, his independent production company produced the first ever and to date only documentary on the true dimensions of global poverty and its implications for all. The film, Five Minutes To Midnight, had its world premiere at the opening of the 7th Special Session of the UN General Assembly (called to discuss the need for a New World Economic Order), was shown on television in many Western countries, was versioned for schools and became a standard work of reference. For that effort Alan was credited with having played a leading role in getting the North-South issue on to the agenda for political and public debate.  Alan Hart Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews is a journey through the propaganda lies and truth of history. When the citizens of nations know the difference between Zionism's propaganda lies and the documented facts and truth of history, they will be empowered, if they care, to demand that their governments act to end Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. And that's why Alan Hart devoted more than five years of his life to researching and writing this book - to empower citizens to play their necessary part in stopping the countdown to catastrophe for all. Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews is a complete re-writing of the history of the making and sustaining of the conflict, replacing Zionist mythology with events as they actually happened. The events are given global context to enable all readers to see how all the pieces of the most complex and complicated jig-saw puzzle fit together. The insight Alan brings to the pages of this book is assisted by revelations from private conversations he had over the years with leaders on both sides of the conflict, including the two greatest opposites in all of human history - Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. Written in his down-to-earth, television reporting and conversational style, the book reads more like a novel than a conventional history. It will keep you turning the pages wanting to know more. It has two central themes.One is why Western support of Israel right-or-wrong has made the whole Arab and wider Muslim world an explosion of anger and humiliation waiting for its time to happen.The other is how Israel, the child of Zionism, became its own worst enemy and a threat not only to the peace of the region and the world, but also to the best interests of Jews everywhere and the moral integrity of Judaism itself. The key to understanding, the author writes, is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism. He explains: "Judaism is the religion of Jews, not 'the' Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles. Zionism is Jewish nationalism in the form of a sectarian, colonial enterprise which, in the process of creating and then expanding in the Arab heartland a state for some Jews, made a mockery of Judaism's moral values and ethical principles and demonstrated contempt for international law and the human and political rights of the Palestinians. That's why, for example, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer titled his latest book An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism."The author adds: "Supporters of Israel right or wrong conflate Judaism and Zionism because the assertion that they are one and the same enables them to claim that criticism of the Zionist state of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Often, almost always these days, the accusation that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism is false. And this false charge is the blackmail card played to silence criticism of, and suppress informed and honest debate about, the Zionist state and its policies. The reality is that Judaism and political Zionism are total opposites, and knowledge of the difference is the key to understanding two things. One is why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist - opposed to Zionism's colonial enterprise - without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic (anti-Jew). The other is why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hard core Zionist few in Palestine that became Israel." Author's Appeal(Hart Alan)... "The Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations is putting shocking and awesome effort into limiting distribution of this book and suppressing the informed and honest debate it was written to promote. The less this attempt to keep the truth of history hidden is successful, the more likely it will be that peace can have a last chance." Consider not only buying this book for yourself but as a gift for others, to assist the mobilisation of people power (democracy in action) for justice and peace. The World and Israel: Complicity in Zionism’s Crimes and Why by Alan HArt
