For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



The Tail Waging the Dog

Response to HalÚvy
RÚponse Ó HalÚvy :

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-Juda´sm 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.


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
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 fašade 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