The Tail Waging the Dog
Response to
Halévy
Réponse à Halévy :
Ilan Halevi is one of the best Israelis; a man who made the right
choice. His essay (Once again concerning Zionism and anti-Semitism)
is also good and rather correct. But there are few points that could
be and should be debated in a comradely way.
The most important error of Halevi is that he subscribes to
well-debunked Chomsky's Thesis that "it is not the tail that wags
the dog". In his words, 'the capacity of the "lobby" on the American
policy would be nothing without its ally White-Christian,
evangelists and Born-again Christians, the same republican
ultra-right-wing side which weakened Clinton through the Lewinsky
business and orchestrated the fraudulent electoral putsch which put
Bush at the capacity'. As a matter of fact, Clinton was equally
indebted to the Jewish Lobby, and so will be John Kerry with his
recently discovered Jewish roots and explicit
support of Israel. It is intellectually dishonest to present the
Republican Party as the only supporter of Zionism and Israel as the
Democrats, while being enemies to "the same republican
ultra-right-wing side", are even more devoted to Israel and get the
majority of Jewish votes and Jewish money. Indeed, according to
Israeli sources, over 70% of all contributions for the Democratic
candidate are provided by Jews; Jews provide meager 35% of all
contributions for the Republican candidate.
No party in the US can hope to rule without support of Jewish money
and of Jewish positions in media and academia. It is not the tail,
but brain of the dog; at least, an important part of the brain. It
is also a bit of sugar that makes the dog crawl. While Israel is an
obsession with the Jews, there is no chance for a change in the US
position on the Middle East. Thus an honest enemy of Jewish
apartheid in Palestine has a choice: or he should try to convince
the American Jews to give up or to moderate their support for Israel
(that is the way of Jewish Left) or he should try to undermine the
Jewish influence in the US; much more formidable task, and it is not
strange that many good people shrink from it. But there is no place
for the 'third position' of Halevi, claiming that there is no
elephant in this sitting room.
For sure there is little direct influence of Israel on America; but
Israel and extremely powerful American Jewry have an intricate and
intimate relationship that causes the present aberration of American
Middle Eastern policy. We may remember that Jews are just a small
part of American population (2%), but they are full 30% of the
American elites. Consequently we may consider historical precedents
of inordinate Jewish influence in the past, as it was proposed by
Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins
University, in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State,
University of Chicago Pres, Chicago 1993) inter alia. This
historical analysis can provide us with tools for understanding the
problem and dealing with it.
Ilan Halevi may call this approach 'anti-Semitic', but it is just
historical materialist treatment free of all emotions, be it hate or
adulation. Nor do I call to persecute or discriminate against Jews;
au contraire, I call for equal rights of Jews and non-Jews,
including equal influence of the government in the countries they
live. Equal - not for privileges.
TOP
Referring to me, Ilan Halevi writes: "That Israel Shamir,
Russo-Israeli journalist recently converted with Christianity, and
who seems to have, by the same occasion, rocked of the most radical
anti-Zionism to the Christian anti-Judaïsm most banal, takes again
these ineptitudes by showing the Jews to have started the second
world war, here which should not mislead anybody, in particular not
our Marseilles comrades". Again, Halevi rejects historical analysis.
Of course Hitler was willing to set the world on fire, as he showed
on the 1st September, 1939. But he was not the only politician
pushing for war. Prominent Jews of that time and of present time
never concealed, nay, were and are proud of promoting the war
against Nazi Germany, like the Jewish establishment of today is
actually proud of its support for the Iraqi war. Naturally they
weren't the only ones; but since when it is considered to be a
defence?
And lastly, Christian anti-Judaism is not banal but deep and
important. In my view, and in the view of vast majority of Jews, the
State of Israel and its policies and actions represent Judaism; the
same Judaism that was repudiated by St Paul and the Prophet Muhammad
for the same good reasons. Again, Ilan Halevi is free to consider
Zionism a one-time aberration in the Jewish history. But I follow
Israel Shahak and others and view this movement in historical and
ideological continuity with the Jewish past.
TOP
Israel Shamir
----------------------
From Dan Burnstein,
a member of Association for One State:
I should not be surprised regarding Mr. Shamir's assertion that Jews
started WWII. As always Mr. Shamir accuses Jews of all bad things
in history.
Of the many facts he overlooks is one that is very telling to me.
namely that President Roosevelt was afraid of accusations that he
was pro-Jewish and perhaps for other reasons failed to bomb the
tracks leading to the death camps for the last years of the war. To
me and most rational people this shows the weakness of the Jews in
the US (and Britain) not their strength. Roosevelt was the target of
assertions that he headed the "Jew Deal" instead of the New Deal.
Roosevelt was very afraid of these accusations.
TOP
Does that speak to you? What does it say to you? Obviously
Roosevelt was not an anti-Semite however he felt he could only go so
far in working with Jews and the Jewish community. If Jews had as
much influence as Mr. Shamir believes then after Crystal Nacht, (Night
of the Broken Glass) the warnings of the US and world Jewish
community would have translated into action/warnings/threats against
the growing aggressiveness of the Nazis and their allies from the
early 1930's and onward. Why did this not happen?
How does Mr. Shamir answer the lack of influence on US foreign
policy, the almost total refusal to accept Jewish refugees from
Europe? If the US accepted the refugees then there would have been
less impulse to form a Jewish state in the middle east. New York
and Los Angeles have always been the great attractors to many Jews
around the world, not Hebron or other Middle East destinations.
Dan
TOP
Note: For a
History of World War II Zionism and its influence visit
Jews Against Zionism . The
involvement of Zionist leaders with Nazis is well documented. -Holocaust
Survivors Accuse-(PDF) e-book speaks of survivor
experience in the face of the Nazis and Zionists.
Shamir to Dan:
Dan, I am amazed you consider the war against the Nazi monster - 'a
bad thing'. Would you prefer Nazi Germany to exist until nowadays?
Jews had some influence in the US after 1936, but not enough to send
the US troops into Europe. Even much more powerful US Jews of
2001-2004 needed some additional events in order to send the US
troops into Iraq. As for accepting the Jewish refugees in the US:
Zionists were adamant against it. Probably the most detailed book on
this subject was written by Shabtay Beit Zevi, I reviewed it in
http://www.israelshamir.net/french/zionists.shtml
Shamir
--------------------------
An aside to Readers:
Dan B is a very good man; but he is conditioned
like many others. A statement about Jews in negative connotation
irritates him; but he will accept the same statement if presented in
positive connotation. He will object vehemently to me saying 'the
Jews caused globalization', for he knows I do not like
globalization. But if you will say, 'Jews are the bridge between
nations and cultures', (the same idea but presented in positive way)
he will love you. Same here: 'Jews pushed Europe and America into
the WWII' causes his anger; but let us present it other way, as 'the
war against Nazi monster' - and he will raise to the bait.
TOP
Indeed, he replied:
-------
Dan to Shamir
Sorry if I was confusing. I think the war against the Nazis was a
good thing. I don't think the US got in as soon or as vigorously as
the Jews in the US wanted. I agree the Jews recently needed help to
get our troops (tragically) into Iraq.
--------------------
In aside to Readers: QED. When positively presented, our good friend
Dan B accepted the idea of Jews pushing for war.
----------------------
From our conservative Republican friend, and a friend of Palestine,
an important constitutional lawyer Jack Graham:
This answer to Halevi is absolutely correct. The choice of the
American people in the election for President of the United States
in 2004 is the same as the choice of the German people in the
election for President of the Weimar Republic in 1932, when the
choice was between von Hindenburg, who was unfit, and Hitler, who
was even more dangerous. Elect Kerry and you will have Lieberman as
secretary of state, with full American blessing of the "third
temple." I don't have to tell you about Bush. Like a German
patriot in 1932, I shall, in effect, vote for von Hindenburg, even
though I know he is unfit for the office. The alternative is even
worse.
TOP
And it is certainly wrong to say that "evangelical Christians"
committed a fraudulent electoral push in Florida in 2000. It was a
simple struggle for power. Al Gore, who was totally bought by the
Israel Lobby, wanted to buy the election by selective recount in
three Democrat counties by recounting ambiguous ballots by
committees consisting of two Democrats and one Republican. So
George Bush simply said, in effect, "Okay, Al, I can buy an election
too." John F. Kennedy bought his election in 1960 by a corrupt vote
in Illinois, but Dick Nixon knew enough not to whine. He knew that,
if he would have won, it would have been in part because he had
cheated in some other State, yet made it too difficult to expose
it. One very good reason why the President should not be popularly
elected -- and the framers of the United States Constitution
actually decided at first not to have anything like a popular
election for that high office, as appears in the records of the
Philadelphia Convention on July 16, 1787 --, is that, in a country
the size of the United States, it is impossible to have a completely
honest election for President whenever there are two powerful
candidates. Human beings are, after all, human beings.
George Washington was honestly elected, because he had no
opposition, and there was no way he could possibly have avoided
being elected, but the election of Abraham Lincoln was certainly
rigged. In fact, the election of 1860 was one of the dirtiest
elections of all time, so much so that several States seceded from
the Union, and there was a civil war, again proving that the framers
should never have allowed anything like a popular election hidden
behind the façade of an electoral college. The only thing we can do
is limit the extent of the cheating. As there is an acceptable
margin of error in counting votes, there is also an acceptable
margin of cheating. By historical standards, Bush won within normal
limits of cheating. So I wish the disingenuous whining over Bush's
election would cease. It is so undignified. Halevi should just
admit that he favors Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and so is
disappointed that Bush won by cheating, and that Gore
did not win by cheating. I can understand that, but I have no time
for this whining.
The "evangelical Christians" are bad enough in having supported the
"neocons" in preventing peace between Arabs and Jews in the Middle
East, because, in so doing, they aided and abetted subversives of
the foreign power in betraying the United States, not even to
mention the injustice to Arabs in Palestine. That's the point.
TOP
And lastly, Christian anti-judaism is not banal but deep and
important.
I shall suspend judgment here. But I have never read a classic
advocate of "anti-Semitism" -- e. g., Henry Ford Sr. who was nothing
at all like Hitler but was trying to be honest, even though he seems
to have over generalized, and was to that extent unfair -- whoever,
ever hated Jews because of the judicial murder of Christ. -- J. R.
G.
---------------
From our colleague Eric Walberg
Excellent critique of Halevi. But I'm intrigued that you describe
him as a dissident. He sounds like a Zio-mole for the left, very
much like Chomsky (the dog wags the tail, and BTW, vote for JFK II).
The Zios are expert at manipulating so-called democracy, and know
that a little dissent is like a spice - it makes the Zio-stew more
tasty. The fact that he sees Zionism as an aberration shows that he
is being intellectually dishonest. It seems to me that any Jew who
has truly been able to reject Zionism will surely know deep down
that it is a natural outgrowth of the age-old mentality that
Talmudic Judaism nursed and
protected for 1500 years.
Eric
TOP |