  • April 7, 2016 . I must begin with a clarification. “The world” of my headline is inhabited only by our so-called leaders and their governments, not the civil societies of nations. And the complicity of our so-called leaders and their governments in Zionism’s crimes is in my view more by default out of fear of offending Zionism than design. But that doesn’t make the complicity any less real in effect.The fear Western leaders and their foreign policy advisers have of offending Zionism is more complex than even some of the most informed and perceptive critics of Israel’s policies and actions seem to appreciate.Yes, one part of the reason for the refusal of Western governments (the one in Washington D.C. especially) to use the leverage they have to try to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians is fear of losing election campaign funding and votes and fear of being overwhelmed by false charges of anti-Semitism. But the other, and in my view the biggest part of the reason, is fear of what Zionism’s nuclear-armed monster child might do if it was pushed further than its deluded leaders were prepared to go for the sake of peace based on an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians and security for all.The leader who alerted me to this fear was President Jimmy Carter in a private conversation my wife and I had with him and Rosalynn after they were denied a second term in the White House. (Carter invited me to meet with him to brief him on my experience when in 1980 I accepted the challenge of being the linkman in a secret, exploratory dialogue between Arafat and Shimon Peres. At the time Peres was Israel’s main opposition leader and believed that he would win Israel’s next election and deny Begin a second term by becoming prime minister himself.  When Carter invited me to meet with him he asked me to bring my wife because, he said, he and Rosalynn worked as a team).In this conversation, which has its context in CONFLICT WITHOUT END?,  the sub-title of Volume Three of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy Of The Jews,  I took Carter back to the early months of his first and only term in 1977 and his real determination then to construct and push forward a plan for a comprehensive and lasting Middle East peace.
I was aware that when on 20 May 1977 it became clear that against all expectations Menachem Begin (the most successful terrorist leader of modern times) would win a second term as Israel’s prime minister, Carter, who had privately welcomed my unofficial shuttle diplomacy, was in despair. He understood that he had no chance of overcoming the inevitable opposition from a Begin-led Israel and the Zionist lobby in America to his plan for a comprehensive peace and, first of all, the construction of a framework for negotiations.And that was why Carter instructed Cyrus Vance, his cool and admirable secretary of state, to work with the Soviet Union on the production of a joint US-Soviet Declaration of Principles on which a comprehensive peace was to be based. Carter allowed himself to believe, or perhaps only to hope, that Zionism’s stooges in Congress, the Senate especially, would not dare to try to block a joint superpower initiative. The joint US-Soviet Declaration of Principles was published on 1 October 1977. It was American and Soviet diplomacy at its best on paper. It was an outline plan for a comprehensive settlement of what was then called the Arab-Israeli conflict which not only contained all the necessary ingredients for peace. It presented them in a way that was calculated to prevent a knee-jerk rejection by any of the parties. The PLO was not mentioned by name – this was to make it easier for Israel to accept the declaration as a discussion document; and there was no reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 – this to make it easier for Arafat’s PLO to give its seal of approval.Essentially the joint US-Soviet Declaration required the Arab states and the Palestinians to make peace with Israel, and therefore to formally recognise and legitimize it at the end at the end of the negotiating process. This was to be in return for an Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict.” In addition to real peace Israel was to be offered a joint superpower guarantee of its existence; and the Israelis were required to recognize “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” The obvious implication was that after an Israeli withdrawal, a Palestinian mini-state would be created on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.The idea was that “the representatives of all the parties involved including the Palestinians” would assemble in Geneva to talk their way to an end to the conflict based on the principles set down in the joint US-Soviet Declaration.It was hailed by most mainstream media institutions throughout the Western world (and beyond) as a real breakthrough offering real hope for real peace. What happened? The Arab states and the PLO welcomed and accepted the joint US-Soviet Declaration as a basis for negotiations leading to peace with Israel. Because the PLO had not been mentioned by name, and because there was no specific commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian mini-state, a minority of Palestinian leaders (not the mainstream) were unhappy and made their usual rejectionist noises, but Arafat had no trouble in getting his mainstream (and majority) leadership colleagues to accept the declaration as the basis for negotiations with Israel. Some years later I asked Arafat if he had truly believed that the Americans and the Soviets had opened the door to peace. And I told Carter exactly what Arafat said to me in reply. QUOTE.Yes, yes, yes. I was very happy. Very excited. It was an historic moment. For the first time the two superpowers were committed to doing something for us Palestinians. Truly I believed there would be peace with some justice for my people. I was more optimistic than at any time in my life. UNQUOTE.Israel rejected the US-Soviet Declaration. General Moshe Dayan, Israel’s one-eyed warlord and former defence minister, had crossed the Knesset floor to become foreign minister in Begin’s second-term coalition government, and he, Prime Minister Begin, sent Dayan to Washington to bully and blackmail President Carter into tearing up the joint US-Soviet Declaration and substitute for it a joint US-Israel memorandum of understanding, the terms of which Dayan more or less dictated to Carter and Vance. (Dayan had long been of the view that Israel’s task was not to explore the prospects for peace but to create settlement facts on the ground. According to a report in Time, Dayan was on the record just before the 1973 war with this statement. “There is no more Palestine. It’s finished!”)The joint US-Israel memorandum of was, in effect, the list of Israel’s conditions for its attendance at a Geneva conference. Palestine was back to being a “problem of refugees”, in other words the Palestinians had no right to self-determination; 242 was back on the agenda, which meant that the PLO could not involve itself; and Israel would “discuss”, not negotiate about, the West Bank. Dayan also announced that Israel would walk out of any Geneva conference if the question of a Palestinian state was brought up. The question I wanted to explore in depth with Carter was why, really, he had surrendered to Dayan and his new political master, Menachem Begin. The conversation took place in the Oval Office equivalent at the Carter Center in Atlanta where, in partnership with Emory University. Jimmy and Rosalynn had set up a non-profit foundation which was driven by their true commitment to human rights, the alleviation of human suffering, the prevention and resolution of conflicts and advancing the prospects for freedom and democracy and improving health. From the outset I knew I was going to have a very honest conversation with Carter and here’s why. My wife and I were taken to meet the Carters by one of  their Zionist lobby minders. When he closed the doors behind the five of us he was clearly assuming that he would sitting with us and would be able to report back to his masters what had been said. Jimmy  raised his left hand in a stop gesture and said to the minder: “Please leave us. Rosalynn and I want to be alone with Alan and Nicole.”When I zeroed in on why Carter had surrendered to Dayan and Begin and torn up the joint US-Soviet Declaration, I said there was speculation at the time that he had been told he could forget about being re-elected for a second term if he required Israel to make what its leaders would regard as unacceptable moves for peace.I then said to Carter that I didn’t buy the notion that the threat to withdraw Jewish campaign funds and votes would have been sufficient to cause him to back down. He was, I went on, less than 10 months into his first term, had probably factored the traditional Zionist blackmail threat into his own equation, and concluded that the peace he was confident he could deliver, with Soviet assistance, would win him the support of most Jewish Americans, enabling him to put the Zionist lobby out of business.I rounded off by saying with a smile, “Mr. President, if you had been allowed to deliver peace, the constitution might have been changed to give you a third term in office!”Carter smiled and said my speculation that a threat to deny him a second term would not have been enough to blow him of course was essentially correct. He then went on to tell me the essence of the threat that Dayan had actually presented to him. If he pushed Israel too far, Begin would let the IDF of the leash in the region and it would, among other things, invade Lebanon with two objectives – liquidating the PLO and taking for keeps Lebanese territory south of the Litani River.Carter was, of course, fully aware that such a demonstration of Israel’s arrogance of power would de-stabilize the region and might well put a comprehensive peace beyond reach for all time.As told to me by Carter, Dayan’s final flourish was this. QUOTE Mr. President you must know that my prime minister is mad. He could even bomb the Gulf oil wells.UNQUOTE.Another truth Carter revealed to me was that any American president has only two windows of opportunity to confront the Zionist lobby – the first nine months of his first term because after that the fund raising for the mid-term elections begins, and the last year of his second term if he has one. (In the last year of his second term President Obama has washed his hands of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel and walked away from it). Reinforcing the fear that all Western (and other) leaders have of confronting the Zionist (not Jewish) state is their knowledge, which they will never admit to having, of why, really, Israel possesses nuclear weapons. They know that Israel’s leaders were driven to acquire them not for defence but the need to have a nuclear blackmail card, to enable them to say to any American president, “Don’t push us too far or we’ll use these things!” In my book I quote Dayan admitting this to me by obvious implication in a conversation I had with him in 1969. When I add to that what Prime Minister Golda Meir said to me in an interview for the BBC’s Panorama programme – in a doomsday situation Israel  would be prepared “to take the region and the world down with it” – I think that only one conclusion is invited. The complicity by default of Western (and other) leaders in Zionism’s crimes will be never ending because Israel is, as it has long been, a nuclear-armed monster beyond control. Footnote The above will be my last but one post for several months. As things are and look like going there will be nothing new to say until Hillary Clinton has won the race to the White House. My last post before I take a break will be the text of a presentation I’ll shortly be making in Italy in support of the publication of the Italian version of my book. (As expected the Zionist lobby put great effort into trying to prevent publication but its threats have been counter-productive). The title of my Italian presentation is Palestine and Zionism: The Whole Truth.During my break from commenting on events in Israel-Palestine I’ll be working on a book I am writing about my own global learning experiences and what they’ve taught me about why our world is in such a dangerous mess and what must be done if our children and grandchildren are to have a future worth having. The working title I have assigned to the book is Our Children Will Not Forgive Us.  