From: WVNS <ummyakoub@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:34 AM
Subject: [wvns] Should the Jews be deported?
To: wvns@yahoogroups.com
This is an exchange of views with Israel Shamir that began in response to Jeff Gates' article
Jeff Gates calls to push Israel back to 1948 borders as per UN decision, and eventually to dismantling of the Jewish state. Perhaps. The UN may demand re-creation of Jerusalem area special region under UN control (internationalization of Jerusalem). This could be a good way to stop Israeli intransigence. But Jeff's toying with idea of massive Jewish emigration from Israel/Palestine is not particularly attractive. Creation of a viable stable not-exclusively-Jewish but not-anti-Jewish Palestine for all its inhabitants (and that includes some six million Jews) is our task. Wet dreams of sending a stream of Jewish refugees up to Europe can backfire dreadfully. This is true for other writers who think that the Jews will run away – Serge Thion and John Kaminski. This is not likely to happen. A state for all, or One State is NOT the same as this dream of Palestine-without-Jews.
Shamir
WILL ISRAEL FALL IN FIVE YEARS?
By Jeff Gates
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/1497
"The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."
Albert Einstein, signatory to Letters to the Editor, New York Times, December 4, 1948.
Online reports of a study by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S., its key ally, Israel could fall within five years.
For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate U.S. media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behavior, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts transparent.
Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs, that too is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one-state versus two-state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama.
The leaders of the 9-11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the U.S.-Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial Apartheid government.
With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another right-wing Likud Party stalwart, it's clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced U.S. national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding "No."
That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the U.S. is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the U.S. diplomatic corps.
By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear "the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party." Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans "not to support this latest manifestation of fascism."
Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against Apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behavior—and clear evidence of no intent to change—activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others.
The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Absent pressure—and likely force—applied by the U.S. as the nation that has long enabled this behavior, Colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace. Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise for their readiness to surrender nuclear arms.
An End to Jewish Fascism?
The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one-state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed "Jewish" (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the "Jewish state," then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years?
Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders, instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under U.N. protection and dispatch multi-national forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If Colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for "their" property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation.
Those who consider themselves "Jewish" can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold U.S. passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive. Likewise for Russia from which many "Jews" fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish.
Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence.
By withdrawing Israel's status as a legitimate "state," those Jews long appalled by the behavior of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel's nuclear arms program and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region.
Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realize that only one "state" had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the U.S. to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of Colonial Zionism.
Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the U.S. government, 9-11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, this extremism has been enabled by a series of weak U.S. presidents. For the U.S. to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise but that it also share responsibility for its behavior to date.
===
Should the Jews be deported?
by Israel Shamir
"Jeff Gates calls to push Israel back to 1948 borders as per UN decision, and eventually to dismantling of the Jewish state. Perhaps. The UN may demand re-creation of Jerusalem area special region under UN control (internationalization of Jerusalem). This could be a good way to stop Israeli intransigence. But Jeff's toying with idea of massive Jewish emigration from Israel/Palestine is not particularly attractive. Creation of a viable stable not-exclusively-Jewish but not-anti-Jewish Palestine for all its inhabitants (and that includes some six million Jews) is our task. Wet dreams of sending a stream of Jewish refugees up to Europe can backfire dreadfully. This is true for other writers who think that the Jews will run away – Serge Thion and John Kaminski. This is not likely to happen. A state for all, or One State is NOT the same as this dream of Palestine-without-Jews."
Shamir
Many readers responded, first of all, Jeff Gates who said he was misunderstood (see below). However, judging by other responses, the idea is attractive to some people. Serge Thion expressed it in his foreword to an Italian translation of my book, saying:
"the Palestinians, at the bottom, have only one claim, simple and legitimate: that the Jews will go back where they came from. Nobody among the Palestinians wants to them of evil, but nobody will ever accept their presence… Israel is a lost case, post-Zionists want to save the Jews however possible. To give up the old dream of two states, to struggle for a single, democratic state of "one man one vote" (old slogan of anti-apartheid in South Africa) – and to maintain the politico-financial elites within this state, like in South Africa. This prospect does not appear realistic to me. The weight of the crimes committed by the Zionists is the Himalayas beside the hills Nazis. The river of blood that the Zionists made run since 1936 is too broad for them to cross it by saying " Let us forget all and become partners". The rejection is visceral, violent, everywhere in the Middle East. The Jews will have to leave, and the bloody Zionist venture will be "erased from the pages of times", as Imam Khomeiny said poetically." End of quote.
