| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:31 am Post subject: Why the Anti-War Movement Should Openly Protest Zionism |
| Why the Anti-War Movement Should Openly Protest Zionism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 11, Dave Kersting wrote:
“When the influence of Zionism was proposed to ANSWER honcho, Richard Becker (who seems to be Jewish), last June, as a factor greater than or equivalent to ‘oil,’ in US hostilities against Iraq (and the entire Middle East), he merely slandered such suggestions as ‘anti-Semitic’ and refused to discuss them further.”
------------------------------------------------
Rdest@aol.com replies:
> I would like to ask Dave where this comment by Becker took place?
Dave Kersting answers:
Richard Becker made the comment in an email message (a response to me) which was posted to several lists.
A separate discussion had drawn attention to Zionism as the only interest that is utterly and BY DEFINITION committed to instability in the Middle East. This allows no corporate option for doing business in the Middle East OTHER than the colonial military bargain-hunting options.
Corporations might, or might not wish to do business in the bloody, toxic, old-fashioned ways, but Zionism is extremely active and influential in preventing progress or development.
Richard Becker picked this up and (on June 20, ‘02) responded with a message that included:
The theory that "Zionists control the U.S. government" is just more misinformation that misleads the anti-war movement away from the real culprits -- Corporate America, which owns and controls the House, Senate, White House, State Dept., etc., etc.
Note also that Becker sees the anti-war movement as unable to consider a theory on its own; he spurns even “theory” as “misinformation” which could “mislead” a gullible movement – by offering open discussion as an alternative to his protective leadership?
Rdest@aol.com continues:
> I saw Richard Becker following a Workers World sponsored trip
> to the West Bank, this summer and I recall him explicitly speaking to the
> issue of Zionism. I absolutely would not agree that suggesting that Zionism
> is a motivating factor in the US war drive against Iraq is in any way
> anti-Semitic. I also do not think it is in any way the primary motivating
> factor in this war drive. Fossil fuel I also think is a secondary factor.
Upon returning from the West Bank, I suppose a leftist would have to mention Zionism.
I saw Richard Becker speak recently in San Francisco at a “teach-in” about Iraq, and he found it very easy to get through that without mentioning the role of Israel or Zionism at all.
Barbara Lubin (who is Jewish) and a Palestinian speaker DID talk about the Israel linkage, but even they did so without any mention of the fundamental racism, at the heart of the conflict, despite the fact that the racism issue is by far the easiest for Americans to grasp – the clearest, most inexcusable, most obviously FUTILE wrong – and despite the fact that they were standing under an “ANSWER” banner, an acronym whose last letters stand for “end racism.”
The dread of upsetting the Zionists and demi-Zionists in the “movement” still runs so deep, no one THINKS to use the only really INDISPUTABLE argument we have!
> I have never agreed with Workers World Party in reducing this question to oil
> resources. I do understand why this simplistic explanation has an appeal, it
> makes for good agitation and can easily be communicated to people. The US war
> drive against Iraq is part of its strategy for total global dominance, Iraq
> from the US imperialist perspective must be smashed simply because it acts in
> defense of its own national interests and could well inspire other nation
> states to do likewise. It has little to do with the character of the Iraqi
> leadership, since the US has promoted repressive military regimes in the
> middle east since the late 1940s. Resistance of third world nations endanger
> the US world wide project of shifting production to low wage nations and
> keeping down the prices of resources, of which oil is only one of many
> resources.
I can’t argue against your theory – except to suggest that managing a global two-class system would almost certainly prove less cost-effective, less profitable, over all, than straight up business, in a thriving global market. (Even if we find it odd to imagine a decent future.) The urgencies of global-environmental problems definitely provide incentives; and sustainable answers offer enormous profit. Progress is not only possible; it is mandatory at every level, and everyone knows it. Still, we probably should look at the current situation as you say – as a major attempt to assert global domination over everything, not just oil.
That drive is symbiotic with Zionism’s own explicit drive, in the Middle East, for its own interests, under its own dynamics; Zionism COULD keep things off balance and regressive, but the relative influences or interplay between Zionism and corporate imperialism is not the point. We must not stop opposing overt racism – for its OWN sake.
We certainly must resist more murderous crimes against Iraq, but our opposition to murderous crimes must not be LIMITED or DETERMINED by theoretical strategies or abstractions: whether it is “about” oil, or “about” Zionism, etc. When we see overt, openly racist horrors – overt and “acceptable” ONLY in the case of Zionism – we must see them as a clear and tangible cutting edge of horrific regression. It is not clever, it is STUPID, to keep quiet about them, for the sake of some theoretic larger plan.
Just how many reasons are we supposed to start accepting, to justify further silence about overt racist violence in broad daylight?
The main reason we should focus on Zionism is that it is – with its OWN charms and for its OWN interests – most actively annihilating the old standards against racism and its most hideous expressions, such as brutality against civilians, targeting children, etc. As Israel gets away with horrors that used to be considered totally unacceptable, the whole value-scale is getting erased. Not even the corporations, together, could do this without Zionism.
Yet this regression could not happen if people would BOTHER TO PROTEST against those brazen wrongs – and such protest would be the easiest and most effective we can imagine (and this has proven true, whenever it has occurred.) The fact that progressives, leftists, and the “anti-war movement” are still keeping quiet about such brazen wrongs is an ominous Zionist propaganda victory.
The emphasis on Iraq, and the (1930s) “No Blood for Oil” slogan, are supposedly expedient because they are soft enough to “build a large movement,” or “avoid alienating liberals,” but it is mainly about avoiding conflict with the many Zionists “in the movement,” who still cling to the dream of a “Jewish” (supremacist) state in most of Palestine. And those irritable Zionists do explode when someone phrases the realities in plain, UNDENIABLE terms, such as “racist violence,” that are utterly vile to any intelligent person.
No one can consciously MEAN to accommodate both sides of that bipolar schism. It is a deeply-rooted contradiction, and a long-delayed moment of truth: that barrier was not planted by the corporations, though they may well take advantage, rather than confront it. It is the ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT and the BELIEVERS IN EQUALITY who must stop shying away from that barrier.
Besides, the actual truth of the matter – the racist nature of the atrocities – a truth which EXHIBITS the atrocities for what they are, in the familiar racist pattern – is far more persuasive, and more accessible to normal Americans, than any other argument. One advantage of the truth is that it holds together really well.
But we are supposed to believe in the TRUTH, anyway, aren’t we? Those who think we can cleverly do better by NOT speaking the full truth are buying into a Zionist value.
> I would still say Richard Becker, when I last heard him
> speak, clearly understood the danger of Zionism and in no way equated
> anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This is why I am quite taken aback by the
> comment Dave made reference to Becker in his posting.
As for me, since I do not share the general silence about the overt racism at the heart of the Middle East debacle, I run into surprising attacks, by various figures in the “left” and the “anti-war movement,” who normally have NO NEED to squelch anyone. When I speak, in various “progressive” milieus, I now and then elicit Zionist attitudes from people who otherwise seem ok – if we fail to note their silence about the violent racism inherent in Jewish supremacy. (We DO note that Palestine is not mentioned at all, in any of the posters and bumper-stickers, that are this movement’s largest statement.) All I have to do is say something like “Failing to demand the ‘right of return’ means supporting racist violence against ethnically unsuited people, to keep them from returning to their homes” – and when these demi-Zionists freak out, with threats, obscenities, assaults, and the “anti-Semitism” slander, I am ALWAYS told how surprising this is. (Incidentally, I have never been accused of the least impropriety, in any of these incidents – by anyone except the exploding Zionist.)
I am not speaking loosely here. I can provide full accounts of the events I refer to, and several more, if anyone wants more specifics. There are many Zionists and demi-Zionists who want to be “in the movement” (I’m not sure why) but that does not mean that most of the “liberal” or “average” population wants to support Zionist ethnic crimes. A little leadership, on such clear issues as violent racism, goes a long way.
Just think. We are building an actual WALL between the “chosen” and less desired ethnicities, in Palestine, right now. This is yet another absolute proof of total racism, like the “Jewish” state itself, forced into Palestine, and the racist immigration policy that prevents people from going home.
And this DRAWS NO PROTEST. NO ONE OBJECTS IN ANY WAY THAT ADDRESSES THE MOST MORALLY VULNERABLE CRUX OF THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST WAR IDEOLOGY. Future generations will marvel in disgust. “No War on Iraq” is fine, but by itself it is weak. We need to get mad about the ongoing and openly racist war on Palestine.
The Israel-Palestine issue is the simplest and plainest issue we have ever seen. The U.S. versus Saddam Hussein is a mush in a fog, by comparison. But Israel? A “Jewish” state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine: what part of “violent state-racism” do we not understand?
Even within your theory: if we wish to oppose the measures necessary for global domination, our efforts certainly must include protesting the MOST BRAZEN atrocities such a program could ever employ. If we get used to finding complex reasons for NOT protesting that sort of thing, we are in big trouble.
> Just for clarification
> purposes, I am not a member, or supporter of either Answer of Workers World
> Party, nor am I hostile to these groups.
>
> In general I do agree with Dave that the anti-war war movement wants to
> seperate Palestine away from the movement. Clearly it is important that
> Palestinian Solidarity activitists oppose this whether it comes from
> pacifists or the left. But my read on Answer is somewhat different. I think
> it is trying to play both sides. To promote a broad anti war movement that
> could include liberal Jews who are also Zionists and also present itself as a
> supporter of the Palestinian national revolution. They are not alone, this is
> also done by the remnants of the Communist Party USA, or Trotskyist groups
> such as Solidarity.
>
> I for one cannot do this, I find it repugnant to be in the same coalition
> with liberal Zionists around Iraq. To me these Zionist liberals are snakes
> and hypocrites. I simply cannot work with them any longer. I have had too
> many Palestinian friends and comrades slaughtered or imprisoned in the last
> two years. There is a river of blood between these Zionist liberals and
> myself. I simply cannot take a pragmatic approach to working with them around
> Iraq.
Again: Keeping discreetly silent about the most obvious and crucial wrong is a fools’ strategy. Violent state-racism and peace are anathema. No peace movement needs to swell its ranks by pampering pseudo-progressive believers in violent state-racism. Heck, give these people SOME credit; we could convert most of them, if we tried.
> I understand the tactic that Answer is using in the current anti war
> movement, it is an old one and has been around for years. I recall during the
> Vietnam antiwar movement that I took a similar approach after my own military
> experience and opposed the slogan "Victory to the National Liberation Front
> (NLF)", because of fear of alienating liberals.
If we had gotten up one morning and found that the Vietnam hawks had been forced to admit that their motive was OVERT ethnic-cleansing for the sake of overt ethnic-supremacy, the anti-Vietnam-War movement would have thought it died and went to heaven.
It is horrible that something so wrong is so undeniable, in the case of Israel-Palestine, and they have us tricked into keeping quiet about it! Millions of ordinary Americans would understand this.
> I decline to join the chorus
> for a broad all encompassing antiwar movement, I support excluding liberal
> Zionists, and supporters of the Israeli State from this antiwar movement.
>
> Rod
> In Chicago
>
Or we should welcome anyone who supports the truth. I only know that softness on OVERT racism is folly. And no scheme that leaves out loud and clear rejection of current racist crimes is an ethical or moral course.
How many reasons did the quiet Germans have for keeping quiet? How many theoretic hopes and schemes could be used to justify the first year of silence, and then the next? How many years have we been keeping quiet about the ethnic-cleansing of Palestine? What has it brought us? Just how long do we think we can wait?
Thank you for delving into these issues, Rod.
Dave Kersting
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WORDS are Stronger than SWORDS! ~ Spread the words to the Wilderness!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine is America's Secular WILDERNESS VOICE for PALESTINE!*
www.FreePalestine.com No Peace Without Occupation Free PALESTINE!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessed are the Peacemakers NOT the Warmongers!
Chronic INJUSTICE is the ROOT of TERRORISM!
Fighting TERRORISM while AIDING OCCUPATION is Moronic!
END TERRORISM by ENDING Israeli OCCUPATION Stupid!
SHARON NOW = MILOSEVIC Then = HITLER IN 1942!
Peace Only in a Legislatively DEzIONIZED Secular State!
Aiding Israeli OCCUPATION = Aiding TERRORISM!
Where Does Our Simplistic Absolutist President Stand?!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
www.Badil.org The RIGHT of RETURN!
www.IndictSharon.net Indict the BUTCHER!
www.PMWatch.org PALESTINE MEDIA WATCH!
www.PalestineRemembered.com PALESTINE for DUMMIES!
www.FreePalestineCampaign.org Be a Peacemaker in PALESTINE!
www.InternationalAnswer.org Act Now to STOP WAR and End RACISM
www.capwiz.com/ADC/home/ Tell Congress to Stop Aid to Israel!
www.Al-Awda.org/petition.htm END zIONIST Profit from OCCUPATION!
www.RamallahOnline.com Our Occupied Home in Ramallah PALESTINE!
www.groups.Yahoo.com/group/eFreePalestine/messages ARCHIVES!
www.PalestineChronicle.com News and Views from PALESTINE!
www.DocumentaryPhotographs.com Pictures from PALESTINE!
www.PalestineMonitor.org Monitor PALESTINE!
www.WRMEA.com zIONIST-Free MEDIA!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine-subscribe@YahooGroups.com SUBSCRIBE NOW 
eFreePalestine-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com Unsubscribe 
eFreePalestine@YahooGroups.com Speak up on eFreePalestine!
eFreePalestine-owner@YahooGroups.com Questions/Comments!
Views expressed are the author's only*
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:28 am Post subject: |
| "seems to be Jewish"??????
What the heck kind of freakin moron would make a statement like that?
I'd call you an asshole, but I would feel bad for the other assholes on this board who might be upset to be in the same category as you. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:20 pm Post subject: |
| NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Latest: Dec. 7-9, 2002. MoE ± 3.1
"Now turning to Iraq: Do you think that the United States should or should not take military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?"
Should 59%
Should Not 30%
Not Sure 11% | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:39 pm Post subject: |
| | Anonymous wrote: | NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Latest: Dec. 7-9, 2002. MoE ± 3.1
"Now turning to Iraq: Do you think that the United States should or should not take military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?"
Should 59%
Should Not 30%
Not Sure 11% |
....today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club-the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."
Spiro T. Agnew | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