The Sad Lesson of Alan Hart May 17, 2013 Sailing against a strong prevailing wind is not easy, certainly not like breezing along with the wind to your back. Author Alan Hart discovered that truth in criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but his acceptance of defeat should not stop others from advocating for truth and justice, says Lawrence Davidson. By Lawrence Davidson.    Alan Hart is an author and a journalist, the former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Britain’s Independent Television News and a former BBC Panorama presenter whose beat was the Middle East. He has written a number of books, including Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker? (1984) and the three-volume Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews (2009-2010).He is also a longtime activist for various causes, particularly his three-decade struggle on behalf of justice for the Palestinian people.Volume One of Alan Hart’s trilogy, “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.”On April 25, Alan Hart literally turned in his resignation letter. In it he states, “I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine.” Why did he do this? In Hart’s opinion, the struggle for justice in Palestine is “mission impossible.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Pursuing Truth about Israel/Palestine.”]The information/propaganda war between Zionists and those, such as himself, supporting the Palestinians (which, in any case, had always been “the most asymmetric of all information wars”) is lost. He notes that the Western media still follow a Zionist line and asserts that most of the Western populations remain either pro-Israel or indifferent to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.Hart blames this alleged Zionist victory in the propaganda war on a lack of financial support for those trying to write and speak out for Palestinian justice, and contrasts their plight to the situation of the Zionist writers and advocates, who enjoy almost unlimited funds.Hart feels it is mainly wealthy Palestinians and other Arabs who have failed to support pro-Palestinian activists. These wealthy Arabs have failed to step forward because they either are afraid of Zionist retribution that would damage their businesses or careers, or are afraid of their own Arab governments, which do not want trouble with Israel because of assertive actions by pro-Palestinian wealthy citizens. Hart’s Plight.With all due respect to Mr. Hart, who certainly does deserve our respect, I can’t help asking myself whether his assessment of this “war for the truth of history” is objectively true or an expression of personal disappointments. According to his own explanation, his decision to leave the struggle is connected to the fact that Arab publishers and media failed to financially support and promote his recent book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.This was a great disappointment to him because the Arab media had serialized his prior work on Yasser Arafat and this had brought him “a significant income.” He had obviously made the assumption that the situation would repeat itself.So strong was that expectation that, as Mr. Hart tells us in his resignation statement, he made certain decisions, such as mortgaging his property in order to support the production of the Zionism study, which have now brought him into financial distress. Hart appears to see the failure of Arab money to come to his assistance as indicative of Arab failure to support the Palestinian cause.As disappointing as the Arab failure to promote Hart’s important work on Zionism may be, it is not accurate to conclude, as Hart does, that most wealthy Arabs “do not care about the occupied and oppressed Palestinians.” Before the first Iraq war, both public and private Arab money generously supported the PLO. Yasser Arafat’s attempt to mediate that conflict and prevent a war against Iraq stopped most (but never all) of that support.Whether the wealthy Arabs could now do much more is another question. However, and this is an important point, this is not the same question as to whether Western supporters of the Palestinian cause should or should not give up.Hart is correct that in the past 30 years supporters of Palestinian justice have not been able to create the necessary critical mass of public opinion to change the policies of national governments. However, that does not mean there has been no progress. It does not mean this is a lost cause.I, too, have been a strong supporter of the Palestinians for decades, and I have seen a tremendous difference over time. Thirty years ago you could not critically raise the subject of Israel in public, and thus the Zionists had a monopoly on the entire history of this issue. That is emphatically not the case today.Despite Alan Hart’s unfortunate experience, the fact is that, at a popular level, the Zionists have lost control of the Palestine narrative. There are other real positive