In my view, this is erroneous and immoral approach. "Send them back" is a slogan of far right in Europe and the US; there they want to send back blacks to Africa, Turks to Turkey, Mexicans to Mexico. Israeli extremists want to send Arabs back to Arabia. There is no end to this "sending back". I do not say this is impossible, because it is possible and it was done in the past. The Spaniards had sent the Moors back to North Africa 700 years after their arrival, the Russians had sent Germans out of East Prussia nine hundred years after their takeover, the Algerians got rid of the French settlers hundred fifty years later, but the result was always unsuccessful. Even today Algeria is less developed and probably less democratic than it was before the mass flight of the European settlers. It is better to let people live where they live, while making them equal.
This is also the feeling on the ground. The Palestinians in Palestine do not express this wish of Thion "send Jews back". Surely some people feel this way, but it is just natural, as natural as desire of some French people to send Arabs back. It is as natural as desire to become young again, you do not have to fight it – it is enough to understand that it is not going to happen.
Rivers of blood divided the people of France proper and those of Provence and Bretagne – but now they live peacefully together in one state. We are standing for One State; that is the idea of letting people live together as equals, without expelling anybody. This is also an idea our friend Wendy Campbell does not understand: she dreams of getting rid of Jews in Palestine, as you'll see in her letter below. She likes Gilad Atzmon, so do I – but he is not for any expulsion or mass flight either. Jews should be helped to get rid of their superiority complex, and afterwards they will become normal useful citizens. It would be better if they were to shed their imaginary Jewishness altogether, but this can wait, for it is said: "Do not wake up my beloved until she wakes up herself" (Song of Songs). This is also the Christian and Muslim attitude.
So, let us struggle for equality, and forget the wet dreams – rather, nightmares – of getting rid of millions of human beings.
Shamir
Jeff Gates replied:
Thanks for those thoughts.
Note, however, that the commentary says nothing about anyone returning to Europe. Nor is there any suggestion that anyone "run away" -- just that those uncomfortable with political equality may find that their apartheid perspective is better suited for those venues (Argentina and Uganda) that the Zionists originally identified as attractive candidates for creating an exclusively Jewish state prior to targeting Palestine as their "homeland" (i.e., for a population that is overwhelmingly European/Khazar).
There were Jews living peacefully in Palestine long before the Zionists arrived. The commentary says nothing about a "Palestine-without-Jews." What the commentary suggests is that extremism—whatever its source—is an enemy of democracy and a barrier to peace in a region that has endured the Zionist enterprise for far too long. To suggest that the colonial Zionist state seeks peace is to deny what the facts-on-the-ground have long confirmed: their expansionist agenda relies on serial well-timed crises. Peace would preclude what they moved to Palestine to accomplish.
As the U.S. enabled Zionist operatives to act out their extremism, it is the U.S. that should rightly take the lead in dismantling this enterprise by withdrawing its nation-state recognition. All else follows logically once the false veneer of legitimacy and "sovereignty" is lifted. If, as may well be the case, the U.S. is now too corrupted by this extremist phenomenon, then other nations must rightly portray the U.S. as part of the problem—and guilty by association. Hopefully other nations will grasp that it is not informed Americans who support this enterprise but those who have been influenced, co-opted and intimidated by the Israel lobby.
For the simple mathematics of how the lobby, in practical effect, repealed representative government, see How Israel Lobby Controls US For an explanation of how John McCain helped enable this repeal, see Introduction to Guilt By Association.
Learning from the debilitating U.S. experience of how this anti-democratic enterprise imbedded itself inside a democracy may well mean that European nations are not an appropriate (or welcoming) venue for re-establishing this experiment in exclusivity. Thus the suggestion that those who seek to reside in an exclusive enclave in which they can act out their exclusivity again look at the original locales that it found attractive.
The withdrawal of the appearance of nation-state legitimacy from this enterprise would provide comfort and long-overdue solace to moderate and secular Jews worldwide who have long been portrayed as guilty by their perceived association with an enterprise whose values, from the outset, were inconsistent with those of the faith tradition with which Zionism claims affiliation.
With the benefit of six decades-plus of hindsight, the consistency of the ZIonist enterprise's behavior suggests that Albert Einstein and his colleagues were correct in the fears they expressed in December 1948, urging that "all concerned not support this latest manifestation of fascism."
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment