The fine art of academic scholarship for Zion

First Inquiry:
“Israel's Right to Exist” in Palestinian Blood
To: Dr. Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Michigan
To: America's Academe
From: Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org - The Plebeian Antidote to Hectoring Hegemons
Subject: Inquiry regarding your revealing statement “Israel's right to exist” in Palestinian blood, and Campus Watch
Date: Written April 24, 2005 (through May 15, 2005)*
Dear Professor (s) of Middle Eastern Studies in the United States of America
I would like to begin by greeting you with my traditional salutation: Assalaam O Alekum – May Peace be with all of you.
This is the first time I am taking the liberty of writing to you because a sentence in your recent piece: The new McCarthyism, caught my eye and puzzled me enough to want to seek further elucidation. Two inquiries into the subject follow as two open letters to America's Academe; I would be much obliged with an educative response that is both lucid and enlightening to the public mind. Specifically, to my own humble plebeian mind which remains puzzled by the profound intellectualism espoused by modern day academics, who, while publicly wearing the lofty mantle of Plato and Socrates in their academies, under even mild scrutiny appear to be secretly carrying the burden of Nietzsche's superman beneath their pious academic robe and their lofty “freedom of the academe”.
Footnote [*Editor's Note October 2013 This open letter was perhaps never fully completed and never emailed to Dr. Juan Cole when first composed in April-May 2005; certainly it was never published. Serendipitously rediscovered in the author's archives in October 2013, and finding the incisive inquiry most pertinent even eight years later, it is finally published, mostly AS IS, for what little its worth before the mighty guns of Zionism. The reader can see that the oppression has only gotten worse for the Palestinians, aided and abetted as the criminal Jewish colonization and resettlement of Palestine is by the brilliant American Academic in all its confabulations. The footnotes, unfortunately intermingled with the main text, are also left as is. The citations in web-links are circa 2005 and may not be accessible today. The author's subsequent works have penetrated deeper into the rabbit hole of how the world of superman scholarship in the Western academe craftily bows in silent omissions not only before the presuppositions of Zion while playing dissent with it, but before all presuppositions of the establishmentarian system: [1] see The Dying Songbird by Zahir Ebrahim where the full gamut of respectable Western dissent, from Dr. Juan Cole (light-moderate – the dissent-lite genre) to Dr. Noam Chomsky (left – the radical genre) to Dr. Ron Paul (right – the respectable genre), is situated in the toolkit of “democratic” statecraft that requires illusions in as much necessity as its guns and butter ; [2] see Dr. Juan Cole in Songbird or Superman – You Decide! ; [3] see How many Jews does it take to confuse me?, in: Pamphlet: The Invisible House of Rothschild ; [4] see Vladimir Jabotinsky boldly defining the moral value proposition of Zionism in his seminal 1923 article 'The Iron Wall', in: Pamphlet: How to Return to Palestine 2nd Edition ; [5] witness the ubiquitous scholarly silence on to whom the infamous Balfour Declaration is addressed in the diabolically most brilliant piece of treacherous wording that gave the first 'legal cover' by the fiat of British imperial power to the theft of Palestine, in the opening pages of the same pamphlet (Ibid.) ; [6] understand soft Zionists, those who play dissent with Zion while axiomatically holding on to the core value propositions of Zionism, deconstructed in The endless trail of red herrings ; [7] see the lofty moral claims to the mantle of Plato by the Western academic who boldly claims responsibility as an intellectual to tell the truth, dismantled in Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux ; [8] see the author's principled defence of Jewish American academic Norm Finkelstein by separating the Zionist chaff from the Christian American wheat in: Letter to President DePaul U. On deconstructing the hullabaloo surrounding Finkelstein's tenure, April 29, 2007 ; [9] see the Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent brilliantly choreographed by The Mighty Wurlitzer which most eruditely runs circles around the public mind, scrutinized in: A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer: Architecture of Modern Propaganda for Psychological Warfare ; [10] and finally, to glean a perceptive understanding of why the American academe only produces “likkha-parrha-jahils” to willingly “United we stand” with the core axioms and key presuppositions of the establishment no different than the Third Reich's academe under Nazi Socialism, despite America's plentiful Ivy Leagues and over 2000 industrious universities and colleges from its brilliant sea to shining sea, see The Fable of the Bees: The Seduction of Science and Technology .]


First Inquiry Question
“When I have taught the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan, I have had fair numbers of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and Jewish-Americans in my class. My class evaluations have overall been good to excellent, but I always have a handful complaints from both sides. Some Arab-Americans blast me for naively accepting key claims of Zionism when I argue for Israel's right to exist.” --- Juan Cole, The New McCarthyism, published April 23, 2005 by Salon.com, http://commondreams.org/views05/0423-20.htm
It is the last sentence above. Could you kindly elaborate on your position by identifying the key claims for your arguments in support of Zionism and Israel's right to exist on Palestinian territory, and identify the key "values" upon which you base these key claims.
I dare to assume here that when you say "exist" above, you do mean exist in Palestine. As opposed to, say for example, in Switzerland where Herzl (1860-1904) first proposed his plan. As you may recall, Herzl had argued, 40 some years before there were even any signs of the Nazi menace or the Holocaust, in his influential 1896 pamphlet Der Judenstaat or The Jewish State that: “Let the Sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation; the rest we shall manage for ourselves”, and subsequently triumphantly declared in anticipation after the first Zionist meeting: "In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it". For if by "exist" you indeed do mean “in Switzerland”, I have no need for further clarification beyond you affirming that by "exist" you mean moving Israel to Switzerland (or any place else other than Palestine) post haste. You may now stop reading here if you wish and just email me this affirmation. I will be delighted and thankful as having received a satisfactory response to my inquiry.
I also dare to assume that by “right to exist” you imply that the underlying reason for this right is because the Jews' mighty god has given them an exclusive land grant in Palestine and it says so in their holy books dating 3000 years. As opposed to, for example, the underlying reason being fair and just compensation for almost 20 centuries of persecution that the bigoted Christian peoples have mercilessly inflicted upon their brethren Jews, and for which, just restitution from the Christian peoples own vast wealth, properties, and lands must finally be made to the Jews in order to cleanse their own primal sins of 20 centuries of bigoted anti-Semitism, and a collective guilty conscience for the persistent Jewish problem in their European Gentile midst.
For if it is indeed the latter, then I further assume that as an honest and erudite intellectual, you do uphold that such restitution cannot be justifiably made by the gratuitous theft of another innocent people's properties and lands in Palestine that the Christian peoples happened to have militarily colonized through their bloody conquest during the first world war in the early twentieth century, and which they proceeded to gratuitously offer to the Jews under the notorious Balfour Declaration in 1917 (22 years before the Nazi war machine went into action). Subsequently, the Anglo-American imperial powers, with full connivance of the burgeoning new Soviet power, just handed the final usurpation of Palestine over to the Jews to genocidally manage for themselves just as the Zionists had long demanded, under the full protection of “an iron wall which the native population cannot break through”*, in the guise of protecting the Jews from another Christian fueled HolocaustTM**.
Footnotes [*Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923, “This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.” ] [**Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948, opening page: “Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.” ]
Surely, you must have most eruditely studied, and also taught to your students, this most treacherous piece of Machiavellian wordsmanship of the Balfour Declaration written by the fiat of imperial power of a waning empire, and how it came to be addressed to Lord Rothschild; even asking the sensible questions most worthy of the Socratic academic mind unbeholden to any master: who is the House of Rothschild, how did it come to wield so much political influence over a Christian empire embroiled in a world war in the early twentieth century which had hitherto no love lost for the Jews, and what is that impenetrable “iron wall” that continually protects the Zionist resettlement of Palestine almost a hundred years later just as was brazenly outlined by Vladimir Jabotinsky?
Most assuredly, when you so openly confess: “Some Arab-Americans blast me for naively accepting key claims of Zionism when I argue for Israel's right to exist.”, you must have been able to penetrate all of that dense fog of colonization and injustice in order to come up with your clear argument. Including, the fact that it was only the fiat of power that “legally” architected that “right”, so to speak:


The Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild November 2nd 1917
Caption The Balfour Declaration: Dear Lord Rothschild, 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavor to facilitate the achievement of this object. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.' Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.
But as one possessing a just and moral sense, I dare to presume, you surely must recognize and feel outraged at the travesty of justice in the Christian people's justice system, whereby in order to compensate one peoples upon whom they have visited persecution for centuries, they create the conditions for the systematic persecution of yet another innocent peoples at the hands of their former victims. And if you were observing from the planet Mars looking at this bizarre and twisted sense of morality among the Christians on earth, you might rightly conclude that these peoples must love the sight and smell of blood as much as their illustrious predecessors in ancient Greece and Rome, upon whose inheritance they base the claims of their Western Civilization.
As erudite historian(s) of the Middle East, you are no doubt already intimately familiar with these transgressions of power-plays by the hectoring hegemons in modern history. Therefore, if it is indeed the compensation motive that motivates you instead of the good lord's generous land grants to the Jews, then I would again have no further need for additional clarification other than you unequivocally affirming that by "right to exist" you mean moving Israel to Rome, Berlin, Paris, or Michigan, or any other lands owned by the Christians, in just compensation for their horrendous crimes against their first victims (restitution to the second victims will be taken up later). You may now stop reading here if you wish and just email me this affirmation. I will be again delighted and thankful as having received a satisfactory response to my inquiry.
If you have reached here, then I further dare to presume that when you speak of “Israel's right to exist”, it isn't some abstract “right” that you refer to – for it would be quite meaningless if it remained an abstract notion crafted for argumentation purposes only, but that you mean by it the Jews “immutable” claim to Eretz Yisrael as the Biblical Promised Land. This of course includes all of present day Palestine, but would also loosely extend from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers in one dimension, from the Red Sea to the edge of the Persian Gulf in the second dimension, all the sky and outer space above that region in the third dimension, and for all eternal time in the fourth dimension (I don't believe the Jews have claimed a fifth dimension – but I could be misinformed).