signs in this struggle that Hart fails to mention, including the progress of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement; the continuing maturation of counter-lobbies, particularly in the United States; and the growing worldwide recognition of Israeli criminality, which has slowly increased that country’s sense of isolation. In other words, there is more to this than the Arab failure to support Mr. Hart’s latest work. Measuring Success.One has to also understand that success and failure come on many levels. On the macro level, progress is slow, but as pointed out above, it is far from nonexistent. Sometimes you just need to know where to look to see the ongoing activity.For instance, in the case of the United States, there are a growing number of organizations that are constantly busy getting out the message of Israeli crimes and the Palestinian demand for justice. There are the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (a coalition of almost 400 member groups and organizations), Jewish Voices for Peace, and the Council for the National Interest, to name just a few.The struggle against Israeli apartheid might well be, as it was in the case of South Africa, multigenerational. But among the many organizations waging this struggle there is no sign of slacking.On the micro level, success comes when one is consistently true to one’s principles in a manner that is personally acceptable. No one is asking Western supporters of the Palestinian cause to go bankrupt or put themselves in physical danger, although in the latter case notably heroic individuals such as Rachel Corey and Tom Hurndall have chosen to do so, with tragic results.However, there are less dangerous routes. To do what you can in a steady, consistent way for a just cause in which you believe is already to have achieved success at the personal level. We struggle not only for the cause, but also because of who we are.Alan Hart is an admirable man who has done admirable things, and we all owe him our thanks for his contributions to the Palestinian cause. But his decision to retire from the field should in no way be taken as a sign that that cause is lost. It is emphatically not lost. It has made significant progress over the past three decades and it is well positioned to make more progress in the future. Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism. A truth most Jews don’t want to know about anti-Semitism By Alan Hart Much is currently being written and broadcast about what a headline in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed to be “The return of anti-Semitism” (loathing and hatred of Jews). It was over an article by Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Britain. According to him “An ancient hatred has been reborn.” He went on: Some politicians around the world deny that what is happening in Europe is anti-Semitism. It is, they say, merely a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel, to the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. But the policies of the state of Israel are not made in kosher supermarkets in Paris or in Jewish cultural institutions in Brussels and Mumbai. The targets in these cities were not Israeli. They were Jewish. In an article for Time under the headline “It’s time to stop ignoring the new wave of anti-Semitism”, Michigan born-and-based Rabbi Jason Miller quoted Sacks and was more explicit in his assertion that an ancient hatred has been reborn. (As well as being a rabbi, Miller is the president of an information technology and social media marketing company.) He wrote: I certainly have the capacity and amplification to voice my concerns about the threat of anti-Semitism, this time around emanating not from Nazism, but from Islamism… As Rabbi Sacks makes perfectly clear, the rise of anti-Semitism in the 21st century is not about anti-Israel sentiment… Plain and simple, 21st-century anti-Semitism is the continuation of the same Jewish hatred that has raised its ugly head for centuries. It is the same anti-Semitism that we saw 70 years ago in Europe as six million Jewish men, women and children were exterminated. In my gentile view, rabbis Sacks and Miller and all who think like them are in complete denial of the link between Israel’s actions which sometimes amount to state terrorism and the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism. What this link is was put into words more than a quarter of a century ago by Yehoshafat Harkabi, a long-serving director of Israeli military intelligence. (I have quoted his warning in several of my previous posts but what he wrote bears repeating, again and again and again.) In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, which contained his call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, and his statement that the biggest real threat to Israel is its self-righteousness, he wrote the following. We Israelis must be careful lest we become not a source of pride for Jews but a distressing burden. Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world. In the struggle against anti-Semitism, the frontline begins in Israel. Another way of saying that an ancient hatred has been reborn is that what used to be called the “sleeping giant” of anti-Semitism is waking up. Putting it that way makes understanding possible and here’s why. After the Nazi holocaust, and because of it, this giant went back to sleep and might well have died in its sleep if Zionism had not been allowed by the major powers to have its way and Israel had been required to be serious about peace on the basis of an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians and security for all. To avoid being misunderstood I must qualify that statement. There will always be some Jew haters and Nazi holocaust deniers. (I accept that there is room for debate about the number of Jews who were exterminated but I regard Nazi holocaust denial as an evil on a par with the mass murder of Jews and others.) So what I mean when I say the sleeping giant of anti-Semitism might well have died in its sleep is that it would not have come back to life again as a force capable of seriously threatening the wellbeing and security of the Jews. It was Israel’s “misconduct”… that set in motion the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which… is showing signs of a creeping transformation into anti-Semitism. The evidence which gives great weight to that analysis can be obtained from just a few moments of reflection about the history of the whole of the second half of the 20th century and much if not all of the first decade of the 21st. What stands out with regard to the Jews is the wellbeing of those who were/are citizens of the Western nations. They were not only secure, they had influence in political, economic and many other spheres out of all proportion to their numbers. (That is why, generally speaking, I have always regarded the Jews as the intellectual elite of the Western world. And that in turn is why I am amazed that most Jews allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians as a consequence.) It was Israel’s “misconduct” (what a charming Harkabi euphemism for defiance of international law, on-going colonisation and ethnic cleansing by stealth!) that set in motion the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which, as Harkabi warned, is showing signs of a creeping transformation into anti-Semitism. Put another way, it was Israel’s policies and actions which guaranteed that the sleeping giant would not die in its sleep and would wake up to go on the prowl again. In a recent report, the Community Service Trust (CST) said the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK doubled in 2014 – up from 513 in 2013 to 1,168, of which 81 were violent. The non-violent ones included what the CST described as a widely shared image of Hitler with the caption “Yes man, you were right.”What was the biggest factor behind the rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK? In the CST’s own words, it was “anti-Semitic reactions to the conflict in Israel and Gaza”. In its own way, that finding is surely an indicator that Israel’s policies and actions are the prime cause of the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism. It also underlines Harkabi’s point that Jews need to understand “that foreigners’ criticism of Israel stems not only from opportunism, hatred and anti-Semitism, but from what they may see as fair and moral considerations.” My conclusions? The only people who can stop the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism gathering momentum are the Jews themselves, with those who are citizens of the European nations and America taking the lead. How could they do it?Short answer: by declaring that Israel does not speak for or represent them and that they condemn its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians. If they don’t do that there will most likely be a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine followed at some point by a wide awake giant of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again.If it really is the case that the sleeping giant of anti-Semitism is waking up, it’s time for European and American Jews to wake up to the fact that the title of my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is what Ilan Pappe described it as being… “The truth in seven words.” Israel/Palestine: A reality check | Veterans TodayPublished: October 16, 2015Filed Under: News Stand There is one thing above all others that must happen if there is ever to be a peaceful resolution of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel on the basis of justice for the Palestinians and security for all.What is the one thing?Governments and their diplomats and all who report and comment in the mainstream media must stop giving credibility to the view that a two-state solution is possible. It isn’t. Though not yet buried it’s been dead for many years – killed by Israel’s on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank which is best described, as I have previously noted, as on-going ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth. With the number of illegal Jewish settlers on the occupied West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem now around the 650,000 mark and growing on a daily basis, the bottom-line truth can be summarised as follows.No Israeli government is ever going to trigger the Jewish civil war that would be inevitable if it sought to end most if not all of the occupation of the West Bank to make the space for a viable Palestinian mini state.There is, in fact, a very strong case for saying that the two-state solution was never a possibility because of the UN Security Council’s surrender to Zionism on 22 November 1967 with Resolution 242.As all members of the Security Council knew, the Six Days War of that year was a war of Israeli aggression, not self-defence. That being so Resolution 242 ought to have insisted that Israel should withdraw from all the newly occupied Arab territories without conditions, and, it also ought to have said that the Security Council would not tolerate illegal Israeli settlement