By Felix Quigley
December 2, 2008
I have just been reading a very interesting and absolutely important website. It is called Isracampus. (www.isracampus.org) As I scanned down I came across a reference to Stalin’s antisemitism and following the link further discovered a few paragraphs with deadly content.
They are all the product of writers and professors in the Israeli University system, full of hatred for Israel, full of sympathy for the eenmies of Israel, now called “Palestinians” although Palestinian Arabs may be more accurate.
This is the most serious problem. It has been touched on slightly by Gil White. Steven Plaut deals with it continually but in his own way which does not really get to terms with the problem.
Following the link proivided I came on this by one of these writers. I think I show in the following that a little correct historical persepective soon opens up the holes in this writer’s approach.
<blockquote>In its history as well as its nature, Zionism differs significantly from all other nationalist movements.
<em><strong>Is untrue. There are bound to be differences because all national movements have a unique history.</strong></em>
It is the case, as has been said, of “a government that acquired a state.” From the time of the 1897 founding Congress, the Zionists had a government (the Zionist executive committee).
<em><strong>Rubbish. The Irish in their national liberation struggle first set uip Dail Eireann. So this was not in the slightest different to the Jews. Dail Eireann was set up while the British were in control of the country and had to meet in secret. Also the Irish depended heavily on the American Irish diaspora.</strong></em>
They had a House of Representatives (the Zionist Congress) with a left and a right wing, moderates and extremists, progressives and conservatives, religious and secular parties. (NB The Irish had the same, even a socialist called James Connolly, a romantic poet Padraig Pearce, and then activist national bourgeois types like Griffith, DeValera and Collins, so the above is hot air by this writer) They collected annual taxes (the shekel, whose payment granted the right to vote in the elections of the Zionist Congress). Yet they had no state to govern and no citizens. The Congress was a federation of political parties which shared one common objective – to create a Jewish state in Palestine – yet quarreled on almost every other issue, including the means to achieve this common objective. All this activity was taking place in Europe while the Jewish population in Palestine numbered less than 10 per cent of the Arab population, and had nothing to do with the Zionist movement.
<em><strong>All this is sheer poison. The reason being that the Jews had been expelled and persecuted. That is the main difference with the Irish. The Jews had to be brought back to the place from where they were expelled. The above is an antisemitic theme, ie blaming the victim, the Jew, for the oppressor of the Jew.</strong></em>
Zionism originated in Europe and was a European phenomenon arising out of conditions affecting European Jews. These conditions included: the severe persecution suffered by Jews in Tsarist Russia in the second half of die last century (in the pogroms the Russian Jews were in constant danger of losing not only their livelihood, but their lives) and the obstacles faced by Jews in Western Europe (where their economic conditions were much better) in becoming integrated into non-Jewish society (the Dreyfus Affair converted Herzl from an assimilationist to a Zionist). Ideologically, Zionism was shaped under the impact of nineteenth-century European nationalism, which was the emerging ideology of a wide group of people living in the belt between the Baltic and the Adriatic. Emotionally, it was deeply influenced by the Jewish religion.
<em><strong>Totally weak. Even a school child knows that Zionism, or the wish to return to Zion, is rooted in the Roman expulsions, at least, and what followed, including the brutal Arab Islamist conquest.
Of course Europe mattered. There is always a little truth in what these folk say. But he is wrong on Herzl and Dreyfus. The Diaries make it clear that Dreyfus was not the big factor most historians try to say it was. Rather that Herzl was aware of the great changes caused by the break up of the Austro Hungarian Empire at the turn of the century. These were not issues concerning some thousands as in France but millions of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, the very foundation platform for the Holocaust was being created. Herzl to his credit saw this. But that in itself was not separate from the previous 2000 years of persecution.</strong></em>
Herzl himself underestimated the strength of the Jewish sentiment toward Palestine.
<em><strong>Yes he did indeed. This is a feature of these writers. Sometimes they make the case for Israel. It is a trick they play often. Some things are incontestible so they just state it then try to blur the significance. But Herzl learned and soon he saw the power of the return to Zion ideal, and the necessity for it.</strong></em>Coming from an assimilationist home, he was unaware of the emotional-political power of the Jewish religion. When he suggested to the Congress that the Jewish state be created in Uganda, he was surprised by the fierceness of the opposition from the majority which refused to accept any substitute, even temporarily, for Palestine. The Zionists
<em><strong>”The Zionists”. The writer could just as well be saying “The Luciferians” it is a cuss word for him. He is doing now what I said above, he is deflecting from the truth he had to state.</strong></em>
considered their rights in Palestine to be incontestable, but they realized that they must either achieve recognition of these rights by some world power or else convince those who happened to be ruling Palestine that the creation of a Jewish state there would be to their benefit.
<em><strong>He is just now lapsing into lies and more lies. The British were opposed to the state of Israel being formed. As was the US ruling class at all points. Just that in the 47 vote Truman probably had to match Kosygin.</strong></em>
 Although Palestine was at that time populated by some 700,000 Arabs, the Zionists never bothered to consult them.
<em><strong>More ISM type lies. Not only were they totally consulted but Churchill cut off the 78 per cent to creat Transjordan out of Palestine, as a sop to the Arabs. Hopin gthat the Arabs would then allow the Jews to have about 22 per cent of the original planned a year before at San Remo.</strong></em>
Realistically they could hardly have expected the Palestinian Arabs – who had their own nationalist aspirations – to accept the idea of a Jewish state, especially at a time when Jews constituted such a small percentage of the population. And like any other colonizing movement of that time, Zionism simply did not consider the indigenous population of the colonized country as a political factor to be reckoned with. </blockquote>
<em><strong>Some colonizing movement since they had just lost 78 per cent, and the remaining 22 per cent to be challenged against the Jews as well</strong></em>
<strong>I am afraid that we need an organization which can challenge these folk theoretically as well as politically.
There is a whole narrative being created here which is based on a falsehood. Now the big problem is the absence of a force of a strong mobilizing, educational and combative nature which can begin to educate the key youth in Israel on these isues.
The problem also is that Plaut proceeds as an individual. But no individual can possibly do this. It is not just a matter of words in a university lecture room or in a university magazine.
It is esentially to organize the struggle to defend Israel. A initial step in doing this is to show that Israel is engaged in a serious war for its existence. This means that it is quite impermissible to even try to fight this war against fiece enemies while having such enemies as a Fifth Column, which includes the Israeli Supreme Court as well.
All of these promotors of Israel hatred should be arrested and placed in prison. Not exiled because they would simply carry on. I mean unambiguously jailed.
But my point here is not only jail them, answer them theoretically as well. But do jail them for sure and at once.
You can see from the points that I have made that it is quite easy to answer. But there is a tendency to ignore these traitorous Jewish enemies in the interests of free speech. In conditions of war there is no such thing as allowing the enemy to have free speech. Those of your compatriots, brothers and sisters or whatever term you use, must have total free speech. But your enemy must have no free speech at all. This applies as well to organs of the Media such as Haaretz which some have even called the voice of the Palestinian Arabs.</strong>