That you endorse the Zionist Jews abstract claims derived from theology, over the real indigenously settled peoples' of the region physically living there continuously for generations, perhaps since time immemorial, and who still continue to live there to this day. That you accord the Zionists, rights to a statehood on another's territory in the International arena, and accord them special privileges over and above the rights that are accorded to other states in the International arena, to also perpetually expand, prosper, and multiply as promised to them by their own respective Gods – thus Stalinists may not take over beyond Russia, and Nazis may not take over beyond Germany or it will lead to World Wars. But saintly Jews, as God's Chosen and superior peoples, may “rightfully” invade Palestine with extreme violence, be the only state on the planet with increasingly “unsettled status of our borders”, and eventually take over the entire Middle East as Eretz-Yisrael, again with extreme violence and prejudice, against the 150 Million indigenous populations.
That such a “right to exist” exercised over Eretz Yisrael by the Zionist Jews, is their as much “immutable” right to resettle the foreign land with their own imported brethren, as the United States of America's was 300 hundred years ago, when they resettled its vast foreign frontiers by exterminating millions of its native inhabitants with similar extreme violence, perhaps as many as 10 million, usurped the territories of the neighboring Mexicans in cowardly wars, and proclaimed a glorious Republic from Sea to shining Sea, endowing self-evident and inalienable God given rights to the imported European settlers, who through their superior work ethic and industriousness, eventually burst onto the world scene as the beacon of Democracy for the rest of the “uncivilized” World. So will Israel too become a beacon of Democracy in the barbaric Middle East, presently occupied by a “people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.”*
Footnote [*Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001]
Certainly if one accepts their first abstract claims of “right” to create a real physical Jewish State in already inhabited Palestine with the use of extreme force and terror over the indigenous peoples, then one might as well accept all of their abstract claims for “right” to create Eretz-Yisrael as the logical consequence of the first. And if this conundrum of logic puts one at unease, then the only way out of it is to deny the first claim.
A tortuous first claim that started gaining momentum with Herzl claiming in 1900s “We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism”, leading to the creation of Israel within 50 years just as he'd foretold in 1896, the claim for Eretz-Yisrael may be equally realized within another “five years, certainly in fifty” with Israel's President claiming in 2001 that these people “actually belong to different galaxy”, and the President of the United States of America also proclaiming: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”, referring to the biggest perpetuator of extreme deadly violence on the Palestinian peoples, as a “man of peace”.
One can already see the path to realization for Eretz-Yisrael, and the role of the Zionists busy in hatching new deadly machinations for the indigenous peoples of the Middle East region, not a whole lot differently from their illustrious predecessors at the turn of the previous century. While I do not wish to insult the mental acuity of distinguished scholars by stating what is already out in the open and available for all to observe, but just for the sake of completeness of the thesis, after the commentary below, are just two examples of brilliant amoral Zionist Jews bringing more bad name to all Jews, and to the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments, making a mockery of the Jews' own lofty religion before the world. In their murderous fanaticism for Eretz-Yisrael, the Zionists lend further credence to the historical stereotype of the Jew as “treacherous” and “cowardly”, having “no moral compunctions”, a perception that has already gained them much undeserved suffering as a peoples. A monumental disreputation needing the monumental sacrifices of conscionable Jews like the indomitable 22 year old American Rachel Corrie, to even begin to reclaim self-assertions of “morality” among the Jews.
Commentary: The dire implications of this perception, at least in the “Muslim mind”, cannot ever be sufficiently overestimated, nor can it ever be convincingly argued to be wholly unjustified. As one may form “impressions” from the uncourageous silence or “political correctness” from among Muslim intellectuals today, that it's okay to keep paddling the Muslims as they repeatedly ask “may I please have some more sir”, where an outspoken courage may lead to “war on terrorism” upon them by their own generals and intelligence agencies running their nations as client-states. These aren't the “Muslim minds” Jews need to worry about – their elite souls have already been bought and paid for in the Faustian bargains that they have made for uncourageous survival. The Muslim peoples, directly bearing the brunt of the Zionists' largesse of “shock and awe”, after 13 long years of stifling economic sanctions that saw at least a million Iraqi Muslim children and babies dead from malnutrition, preventable diseases for want of basic medicines which could not be imported due to sanctions*, almost as many dying as were killed in the holocaust, remember the acute sympathy the Jewish US Secretary of State, Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright** could muster from the depth of her soul: “we think the price is worth it”. The conscionable, and unapologetic historian William Blum called her “ethically challenged***” in a classic understatement to the sensibilities of Muslims bearing the brunt of her barbarism. It is however quite necessary to repeatedly rehearse these facts**** because they seem to be all too easily forgotten in the general American scholarship when it comes to describing innocent Muslim blood spilled, from their own, and where these facts appear to be rather disconnected from the Palestine-Israel discussions. But they remain an essential daily reality in the hearts and lives of the victims, where it is one incessant direct chain of machinations by the Jews dreaming of Eretz-Yisrael, and their American protectors dreaming of “Geostrategic Imperatives”.
First example. One among their many strategies, which appears to be of current relevance, is openly outlined in the 1996 paper by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, and in the letters written by Project New American Century authors to both President Clinton and President George W. Bush, encouraging them to launch attacks on Iraq*, Iran, and Syria all through the late 1990s up to the present time. Richard Perle develops the strategy further by employing the “war on terrorism” to achieve the same ends, in his book: An End To Evil – How to Win The War On Terror. President George W. Bush, on the eve of invasion of Iraq in search for fictitious WMDs, on 26 February 2003, as the key-note speaker at the highly influential Neocon Zionist think tank American Enterprise Institute at which Richard Perle is a Resident Fellow, noted with enthusiasm: "Some of the finest minds of our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds. I want to thank them for their service". The award winning Journalist Robert Fisk's observation sums it up nicely**:
“Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us — a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices — Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organizations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris River to the parched Levant?” [*Mark Weber: Iraq: A War For Israel? ; **Scoop Editors: Why We Must GoTo War, Richard Perle Explains]
Second Example. There are other even more devilishly Machiavellian aspects to the Zionists plans for colonizing Eretz-Yisrael. The appointment* of the neoconservative Zionist master thinker Paul Wolfowitz**, the father of the war on Iraq, and a prolific signatory to many of the letters and reports generated by the Project New American Century, to head the neoliberal agenda of corporate globalization as the leader of the World Bank, ominously portends what other “shock and awe” might be in store for the region, and the developing world*** – for neoconservatism and neoliberalism are the two ugly faces of the same imperial coin** (former backing up the latter with their big guns, as one might observe in any B-rated Hollywood gangster movie). The same Zionist mastermind Jew now has been raised to new heights as the imperial golden boy with the Midas touch, ready to touch the entire world. Jim Vallette of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC summed up the American angle nicely in Why Wolfowitz?**:
“Over decades of political work, Wolfowitz and longtime buddies Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney have mastered the art of packaging raw geopolitical and corporate objectives into initiatives named otherwise. Strategic oil fields have preoccupied them in and out of office. It is almost a natural progression for the Bush/Cheney administration to want someone this steeped in blood and oil in charge of the World Bank. He was a weapon of mass deception for corporate quests in Iraq. At the Bank, he can serve the same function under the cloak of poverty alleviation. ... With Wolfowitz in charge, the World Bank may be able to complete what the Iraq invasion started two years ago: U.S. corporate control over the world’s second-largest oil reserves.”
'In Israel, The Jerusalem Post had selected Paul Wolfowitz as its Man of the Year for 2002. The Post stated: "On September 15, 2001, at a meeting in Camp David, Wolfowitz advised President George W. Bush to skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got his wish. In the process, Wolfowitz became the most influential US deputy defense secretary ever - can you so much as name anyone else who held the post?" The Post added: "The war in Iraq had many authors: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, George Bush. Wolfowitz may have been an early and vocal advocate, but he was cheering from the second row. What's not in dispute is that Wolfowitz is the principal author of the doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin US action against other rogue states.” ... "When President Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" -- that's Wolfowitz talking. When the president calls for "a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade" -- that's Wolfowitz's talking, too. ... To our ears, the sudden stress on Mideast democratization is "transformative," to use the Pentagon jargon. Israel has long waited for an administration that understands that the principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders. It is the unsettling nature of Arab regimes -- and of the bellicosity, fanaticism, and resentments to which they give rise. Israel has also long waited for an administration that understands that the regimes that threaten Tel Aviv also threaten New York.” '
Note the claim “principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders”. Also note the propagandistic association: “regimes that threaten Tel Aviv also threaten New York.” and relate it to Robert Fisk's observation above: “a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices” - but it sure will for an attack on New York. It isn't entirely meaningless to inquire where the bluff for WMDs came from, or how the remarkable defense failures of the world's most sophisticated and armed to the teeth superpower transpired on the day of “new Pearl Harbor”. What is however more instructive to ask is why?
The obvious reasons of course are admitted to by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paul Wolfowitz themselves: for conveniently acquiring the “conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being”, as without it the “process of transformation .. as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces – .. will remain stillborn”, whereas the “expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and forward operating locations to facilitate American political and military operations around the world” in order to maintain “American Preeminence” in the New American Century whose goals “must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,..." in order to maintain the “American peace” and “the benevolent order it secures”. [complete quotes with citations later on in the letter]
The unobvious reasons of course, because of which so many Zionist Jews just also happen to be Neocons in the service of the master du-jour, predicate the destiny of the Iraqi people under the thumbscrews of the Jews as but one of the phases of the Eretz-Yisrael project (while simultaneously serving the master du-jour's colonial interests), and it has many phases of realization. It's a long term project of deception and mayhem, just as Herzl's was for Der Judenstaat, instrumented through the Jewish Agency surreptitiously buying Palestinian lands and prevailing upon the British in the aftermath of World War I to make the Balfour Declaration, all as a phased and gradual fifty year “legal tender” over Palestine. Erudite scholars with short term memories aren't perhaps able to comprehend disparate plots spanning such time scales, especially those living in America – the land of Amnesia, until the plots are fait accompli. After the fact, with 20-20 vision, everyone and their brother becomes an expert historian and writes clever revelations in history books on how it was done, as in “Righteous Victims” by Israeli historian Benny Morris. One can clearly anticipate that in another five to fifty years, or a hundred years, a new generation will be reading similar histories about how the “war on terrorism” was used to barbarically re-colonize the Middle East for Eretz-Yisrael, just as they do today about how Palestine was occupied in 1948, and how America was colonized in the 1700s.
This plotting for Eretz-Yisrael, already long time in the making, had the intervening “shock and awe” phase, now to be followed by indebting the Iraqi nation with World Bank's monstrous reconstruction loans with Wolfowitz in charge, as John Perkins shows how it is actually done in his bombshell revelation: Confessions of an Economic Hitman. And as bankers often do when the borrower cannot pay the monthly payments, foreclose! In this case, subjugation under corporate globalization, if the one hundred executive orders that the American pro-consul Paul Bremer III bequeathed to Iraq, and which cannot easily get rescinded so long as America maintains its military bases in Iraq, are any evidence. For having pointed these things out to disentangle the web of deceit that permeates this entire Zionist agenda for Eretz-Yisrael, the mantra of anti-Semitism has already been deftly crafted by the Zionist Jewish lobby for any critical discussion of Wolfowitz connecting the dots**** – as if in exact anticipation of this eventual unraveling: 'In this year when anti-Semitism is once again a fact of life, the name "Wolfowitz" has become its lightning rod.'
Footnotes [*Emily Schwartz Greco: Cheney's Oil Change at the World Bank] [**Jim Vallette: “The Wolfowitz Chronology” prepared by Institute for Policy Studies at ips-dc.org; Why Wolfowitz?] [***John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hitman; James Bovard: The World Bank vs. the World's Poor] [****Joel Leyden: American Jewish Congress Lauds Wolfowitz Appointment to World Bank]
Having conclusively demonstrated above that “Israel's right to exist” in Eretz-Yisrael leads to even more bloody slaughter of indigenous peoples than it did in Palestine, that isn't really the key issue. The fact that the British colonialists initially granted the Zionists portions of Palestine by partitioning what wasn't theirs to partition to start with, is also only incidental at this stage in this inquiry. The wannabe German colonialists may have done it too had they won World War II to get rid of the Jews from among them in a more humane way than to exterminate them, as the Jews most assuredly would have argued. And the Americans are already doing it for them in the guise of “war on terrorism” with its self-proclaimed Primacy and Geostrategic Imperatives encompassing the entire planet. And tomorrow another master may emerge and the Zionist Jews will attempt to serve them just as well.
The real key issue in this discourse at this stage of the inquiry is not who enables the Zionist Jews to take over the implementation of Eretz-Yisrael, as important as that is. But that, is there some acceptable legitimacy to their abstract claims for Eretz-Yisrael, which enables them to politically and physically realize an implementation for it by cleverly and successfully using the masters du-jour, over and above the rights and lives of the indigenous peoples of the region. Discovering such claims to legitimacy, the underlying values that might support them, and the role played by scholars and intellectuals in Academia, whether inadvertently or purposely, in giving further currency to these claims by affirming “Israel's right to exist”, is the purpose of the rest of this letter.
Part-II: Key value proposition
To restate the issue in another more general way, is there any legitimacy to an abstract “right to exist” which leads to an implementation of horrors, and has led to an implementation of horrors in the past, indeed almost always when an indigenous peoples have staged a self-defense? What can peaceful co-existence mean with invading usurpers and alien occupiers, as a realization of “right to exist”? Is that even the correct way of framing the question – as such a framing already concedes the rights of the indigenous natives in the International order, and is thus squarely in the interests of the usurpers to continue framing their occupation of another's land in that way, as a means to eventually making peace after they have gobbled up as much as they wanted? A peace among unequals? If the answer to these questions is in empirical evidence around us today, as well as visible through the long views of history, should one give legitimacy to such an abstract “right”? Or even frame such an abstract question? What is one, if one does grant such arbitrary legitimacy? Alternately, is there even an implementation of just and harmonious co-existence without a single drop of blood deliberately being shed to affect such existence, even possible in a situation when an alien people want to colonize another's inhabited land? History, as well as Hollywood movies, unequivocally vouch for the obvious answer to the latter, and therefore it is only of theoretical interest and will not be considered further. By carefully examining the particular, “Israel's right to exist” question and its ramifications, the more general case that is oft forgotten, of the International principle of just and harmonious coexistence will automatically become clear, and will also not be considered further.
It is however, instructive to re-rehearse the following overarching principle of inter-human relations among equals: any right, whether self-perceived, or inalienable, whether of an individual, or of a people, is only a right to the degree that it is limited, constrained, and bounded by encroachments upon others' rights. A truism perhaps for fair minded human beings, perhaps even for conducting a fair foreign policy among nations, and for defining an international order for global peaceful coexistence, but often deliberately misperceived or forgotten by hectoring hegemons in search of empire, and their intellectual exponents who create “clash of civilizations” and arbitrary constructs such as “right to exist”, in search of pretexts for conquests.
Therefore, I dare to presume that the preceding horror is everything you mean by “Israel's right to exist”, and you give legitimacy to its reign of terror in implementing that existence. As erudite and logical beings capable of analysis and reflection, you instantly see the logical fallacy in condoning a small crime, but not a slightly larger one. And as an imperative of such logical thinking, even the greatest of crimes against humanity recursively arrived at by the application of the above principle, would be permitted, even including the holocaust. From the “primal sin”* to genocide is indeed a very short step, as even the worthy scholars of the Jews themselves will lamentably attest to the “banality of evil”**. The only solution to this problem for an honest and rational intellectual, worthy of being called a scholar and the inheritor of the mantle of Plato, is not to condone any crime, regardless of the pretexts and aspirations, regardless of theology, and regardless of self-interests. If the moral dilemma posed here causes you to rethink your support for “Israel's right to exist”, as you realize what it means in practice in the real world that exists today in the Middle East, including of course in occupied Palestine, teeming with a mass of real living human beings, with real lives, real families with real children and real grandparents, real histories, real values, real faiths, real hopes, real ambitions, and real aspirations of their own as a people - physically living in their own ancestral homes, and not viewed through the Zionist's prism of an inferior goyim to be lorded over, then that's terrific progress.
Footnotes [*Tanya Reinhart: Israel/Palestine] [**Hannah Arendt: Eichmann in Jerusalem – A Report on the Banality of Evil]
Thus if you would like to restate your position on “Israel's right to exist” as the most vile blunder of twentieth century colonial politics since the holocaust, and which needs to be immediately rectified by fighting this murderous ideology of Zionism and its illegitimate offspring with all the might of a genuine “war on terrorism”, just as the fascists of the Third Reich who perpetuated the holocaust and invaded others in search of Lebensraum, were fought by the entire world, you may stop reading here if you wish, and just email me your disavowment of your previous position on Israel, along with the above affirmations. I will be incredibly delighted and thankful as having received a response to my inquiry, most cogent, and most worthy.
If however you have (finally) reached here, then I would like to explain what I seek in my inquiry when I request for your key "values" upon which you (and other honest and erudite intellectuals sharing this position with you) base your claims of "Israel's right to exist" as a physical country in Palestine with recognized (or even unrecognized) borders – a Jews only apartheid state with overtly proclaimed and oft repeated ambitions of extending the “unsettled status of our borders”, by hook or by crook, to encompass Eretz Yisrael, “From the Nile to the Euphrates”.
By key "values" I mean something like:
  • I value the sanctity of human life - hence I claim that war, murder, atrocities, genocide, whether by a person with a single gun, or by the State using a squadron of F16s, is wrong; where the former is the key value, upon which the latter key claim is based.
Or even something like:
  • I value the principles of Democracy, and as Americans, we value it to even such a high degree of commitment, that we do not even refrain from bombing it onto the other non-democratic nations of the Middle East; therefore, I claim that “the existence of a Jewish State” is inconsistent with my values of Democracy as an American, as it precludes all the democratic* ideals for its other indigenous non-Jewish populations*. Unless of course the Jews manage to kill or “transfer” all the natives who are non-Jewish over time as we did the native American Indians, and this question is posed to me after the Jewish State is a hundred percent fait accompli. Until such time, while even a single Palestinian is still alive and not safely ensconced on a “reservation” where giving him Democratic rights would mean as much as it means for the native American Indian to possess them today after their systematic elimination from their own lands, I must vehemently oppose the concept of a Jewish State in Palestine. I further claim that we, as Americans, must also rain Democracy onto Israel as we have done to other Muslim nations in this war on terrorism. I claim freedom must also be on the march for the Palestinians who are now slaving under the oppressive yoke of the Jews as second class citizens in the apartheid state of Israel.
    Footnote [*Phyllis Bennis: For Jews Only: Racism Inside Israel]
And finally, as another even more illustrative example of key value-claim pair, consider:
  • I hate intellectual hypocrites, therefore I value and employ the Biblical Golden rule "Do unto others as you have others do unto you" to reach moral clarity on all obfuscating and emotionally charged issues, even when the result may not favor my own predilections. Hence I claim that Zionists are a curse on humanity, for if everyone invoked their personal god's land grants in this way, and acquired the power to execute on their god's munificence, then based on my value of the Golden rule, humanity would cease to exist.
Note that if one only championed the claims as stated above, and did not truthfully and forthrightly specify the key values that they based such claims upon, then one would forever be arguing on red herrings and gratuitous charges of anti-Semitism – for the points of arguments often aren't claims, but their underlying key values! Not realizing this (unwittingly) and not articulating this (deliberately) as the presupposed “value” upon which the claim is actually constructed, leads to meaningless expenditure of perfectly good energy in almost every case of human discourse. It is the basis of vile deception in discussions and negotiations; of waging wars by way of deception; of using sophistry by snake-oil salesman disguised as scholars; and the craftsmanship of the 'ubermensch', the superman, already beyond good and evil, and merely selling “noble lies” to the simpleton public mind uninitiated in the vagaries of Nietzschean morality --- henceforth, all unmasked. Therefore, without articulation of key values, claims cannot, and ought not, be entertained in honest scholarship!
Consider an alternate key value proposition that is truthfully articulated: "might is right". If one held this amoral value of emperors and kings, and truthfully let it be known that such is their value, then one could rightfully and unhypocritically hold the inverse of the claim in the above example: Zionism is the Jewish god's gift to his superior and chosen people, and the rest of mankind is created to serve them as faithful goyims whenever the Zionist god is in ascendance.
This claim then would justifiably switch to the native American Indians claims to their own bountiful land grants from the sea to the shining sea, and the subsequent legitimate scalping of you* and your kin if their god ever rose in ascendance, leaving you* no legitimate rights of your own to complain since you also subscribed to the same imperial key value proposition of "might is right".
Footnote [*you here refers to Americans living on the American continent – the land usurped from the native American Indians at the point of the gattling-gun, small-pox laden bacteriological warfare, and other craftsmanship of the ubermensch mind]
Commentary on the above value-claim pair: While the latter scenario some may argue is highly improbable, albeit certainly illustrative of the hypothetical concern for those who espouse this chauvinist value, a similar situation in the Middle East is not all that impossible, nor so hypothetical. The Semitic God can be quite fickle as the Jews abundantly already know through their 3000 year history, and as have the Muslims also already learned in their meritorious rise and precipitous decline from where the only place for them to go now after having hit rock bottom, is up. Whereas for the Jews, the moment they are deprived of their prime benefactor - America - where are they? 50 or 100 or 200 years are but a twinkle in civilizational lifetimes. Israel, entirely surrounded by enemies so artfully inculcated and systematically sustained (as some might cynically observe of Christian Zionism and America's signed blank check to Israel), the only means of self-defense the Israelis possess, is their Armageddon seeking “Samson option” bluff. A bluff to which it may be argued, the Muslim mind is not entirely impervious to call on. It would only speed up the arrival of their "shaheed" soul in Heaven as the epitome of jihad against an infernal foe, while simultaneously getting rid of the menace of Zionism and the Jews exploitation of the goyim from amongst mankind for all times. One may not so easily dismiss this scenario as one might for the native American Indians. It is so incredible to observe that people who live in glass houses still insist on throwing stones at their neighbors, despite centuries of having been taught lessons after lessons about where a hatred of them can lead to. Hitherto, the Jews have had the best periods of their existence since the arrival of Islam only among the Muslims* – an incontrovertible and unarguable fact of history**. Everywhere else among the Christian lands, they remained oppressed – culminating in the unspeakable Holocaust also at their own hands. What role did Muslims have to play in perpetuating this unthinkable crime against humanity? Even today, as a Muslim, I am horrified just thinking about it, cringe when I see any photographs, and seek mercy from Heaven, as does every Muslim, and that horrification only becomes tempered by the realization for all 1.5 Billion of us: 'what type of people are these who turn around and do a similar unspeakable thing to another innocent peoples – us', as the Christians goad them on in redemption of their own guilt? The primal cause for their oppression of the Jews may be traced to the founding of Christianity itself, wherein the Christians have long accused their fellow brethren of “killing the Christ”, and the Jews have accused their Christian brothers of “heresy”. Among the Jews and the Muslims, there is much in common in religious parameters, from the very conception of God (at least as Maimonides defined it, in the English version), to the mundane needs of the stomach. One would hardly be remiss in cynically observing: is this the Jews' grateful payback to the Muslims for centuries of harmonious living among them? The initiation of the founding of Israel as a physical state in Palestine upon the blood of the Muslims, has (forever) poisoned that amity between the two brothers – the inheritors of the same Grand Patriarch, Prophet Abraham (after whose name even my dear late father is named, as are countless generations of Muslims, and Jews, albeit with slightly different spellings). Either the people in the “Judeo-Christian” Western civilization today who support Zionism understand this history too well, and actually have it in for the Jews in the long term as the ultimate expression of their anti-Semitism by turning brother against brother***, or they support Zionism thoughtlessly, never having analyzed the underlying key value propositions, and being gullibly sold on the Zionists' god's land grants to: a people without land, on a land without people.
Footnotes [*King Abdullah: As the Arabs see the Jews, 1947] [***Noam Chomsky: Arab countries' attitudes towards Jews, Israel] [**Albeit some do argue with their selective sacred memories and keen penmanship as in Joan Peters': From Time Immemorial, by cleverly omitting to mention the Golden Period of the Jews (Maimonides); or that at Khayber, the Prophet of Islam administered to the Jews a retributive punishment of the Jews' own choosing, from the Jews' own religious books, for the war crime of treacherously breaking their peace treaty with him while the Muslims in their fledgling new state in Medina were being attacked by the Meccans. The unfortunate stereotype of the “treacherous Jews” in Muslim rhetoric, albeit reinforced today by the Zionists' behavior in Palestine, when traced back in time, primarily comes to rest on this one significant episode in Islamic history. Apart from that, the Jews played an indispensable and amicable role in Muslim societies from North Africa to Iran, often in the roles of institutional elite comprising physicians, scholars, advisors, traders, etc. Only the European Jewry, living under the thumb of intolerant Christianity for centuries, remains confused and ignorant about it. And from among the latter, arise modern institutional scholars who today write “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror” etc., with little or no personal experience of any of their own Jewish ancestors, of having lived among the Muslims in the European Dark and Middle Ages - when intolerant Christianity was eating their lunch in Europe (it would be interesting for the astute academic to observe that the name Bernard Lewis, author of the preceding self-serving and offensively titled book, and lauded as “a leading Western scholar of Islam” by his protégé Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilizations”, shows up as a signatory to the 1998 open letter to President Bill Clinton by the Committee for Peace and Security, similar to the letter by Project New American Century both advocating the invasion of Iraq on the same fiction “to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S.” ). The Muslims remained dominant, unchallenged, and unsurpassed in all spheres of culture and scholarship for about 700 years – from their meritorious rise in 700 C.E to approx. 1400 C.E, when the revival started in the European West as they freed themselves from the stifling yoke of Medieval Christianity. From 1400 C.E. to approx. 1600 C.E. the Muslims still remained a tour de force coasting on their previous successes, but with no new remarkable successes, and the West had started becoming dominant through their Renaissance. From 1600 C.E. onwards, the Muslims started their journey towards intellectual stagnation, even as they remained a major political empire with flourishing trade and commerce for another three hundred years after that. The Muslims were easily supplanted by the rapid developments in the West through the industrialization and rapid acceleration in science and technology in those last three centuries, courtesy of the complete decadence and domineering imperial constitution of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Ottomans, until the start of World War I, ran the affairs of much of the Middle East, including Palestine, and after their defeat in the war, they were entirely dismantled as the long cherished goal of the British and French colonialists. Their former territories, i.e. the Muslim Lands of the Middle East, continuously inhabited by Muslim for Millennia, were arbitrarily partitioned into the present countries and borders at the Treaty of Versailles (Treaty of Sevres) among the French and British victors of that first World War - a war in which the rapidly declining but equally ferocious Turkish Ottomans were foolish enough to have been on the side of the vanquished. This arbitrary partitioning of the Middle East and of the Muslim Arab Peoples in 1920, and prevented from being reunited even as the European Christian barbarians perpetuating the two World Wars amongst themselves that together saw at least 50 million people dead, unite today, is the most egregious fact of client-state post-colonialism today as vouched by Winston Churchill himself. To add insult to injury, the creation of Israel in the heart of the Middle East as the dumping ground for Europe's own unwanted “trash” and making it the burden of the Muslims to bear, is the epitome of colonial injustice in modern times. One may not forget these recorded facts of not too distant a history as one proceeds to analyze the causes of resentment among the conscionable self-respecting and dignified Muslims against Western imperialism still operational under the guise of client-states and corporate globalization. The throwing of the “tea” overboard may not be too long in coming, and should hardly come as a surprise to a nation itself founded on doing the exact same thing – if the peoples were properly and truthfully informed that is, by the erudite scholars in the academe as the primary imperative of their lofty profession. Their conscionable peoples may even join the aggrieved in their fight for independence as opposed to joining in the imperialist's “war of terrorism” against them. The fortunes of the ordinary Jewish peoples in the Muslim lands overall, through this rise and fall, remained no more outstanding, and no more worse, than for the ordinary Muslim peoples themselves, for even while Muslim civilizations politically, intellectually, and culturally saw many vicissitudes, many internal schisms with Muslims oppressing Muslims (Salaha-din Ayubi – known to the West as Saladin, was for instance, far kinder to the Jews when he re-conquered Jerusalem than he was to his fellow Shia Muslims), the social interaction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews remained amicable – sometimes stressed during times of war, as with the fanatic Christian Crusaders, much relaxed during the times of peace; any difference between a Middle Eastern Jew, Middle Eastern Christian, and Middle Eastern Muslim, remained only in the mind of the European beholder who had never experienced such a social intercourse in their own societies and could not comprehend that it could even exist. Arabs, and Muslims in general (only about 10% of World Muslim population is Arab and lives in the Middle East), have no understanding of this European word “anti-Semitism”, because most Arabs are Semites, and the Prophet of Islam is Semite. In fact, the Arabs today are far more Semite than the Jews themselves – the latter's blood having been mixed with the Gentiles in the Diaspora over Millennia. Furthermore, Muslims have nothing against the Religion of the Jews either, indeed Prophet Moses, and Prophet Jesus as well, are considered among the 5 Great Prophets (Ulul-Azam) in Islam, and are explicitly mentioned in the Quran as such. Muslims revere the Prophets of the Old Testament, as Messengers of the same one God. So whence “anti-Semitism”? It is the Western scholar who unfairly transfers his prejudices onto the Muslims. Even their citations for the books they have consulted to write their modern histories in many cases are the prejudicial writings and prejudicial translations from Arabic made by the eighteenth and nineteenth century Orientalists. These were the institutional scholars for the Crown who poorly understood Islam and the Muslims, and belonged to a culture that remained fearful of the powerful and decadent Ottoman Empire that they were continually trying to subvert in favor of their own British and European colonialism, with a 'la mission civilisatrice' mindset. (It's funny that even the US Government used to pay them token “Jizyaa” – a small tribute in lieu of peace with the powerful and fearsome Ottoman Empire – a fact little known or advertised today in the writings of Western scholars of Islam). The modern Western scholars using these prejudicial writings as their primary textual sources of knowledge about historical Islam and history of the Muslims, then regurgitate the same bias that existed in the colonial days against Islam. One can examine the citations and see for one's self what is the earliest original Arabic source that a Western scholar has actually used in his modern works – most will still be based on nineteenth century translations of a very few classic works in Arabic. And it need not be stated to the Western scholar who has pioneered the modern art of studying histories from many diverse original sources, that within the Muslim histories themselves, there are as many court histories, and court scholars, as there are today in enlightened America, and the Muslims still do not have the equivalent of “A Peoples History of the United States” by Howard Zinn. A Western scholar hasn't a clue what the lives of the ordinary Jews were like among the Muslim, unless he takes a modern sampling by living among the ordinary Muslims even today in the Middle East – where despite all that has happened in Palestine, the social intercourse betrays a revulsion by the remaining Jews (those that weren't expelled in retribution for the founding of Israel in Palestine and Israel's provocative bombings, that some might convincingly argue, were purposely instrumented for this purpose knowing fully well that it would lead to Jews being expelled in retaliation, and thus finding a new home in the new Jewish State – the only way to populate it), for what their Zionist brethren have done in their name to the Muslims. And if one needs further proof, just check the composition of the Jewish population of Israel – of the approx. 4 million Jews as of 2000 (racially stratified into at least three tiered pyramid structure with Ashkenazi, the white European Jews on top, followed by the Mizrachi or Sephardic Jews of Arab origin, followed by the black Ethiopian Jews; the indigenous Palestinians who are Israeli citizens in terms of rights always follow last), which is about 10% of the supposed 40 Million world wide Jewish population (it is often hard to count the Jews in Diaspora because they are so well intermingled into the host cultures), less than 1-2% are Orthodox Jews. These are the “holy” ones that are normally shown on American television praying at the Wailing Wall as if they comprise the entire Israeli population. A significant majority of Jews in Israel, are secular transplants from Europe (and America), starting in 1900s, when the surreptitious land acquisitions by the Jewish Agency started an influx of European Jews into Palestine. Few Jews from the entire Arab lands actually moved into Israel, except those who might have been expelled in (anticipated) retribution, as perhaps the Sephardic. Even today, Israel imports peoples from Africa to India to South America (these might constitute still another tier in Israel's stratified racist society, as converted Jews) by converting them to Judaism as the lost tribes of Israel, for few Jews from Diaspora actually want to live in Israel. Why else do the majority still live outside Israel? And why else does Israel want to import the lower echelons from among them even if it has to convert them first in order to better the Jewish demographics? It is the fanatic Western Zionist Jew who has made Israel their life's mission, not the Jew without the Zionist prefix (self-evident but needs stating). Having covered 1400 years of history above with a broad brush into a nutshell, it is interesting to observe, as illustrated by the value-claim model, that arguments on history can become a never ending and tiresome 'my version of history is more veracious than yours', even as each side claims “facts” and not opinions that back up their version. Thus I will quickly concede on this yet another red herring by saying that the views expressed here are consistent at least with how the 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world today view their long association with their cousin-brethren, the Jews. And that is a reality that the Westerns Zionist Jews must reckon with as they brutally usurp Palestine at the point of their American sugar daddy supplied guns, finances, and political will. The fact of this reality alone decides what will come next for all the Jews – and for the Muslims as well for that matter, and that point is the key value proposition of this commentary, not any exclusivity to “objective” claims upon facts of history. It may be argued that conversely, the Muslim mind must also accept the reality of what the Western Zionist Jew perceives as his “legitimate” Biblical claims to the Holy Land. The response to this argument however should be rather obvious from the bandit's example. Claims of this nature, argued over the barrel of a gun while standing in a pool of the untermensch's blood, has only one temporary victor – the one holding the gun ]
As is apparent in the above examples and explanations, once the key value proposition becomes truthfully known, and the implication of its logical application to its natural conclusion becomes apparent through a little bit of rational thinking, one can quickly see the debate among an intelligent people correctly shifting to the underlying value propositions from the emotionally charged and obfuscating combat on claims.
It becomes far more productive to debate whether it is right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, to hold the value "might is right", rather than to debate the claims whose god gave whom what land rights when. For the latter claim is only assertable in the present tense by the value of holding a gun over another's head, as is perhaps even obvious in any ordinary armed robbery on the streets of New York – at that moment, it is rather moot discussing whether the robber is entitled to the wallet of the innocent unarmed victim or not as he simply just snatches it at the barrel of his terrifying weapon exclaiming “it's all mine”*. Which is why in every criminal court today in a functioning civilized society, claiming entitlement to commit robbery would be considered ludicrous, and be irrelevant and inadmissible on any pretext, as the underlying key value of 'robbery is a crime' has been found desirable for the conduct of civilized society, away from the days of the Wild West where the one fastest on the draw could do as he pleased, until shot dead by another even faster and more ruthless.
Footnote [*who is carrying a gun in this photograph: My First Settler Attack?]
In the same vein, an intelligent people would clearly know that history has shown that no one's god has been able to maintain their monopolistic grip on power for very long, and that such a law of the jungle can turn the tables even on a strong lion as it approaches its end of life. These farsighted and astute peoples, seeking the wisdom of self-interest gleaned from long views of history, would wisely consider highway robbery as much a crime when committed by arbitrary and artificial constructs like nations* and the World Bank**, as they have made it a crime when committed by individuals, in order that they may sustain a civilized and amicable existence in a global society, with all holding the key value proposition: 'no one may take undue and unfair advantage of another', sacred and inviolable.
Footnotes [*William W. Baker: Theft of a Nation; **John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hitman ; James Bovard: The World Bank vs. the World's Poor]
But of course, some other intelligent people will ignore this lesson of history, and continue to hold their value of "might is right" with impunity* because they might feel they can never lose with their nuclear weapons arsenal giving them a “Samson option”; or even that: “who cares about history, we will all be dead”, as George W. Bush quipped with brazen chutzpah to a question from his biographer on how history would view his 2003 invasion of Iraq in search of the non-existent WMDs which were never found.
In either case, if they, along with their intellectual exponents openly proclaim their value of "might is right" as the lion does in the jungle where he reigns supreme for a time, then their behaviors and conquests are self-consistent with their truthful declaration of their key value proposition, and they would not be intellectual hypocrites. Indeed they would also be protected from burning in the lowest recesses of Hell (in case not all of them are amoral atheists and some happen to subscribe to any of the world's major religions that prescribes the severest punishment for the hypocrites).
Footnotes [*Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard ; Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld et. al.: Project New American Century “Statement of Principles”, and “Rebuilding America's Defenses” ; Richard Perle et. al.: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – the retroactively famous 1996 Perle paper written as advice to former Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahoo; Richard Perle: An End To Evil – How to Win the War on Terror] [* Also see William Blum: Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II]
Of course, other more precise descriptions that possibly come to the minds of those on the receiving end of the mighty's rights of hectoring hegemony could be "monumental war criminals", and perhaps even "mass murderers", or even “genocide specialists” responsible for "all the evil that follows" their initiation of barbarism*. As supreme a war crime as this is according to the Geneva Conventions, for it seeds all the successive cycle of atrocities and terror for which the initiator of aggression is entirely deemed responsible, and for which fact the Nazi leadership was convicted and hanged by the Nuremberg tribunal, it is still less of a crime than hypocrisy. For in the absence of hypocrisy and obfuscation, everyone, all and sundry among the public and the leaderships, unambiguously come to know where the battle front lies, and the weak prepare to become strong and fight-back instead of wasting their time on meaningless pursuits and argumentation, that while emotionally charged, turn out to be nothing more than red herrings. The public knowing and recognizing the aggressor early on, knowing their intent even before the fact, is crucial in stopping and ending the aggressor's reign of terror, and thus reducing the misery of the peoples and saving them from fate horrendous, before they meet that fate. Whereas punishing the supreme criminals after the fact does little for the innocent men, women, and children who lost their tabula rasa while the people of the world argued and remained in obfuscation. Thus it may be convincingly argued that intellectual hypocrites are the greater criminals for in their hands lie the key to the survival of the aggrieved. Followed of course by the hectoring hegemons in the hierarchy of the guilty who openly proclaim their intent to commit the supreme crime of initiating aggression for conquest, as openly as Hitler did in his Mien Kampf. And certainly when the intellectuals will proclaim they did not know about these aggression plans, they might be equally informed by the Judge who will preside over their trial**: 'The plans of the aggressor for aggression were just as secret as Der Judenstaat and PNAC on the Grand Chessboard.'
Footnotes [*Noam Chomsky: Civilization Versus Barbarism? – interview with Alam] [**Judge Robert Jackson's actual words at Nuremberg were: “The plans of Adolf Hitler for aggression were just as secret as Mein Kampf, of which over six million copies were published in Germany.” Closing speech at Nuremberg]
Indeed the comments of Justice Robert H. Jackson at the closing speech at Nuremberg in 1946, as the presiding chief counsul for the United States of America, the country that was the chief prosecutor for war crimes at Nuremberg, are rather telling of how aggression is viewed when committed by others:
“We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1930's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for Germany as well as for the other peoples of Europe. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war.” [Judge Robert Jackson's Closing speech at Nuremberg]
But certainly there are no tribunals for the undefeated mighty whose value proposition is “might is right”. They openly proclaim: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not”. Or equally unabashedly announce to the public on prime-time television, their imperial proposal for preemptive self-defense against fictitious WMDs with a “shock and awe” campaign over a civilian population killing a 100,000 people with self-righteous indifference: “we don't keep track of Iraqi dead”. So long as "might" continues to win, "might" also continues to define "right", as well as what is "crime" and who is a "criminal".
This is rather insightfully illustrated by St. Augustine when describing the interlocution of a pirate by Alexander:
“when the king asked him what he meant by investing the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ” [St. Augustine of Hippo: “City of God Against the Pagans”]
That such a prerogative of the powerful isn't just at the time of overt military warfare and driven from the purported exigencies of perceived self-defense*, witness the following amazing confession by the strategic policy planner in the U.S. State Department, George Kennan, who in the once-classified Policy Planning Study 23 from 1948 candidly wrote:
“We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population .... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” [Noam Chomsky: “Turning the Tide”, quoted by Mark Chmiel in “Moral Leadership”; Wikipedia entry for George Kennan, PPS 23, has the complete text of this seminal memo which became the cornerstone of the so called “Truman Doctrine” that seeded the Cold War]
Footnotes [*Noam Chomsky: “The U.S. Is a Leading Terrorist State” - an Interview with David Barsamian in Monthly Review 2001]
That such a prerogative also isn't just a thing of the past, or some exigent imperative during the Cold War, witness the following remarkable, albeit frightening candor in the 1996 book: The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the chief architects of the demise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” [The Grand Chessboard, pgs. 35,36]
“... Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. .... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. ... Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties .... In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,..." [Ibid. pgs. 211-215]
That such an imperial prerogative is not some antiquated remnant of the previous century of crusty old men having nothing better to do than to make grandiose plans, but very much the guiding principle behind “Full Spectrum Dominance” in the twenty-first century, witness these prophetic statements from the chapter “Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force” in the report “Rebuilding America's Defenses” of Project New American Century published in September 2000, with Paul Wolfowitz listed as a contributor.
Note some key phrases that realize Brzezinski's “imperial mobilization”: “new Pearl Harbor”, “enduring military mission worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces ”, “expanding perimeter” ,” American political and military operations around the world”, “American peace”, “benevolent order it secures”.
“As long as wars and other military operations derive their logic from political purposes, land power will remain the truly decisive form of military power. ... In sum the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily. ... But over the long term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses ... Cyberspace, or 'Net-War' If outerspace represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace”, and in particular the internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the internet are emerging elements of global commerce, politics and powerplay. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons”. ... there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space and “cyberspace war” represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. Armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance. Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn. ... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” [Rebuilding America's Defenses, pgs. 51-61]
“The Price of American Preeminence: The program we advocate – one that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world's sole superpower – requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP... We believe it is necessary to increase slightly the personnel strength of U.S. Forces – many of the missions associated with patrolling the expanding American security perimeter are manpower-intensive, and planning for major theater wars must include for politically decisive campaigns ... Also this expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and forward operating locations to facilitate American political and military operations around the world. ... Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures.” [Ibid. pgs. 74-76]
And to drive the final nail in the coffin of disinformation created for the public because “We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts”; power concepts that have been in regular play ever since the end of World War II, and so passionately argued by George Kennan at about the same time as the founding of Der Judenstaat, but craftily needing to be fictionalized by both the master and its protégé, as American “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”. William Blum summed the reality of deception employed for Brzezinski's “imperial mobilization” most straightforwardly:
' Intelligence failure or imperial ambitions?
On March 31 the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivered its report to the president. The Commission concluded that "the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the Intelligence Community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather, and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence."{2} Many people, including members of the Commission, likely take the above to mean that if "the intelligence community" [sounds like a small town in New England] had only done its job better it would have learned that Iraq didn't have an arsenal of WMD sufficient to pose any kind of serious threat to the United States and a lot of bloody horror could have been avoided. That, however, is a highly questionable assumption. It presumes that the Bush administration actually went to war because it genuinely believed that Iraq was both dangerously armed and an "imminent" threat to use those arms against the United States. But the Bush administration knew perfectly well that Iraq's military capability was nothing to be particularly concerned about. Here's Colin Powell, speaking in February 2001 of US sanctions on Iraq: "And frankly they have worked. He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."{3} And here is Condoleezza Rice, in July of that year, speaking of Saddam Hussein: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."{4} ' [William Blum: “The Anti-Empire Report, No. 20”]
Based on the preceding evidence in the words of the mighty themselves, it must be fair to state that almost axiomatically, proper and honest delineation of issues with explicit and truthful declaration of the underlying key value propositions, always empowers the weak – it removes obfuscation and enables focussing debate onto the central core issues.
And it arguably also always disfavors the mighty as a corollary, who would prefer to keep the democratic instincts of their people embroiled among the herrings that they so generously sprinkle in their midst in order to continue with their conquests – as genuine “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” For as Goethe aptly put it:
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.”
It is no secret that once the layers of deliberate obfuscation are peeled away, there becomes apparent, the many complex and overlapping confluence of mutual, and sometimes competing interests that make up support for “Israel's right to exist”. At the risk of stating the obvious to the scholarly, please allow me to summarize them as spanning the gamut: from the hectoring foreign policy interests of the dominant Alpha-male chauvinist superpower in the self-serving, self-appointed role of the super-cop, pursuing the largest and most powerful global empire in the history of empires; to the fanatical and easily manipulatable Christian Zionist fundamentalists who genuinely seek to usher in their peaceful Messiah at the expense of willfully shedding other people's blood; to the genuine aspirations of the ordinary Jewish peoples throughout their two millennia Diaspora to someday be returned to their Promised Land; to the doctrinal scholars and leaders of the Jews genuinely trying to protect their flock from European anti-Semitism, and often harvesting it in complex and morally reprehensible, and ultimately monumentally criminal ways towards the fulfillment of their dreams. There are mainly two key aspects worth noting here in this disentangled space, that even though perhaps obvious to many, bears explicit observation.
First is that dreams, hopes, and aspirations do not by themselves constitute “rights”, in either any legal sense, or in any moral sense, regardless of how profoundly or religiously held, or who holds them. To have self-perceived rights of course is only meaningful in the context of others also having them, and the potential for conflict existing – which is why “rights” are needed. Unless of course the key value held is “might is right” and other's don't matter. Hitler too held very profound hopes and aspirations for Lebensraum, and claimed all of Europe as God's gift to the superior Germanic people, one ought not to forget. Whereas self-defence, regardless of any key value proposition, is an inalienable and immutable action, needing no laws to enact, nor possible to retract through their enaction – for it is encoded in our very DNA. As an invariant of all living species, even a feline will scratch back in self-defence, Palestinians after all, are a courageous human beings, as are the rest of the defenseless peoples of the world who do not much care for the gratuitous democracy rained upon them even for the “benevolent order it secures” in the interest of keeping an “American peace”. For the lack of a more descriptive word, “rights” to self-defense is often used to express this action against an aggressor, but it must be understood that it is fundamentally different in nature, than for instance, the American Bill of Rights which are really a human convention for a fair and harmonious co-existence with each other, pompous proclamations of self-evident and inalienable endowment of God notwithstanding. A cat's involuntary act of scratching the pugnacious bulldog's eyes out trumps all such human conventions of self-evident and inalienable rights, as the primitive first order fight or flight response of our very genetic makeup can no more be regulated, than the oppressed can be denied their acts in self-defense by calling their last desperate acts of fighting for survival, “terrorism”. The cat must also be a terrorist from the dog's point of view – he'd rather she just lie down and become a nice juicy chewing bone in the interest of keeping “dog” peace. The rabid dog too will do what's in its nature, and like all vicious dogs that pose a threat to other creatures, the solution to rid the world of its vicious menace is not exactly unobvious.
Second is that the examples of other nation states founded on extreme violence in the past, like the European settlers escaping from their own persecutions systematically exterminating millions of indigenous American peoples to found the United States of America, do not set a precedent to similarly found new nations and new Lebensraum on other indigenously populated lands in modern “civilized” times. And at the risk of appearing pedantic in stating the obvious, past atrocities and genocide in the service of colonization and conquest, do not set a precedent to initiate new despotism, new systematic oppression and subjugation, and new inhuman cruelties lasting generations, against new innocent peoples. Indeed, in modern civilization, such barbarism and inhumanity is held to be so morally repugnant, that such an initiation of aggression and barbarism is declared to be the “supreme” war crime responsible for “all the evil that follows”.