in any of them.In theory (repeat in theory) there is today only one possible option for a peaceful resolution of the conflict – ONE TRULY DEMOCRATIC STATE WITH EQUAL RIGHTS OF EVERY KIND FOR ALL. Yes, that would mean the eventual end of the Zionist enterprise because within a generation or two of peace on that basis the Arabs of the one state would outnumber the Jews. And that, of course, is why Israel’s leaders have as much contempt for the notion of a one-state solution as they have for international law, and will never give it any consideration unless pushed to do so by a significant number of their voters.Does that mean that the only option is a continuation of what Rashid Khalidi has correctly described as “the farce” of a diplomatic search for peace based on a two-state solution which is dead and cannot be resurrected, and which only increases Palestinian suffering and despair? If the answer is “Yes” there is no hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict and the countdown to a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine will continue.Quite possibly this countdown will be speeded up by the current upsurge of violence and killing which is causing a growing number of Israeli Jews to fear for their lives and, as a consequence, might make more of them more willing to regard the expulsion of the Palestinians as the best option. In reality a final Zionist ethnic cleansing would be the worst possible option not only for the Palestinians but also for Jews everywhere because it would most likely transform the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism and set the stage for Holocaust II – my shorthand for another great turning against the Jews. (In my view this is a real possibility and why I insisted on Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews as the title of my book; a title described by Ilan Pappe as “THE truth in seven words.”) To return to the main point of this article I am now going to ask and answer a question in a way that may cause some readers to regard me as naive and guilty of wishful thinking.Is it remotely possible that a majority of Israeli Jews could have their brainwashed and closed minds opened to the idea that their best option is one state with equal rights of every kind for all? In my view opening these closed minds might not be a mission impossible if the governments of the major powers – the one in Washington D.C. especially – came to grips with reality by (1)  acknowledging that a two-state solution is no longer possible;  and (2) declaring that they are committed to the establishment of one state with equal rights for all as the only way of preventing the conflict ending in catastrophe for all.Much could then depend on how well the case for asserting that a one state solution really is in the best interests of Israel’s Jews was presented and promoted. In my view the best possible sales pitch to Israel’s Jews would take full account of what the Gentile me believes to be a real truth. (I’ve said what I am about to say in my book and in several posts over the years but it bears repeating).Generally speaking, the Jews are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. What they could do together in peace in a one-state partnership is the stuff that real dreams are made of. They could play a leading role in changing the region for the better and by so doing give hope and inspiration to the whole world.Put another way, Jews without Zionism and with the Palestinians could become the light unto nations!That’s the upside. The downside is that Jews with Zionism and without the Palestinians could put the light out.I must add that it’s not only governments and their diplomats and all who report and comment in the mainstream media who must stop giving credibility to the view that a two-state solution is possible.Activist groups of all faiths and none which campaign for justice for the Palestinians on the basis of a two-state solution are wasting time, effort and precious resources. They, too, need to come to grips with reality and focus on campaigning for one state with equal rights of every kind for all.Ultimately Israel’s Jews will have to decide what they want most of all – peace and security in a one state partnership of equals with the Palestinians, or, no peace and an ever worsening security situation provoked by Israel’s domination, repression and humiliation of the Palestinians.The above should not be taken to imply that I am entertaining any great hope that a one state solution can be achieved. My main point is that the creation of it is all that could stop the countdown to a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And that, in my view, is a good enough reason for all who care about justice for the Palestinians to advocate and promote the need for a one state solution. Footnote When he addressed an audience at Harvard University on 13 October, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that “unless we get going (with another attempt at peace making) the two-state solution will be conceivably stolen from everybody“.Because he also spoke about the extent of Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements on the occupied West Bank I imagine he knows better than most that the two-state solution is no longer an option.The question is what will he do in the 16 months left to him and President Obama in office when he gets going again? Will he continue with “the farce” or dare to focus on the need for a one state solution?
Copyright © 2009 www.internationalresearchcenter.org
Strony Internetowe webweave.pl