If an unfortunate peoples are still visited upon by such misfortunes despite such lofty deterrence laws on the books of nations who are signatories to the Geneva Conventions; and if despite the experience of the Nuremberg Trials and World War II in the not too distant memory resoundingly pledging “never again” once again silently or indifferently spectating the calamity befalling the 'untermenschen' and participating in bringing it about through uncourageous acts of commission or omission'; it only incurs the passionate and eloquent wrath of the erudite holocaust survivor, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, yet again:
“And I bear within me a nameless grief and disillusionment, a bottomless despair, it is because that night I saw good and thoughtful Jewish children, bearers of mute words and dreams, walking into darkness before being consumed by the flames. I see them now, and I still curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who knew and kept silent, and Creation itself, Creation and those who perverted and distorted it. I feel like screaming, howling like a madman so that that world, the world of murderers, might know it will never be forgiven.” [Elie Wiesel: “Memoirs - All Rivers Run to the Sea”]
To the eternal misfortune and lament of the poor Palestinians, the twentieth century Zionist leaders, at the barrel of their genocidal guns, and in the diabolical pursuit of their aspirations with various conniving shenanigans, pursuing the blessings of the old colonialists as serving their colonial, and post-colonial interests, as in: “We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism” that Herzl pitched to the different masters controlling the region, depicting the indigenous Arabs as barbaric needing a 'la mission civilisatrice', and culminating in a reign of terror upon them, brought to fruition, Der Judenstaat.
It was an unremarkable implementation of the cherished dreams and hopes of millions upon millions of Jews throughout their long arduous history, a dream that was religiously passed on from generations to generations and composed the ethos of their existence in Diaspora, which in 1948, inarguably looked like the genocidal colonization of the Americas, and which today, inarguably looks like the Nazis' genocidal military occupation of Poland in search of Lebensraum. Even the most eloquent voice of humanity remained silent to these sufferings of the Palestinians by saying: “Do not ask me, a traumatized Jew, to be pro-Palestinian. I totally identify with Israel and cannot go along with the leftist intellectuals who reject it. Perhaps another generation will be free enough to criticize Israel; I cannot.” [Elie Wiesel: “Against Silence - The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]
I hope the preceding plainly illustrates the gravity of your position on “Israel's right to exist”, and of those among your distinguished colleagues in the Academe who also hold such positions, as the affirmation of such an abstract “right” leading to a genocidal implementation, becomes the 'highest order bit' in this discourse, far beyond concerns for Campus Watch or Academic freedom, as possible intellectual complicity in crimes against humanity. Institutional scholars play as crucial a role in society in generating the doctrinal motivations needed to perpetuate “might is right”, as do honest intellectuals wearing the distinguished mantle of Socrates, Plato, and Galileo, in teaching truth and dispelling falsehoods from the minds of their young flock whom they germinate with the seeds of learning, knowledge, and moral courage. A society dominated by honest scholars instead of Hollywood entertainment and ceaseless propaganda steeped in falsehoods and make-beliefs, can hardly ever go wrong. In a land of universities (over 2000 according to one Barons Guide to American colleges), the role of the scholar is central in informing its youth – who in turn will acquire the next reigns of the nation. This is why, instead of directly inquiring about the growing concerns for Campus Watch (raised in the next inquiry), I first chose to pick on this key aspect. It is of much graver concern to both Campus Watch on the one hand, as the fascist agents of Zionism seeking the fulfillment of their criminal enterprise, and to the survival of the Palestinian peoples, as well as to the liberation of the people of Iraq and to the prevention of another war on Iran and Syria under new and more believable fictions, on the other. It is especially grave for the long suffering Palestinian peoples – for whom the eloquent words of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, speak far more eloquently than mine ever possibly can: “It is a mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed”. [Elie Wiesel: “All Rivers Run to the Sea”]
Thus please forgive me for petitioning this bold and inconvenient request before you to briefly identify both your key claims, and your key values regarding your statement supporting Israel. I also beg forgiveness for the inordinate length of this email for such a small question. However, as a humble student of truth, I am compelled to educate myself by the tyranny of my conscience and to bring you this verbosity, both due to my limited abilities to express myself more succinctly, and to properly contextualize my question so that you may provide me with a cogent and educational response which can easily withstand all further rational scrutiny, and make manifest for all to see, the key values that lead you to uphold your claims.
Part-III: Some simple observations to assist you in responding to First Inquiry
Before I conclude this first inquiry, please permit me to offer a series of very simple and straight forward observations on reality, as if I was residing on Mars and looking down upon the Earthlings, so that you and your distinguished intellectual brethren who share in your position, may also reflect upon the ironies expressed in these observations as background context in the formulation of your cogent responses.
As profound academics like yourselves continue to teach about Palestine to newer generations of students as Middle Eastern History, and as the Jewish moralists and their academic compatriots continue to debate the (im)morality of the conquest of Palestine in relation to their own holocaust at the hands of the Nazis:
“Although the Holocaust inflicted horrible injustice upon us, it did not grant us certificate of everlasting righteousness. The murderers where amoral; the victims were not made moral. To be moral you must behave ethically. The test of that is daily and constant.”, [Mark Chmiel: “Elie Wiesel and the Politics of Moral Leadership”]
and even sometimes truthfully admit what they did:
“The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba - the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust.”, [Tanya Reinhart: "Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948”]
and yet, also continue to celebrate it, albeit with some mixed feelings and occasional pangs of guilt that they are famously known for in the Middle East - they will first plan to kill you with a design most brutal, and then come to your funeral lamenting: “We can forgive them for killing our children, we cannot forgive them for making us kill theirs” [Golda Meir].
During this show of profound remorse, they still continue to inhabit the same lands that they have militarily usurped under self-righteous prerogatives that they have given themselves as god's chosen people, and where, they weren't even born to start with:
“As a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice, evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab, and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy holidays, Israel.”, [Baruch Kimmerling: My Holiday, Their Tragedy]
While all this is going on with much soul searching, and in the name of erudite scholarship in prestigious universities, the all and mighty Zionist military machinery in Israel, operating with impunity, and with extreme prejudice against a defenseless peoples, using the same terror regime as they employed to create the Jewish State of Israel in Palestine in 1948 upon their self-serving Biblical claim of Eretz Yisrael:
' In 1943, current Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article entitled “Terror” for the journal of the terrorist organization he headed (Lehi) in which he proposed to “dismiss all the 'phobia' and babble against terror with simple, obvious arguments.” “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war,” he wrote, and “We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.” “First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates in the clearest language, heard throughout the world, including by our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war against the occupier.” ' [Noam Chomsky: Western State Terrorism, Ch. 2]
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to the rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” [Israel Koenig: “Koenig Memorandum”]
“We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai.” [David Ben-Gurion, 1948]
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget.” [David Ben-Gurion, 1948]
“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” [Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the IDF: “New York Times 14 April 1983”]
“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves” [Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983]
The effects of this terror regime is also subsequently and openly acknowledged without hesitation – the word “chutzpah” of course is also Jewish:
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” [David Ben Gurion – Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), 121.]
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” [Moshe Dayan; Haaretz, April 4, 1969]
Even as we speak, today in the year 2005, it continues to achieve their oft stated single minded nefarious aim of conquest “From the Nile to the Euphrates” by “waging war by way of deception”. Albeit all of the preceding is now well documented public information known to all and sundry, the world watches silently as innocent Palestinians are kept under a sustained barbaric siege on their own lands unheard of even in the Nazi Concentration camps.
It must surely not have escaped the notice of any honest learned observer that the sustained persecution served upon the Palestinians Peoples over their own Palestine far outpaces the sufferings imposed upon the Jews by the Nazis as horrendous and as genocidal as these obviously were – no multiple generations of the Jews grew up and died in the Nazi concentration camps – it was a generation existent at a single epoch for 4-5 years that miserably suffered at the hands of their barbaric tormenters, and then it was mercifully over for them. But these same Jews who cringe at the mere word Nazis, and use this appellation to adorn all their enemies who even dare challenge them on their monumental crimes against other human beings, now routinely visit upon their own defenseless victims in Palestine the techniques of “Polish ghetto warfare”, military persecution, arbitrary beatings and jailings, getting them to oppress their own*, destruction of homes and villages, systematic displacement of peoples into refugee camps, checkpoints at every town and village**, sewing the seeds of corruption among them and supporting their inept and corrupt leaderships to control their resistance on the Jews' behalf***, compelling them to sign meaningless peace accords as treaties**** between unequal partners**** that has only brought the weaker side more lost territories and the obscene apartheid wall*****, and the art of systematic ethnic cleansing learned from their former tormenters – which now has lasted for over 57 years. The Zionist Jews have destroyed multiple generations of young and old Palestinians over half century of oppression in more ways than just their physical destruction, they have also tried to snuff out their history, their culture, their records, and their rich heritage as old as the Jews' themselves, and there is still no end in sight to their misery. Why is the world not morally culpable of crimes against humanity for their uncourageous silence and inaction to come to the rescue of the Palestinians? Are these beleaguered peoples less than human beings? Why is the American citizen supporting his Government by paying taxes that generously fill Israel's coffers, not culpable for this oppression that they are indirectly funding with their own hard earned monies? How will they each claim innocence in front of the Judge? Why is this momentous calamity befalling the Palestinians any less than “one of Sinai when something was revealed”?
For the child who is deliberately shot in the eye or has their head blown off while sitting in his/her classroom in the squalor of the refugee camps by the self-righteous yamaka-wearing twenty-two year old Jewish soldier with an American made arsenal, what does it matter to the child if his/her death came so willfully and remorselessly as if killing a cockroach by the Zionist Jew, or it came via being deliberately gassed in a Nazi death camp by Eichmann* as an undesirable sub human race to be exterminated? What does it matter to the laments of the mother if she mourns the children and relatives buried in a mass grave in Auschwitz, or one in Rafah and Jenin**? Does it matter to the residents of poor ghettos** if their abodes and their histories and their lives are being systematically snuffed out in Poland, Rafah*** Ramallah**** or Jenin**?
And you alongside your most noble Jewish brethren in common cause argue with a straight face before your most brilliant students on “Israel's right to exist” on Palestinian lands in Palestinian blood and in Palestinian dispossession, and get “evaluations” that are “overall been good to excellent”?
What the mother-fck – I hasten to apologize for that most banal capture of this tortuous state of affairs in the most plebeian language as it always beats scholarly pedantic language any day in expressing plain human anger and plain human values; I had to let that explicative out in order to continue steering my rational acumen unhindered by the spectacle of human slaughter being sanctioned by the most virtuous high-priests of American academia and getting “evaluations” that are “overall been good to excellent”!
If there is a god, be it the Hebrew god, he must be quite proud of the accomplishments of his Chosen Peoples – just as Professor Baruch Kimmerling, a self proclaimed leftist dissenter, and teacher of sociology in Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel, is openly proud in his godless yet Zionist and Jewish existence, of the achievements of his Jewish State. I hope the intellectuals in the academe will forgive my limited mental acuity that I am still trying to parse what it means to be a “Jew, an atheist and a Zionist” all at the same time – only intellectual moralists living in Israel can perhaps unravel such intricate conundrums and still sleep well at night, and be able to look at themselves in the morning. As now there is no more fear of a god anymore. Nietzsche had made sure of that in the nineteenth century for them, as the elite prerogative of the superman* having his own super morality beyond that of the ken of ordinary men, as no one morality may fit all sizes of peoples - some chosen by god, others chosen to serve the ones chosen by god, and then god died after issuing substantial land grants to his superior and choicest peoples:
“According to Halachah, classic Judaism's laws and customs, for example "compassion towards others" extends to Jews only. Murder or manslaughter is judged mildly when the perpetrator is Jewish and the victim a non-Jew. Also according to Halachah, it is accepted for a Jew to kill a non-Jew if he is laying claim to "eternal Jewish land". This is what the settlers' religious organisations are alleging. There is no corresponding law in Israel's judicial system but in effect it influences the system as punishment of such crimes is very mild. Israel's state terrorism, theft of land and occupation, demolition of houses, the building of the Wall etc including the so called 'extra-judicial killings' (assassinations), are seen by Zionists as legitimate defence of the Nation and therefore fall under international law - which Israel ignores [..] Buber critisised Nazism while commending the Jewish Religion (Hassidism) but keeping quiet about its dehumanising of non-Jews (goyim). These double standards act to increase Israel's chauvinism and hatred of all non-Jews.” [Lasse Wilhelmson: Zionism as Jewish National Socialism]
Footnote [*Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus spoke Zarathustra]
“There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, they are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.” [Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001]
' “The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel” (quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156)' [Haim Cohen, former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, quoted by Tariq Ali: “To be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice”]
“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler not Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.” [Harry S. Truman, Diary July 21, 1947]
Thus with their superior morality applied to people who “do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy”, in the prophetic words of Israel's distinguished President himself no less, it is okay to grant the beleaguered Palestinians the rights to self-defense, so long as they don't kill* the racially superior** Israeli civilians. And all Israeli Jewish citizens are civilians once they take those green uniforms and dark glasses off after returning from the West Bank and Gaza duties, and go back into their European cities with Hebrew street names in slacks and T-shirts – a uniform that lends support and legitimacy to the State of Israel by paying taxes, by participating in its economy, by living on its usurped lands, by carrying its national passport, by not having been born there but transplanted from New York, Russia, Ukraine, India, and Africa, and by celebrating its independence day as a joyous holiday - all of which is the collective oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli citizens. Whom are the Palestinians supposed to retaliate against? The American made tanks threatening them in front of their homes in their own villages and shanty refugee camps after they have been kicked out of the rest of the Israeli confiscated lands, or the F16s flying over their heads dropping bombs as they please, wherever they please, killing whomever they please, men, women, children, young and old alike with extreme prejudice, when the Palestinians posses no Army, no Air Force, no Marines, no Navy, no major weapons, no outside assistance from the world watching as muted spectators, and possess absolutely no other means of self-defense but the sacrifice of their own lives?***
How convenient, that even their last possible means of self-defense is denied the Palestinians by calling it “terrorism”, and waging a “war on terrorism”. A label and a war that would make Patrick Henry laugh in his grave, for hadn't he once so boldly proclaimed: “I know not what course others may take, as for me, give me liberty or give me death”, and the British had equally adorned him with such epithets and burned down the White House? Israel's own preemptive terror and genocide in acquiring the State of Israel and ceaselessly propagating it further is only to be debated in moral intellectual circles in the abstract, and perhaps loudly lamented on each Sabbath as a necessary “primal sin” to save another “haunted persecuted people” which “may be forgiven one day”*. [*Tanya Reinhart cited earlier]
Which cities did the Allies bomb during WWII and why? There were no “uniformed” Nazi troop concentrations during the carpet bombing of the civilian populated urban and industrial areas of Dresden, nor were there any Japanese soldier concentrations in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki – none of which were defined as war crimes by the victors of World War II. Therefore, just to be consistent so as not to appear hypocritical in their administration of Justice, neither was the bombing of civilians in London by the Nazis considered a war crime. There are no indictments on record for such crimes by the Nazis, even Nazi war criminals like Admiral Doenitz were freed when they argued that the Allies had done the same killings. The glaring omission of defining the barbaric bombing of urban population centers, which the Allies did more of than the Nazis, and dropping of the apocalyptic American atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, as monumental war crimes against civilians, is arguably a frightening testimony to “victor's justice”, and “might is right” chauvinist morality. If such heinous acts committed while defeating an aggressive and belligerent enemy in self-defense weren't declared war crimes using heavy bombers from the air, how are they now a war crime using human bombers on the streets?
Furthermore, all the barbarisms committed by the Nazis (and the Japanese) that the Allies did not commit, were considered war crimes unilaterally by the very definition of War Crimes crafted during the Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo, where the victors vociferously and resoundingly denied they were purveying a “victors justice” to the vanquished, as they proceeded to hang them: “If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to invoked against us”*, as loudly proclaimed by Justice Robert Jackson in Nuremberg.
Footnote [*Noam Chomsky: Western State Terrorism]
Thus, initiating aggression, breaking the treaties and invading Europe was a war crime, something the Allies did not do, and so were the concentration camps and policies of genocide, something again the Allies did not do. Indeed, the first act of aggression and invasion was deemed the “supreme” crime, and the aggressor held responsible for “all the evil that follows”, as has been repeatedly stated here to manifestly make clear what is “legally” and “morally” deemed a war crime and what isn't, according to the International Law crafted by the victorious Allies themselves, and subsequently embodied in the Geneva Conventions. Thus carte-blanche pursuit of self-defence is made justified, and any evil that follows from it, is laid at the feet of the initial aggressor, as the supreme criminal who started it all. It is kinda late to change the International law when the shoe might be changing feet – for the imperatives of Self-Defense, especially by the aggrieved and subjugated, cannot be constrained by any laws anymore than the lion who is being chased by the wolves, can claim respite.
Okay – using the Allies' own Justice system, and the assertions of their war crimes tribunal judge Robert Jackson that such justice must apply regardless of who commits the crimes, the acts performed by the Palestinians in the self-defense of their own homes, properties, lives, and identity as a peoples, against the marauding State of Israel and its Zionist peoples, regardless whom or what it is perpetuated against among the occupiers and their enablers, are not a war crime, but a legal and moral self-defense against a belligerent*, invading, and usurping foe hell bent on their destruction and “transfer” from their own continuously inhabited ancestral lands**. Whereas, all acts of war and aggression committed by the Zionists in the conquest of Palestine, which are akin to the crimes of the Nazis of military conquest for territorial ambitions, regardless of any self-serving pretexts, be it Lebensraum as German god's promise, or Eretz Yisrael as Hebrew god's promise; land confiscation; systematic confinement into refugee camps through continued use of terror in subjugation and destruction of indigenous defenseless peoples as a matter of strategic and tactical policy of displacement through intimidation and squeezing of sources of livelihood; are a war crime. The Zionists must therefore hang according to the very definitions of war crimes by the WWII victorious Allies, who so gratuitously gifted the victims of the Nazis, the Zionists' much coveted and diabolically pre-planned “Der Judenstaat” in Palestine.
Footnotes [*Electronic Intifada Diaries: 'Palestinian workers under "moral terror"'] [**Electronic Intifada Diaries: My First Settler Attack]
When the Israeli Jews deliberately keep their families and children in Israel knowing that it is usurped lands and that they are at war with the Palestinians over it, it is not inconceivable to argue that the Zionists do this deliberately, using their own flesh and blood as human shields so that they may demonstrate to the world with their control of the American media*, how terrible the Palestinians are that they target Israeli civilians when the Palestinians fight them in self-defense. Whereas the systematic destruction of Palestinian towns and villages and the demolishing of their homes by heavily armored Israeli military and the almost daily creation of new refugees on their own lands is never shown on mainstream American television. A Palestinian bomb dropped in a densely populated market can no more distinguish a child from a uniformed or un-uniformed soldier, than the bomb dropped from an F16 over densely populated Palestinian Areas. The death count of the Jewish dead and properties destroyed is miniscule compared to the loss inflicted upon the Palestinians*, and the corresponding media coverage of the two carnage is a study unto itself worthy of several Ph.D. thesis to say the least.
Footnote [*ifamericansknew.org]
While the Palestinians have no choice but to be there in their own homes on their own continuously inhabited ancestral properties, the Zionist Israelis do have a choice to not be there on usurped lands, and to not keep their families there as human shields like the worst cowards. The connection of Zionists sacrificing Jewish lives for Zionism* is an old one and is amply documented.
Even Herzl considered anti-Semitism targeted at his own Jewish brethren essential in the realization of Zionism, as the Israeli Jewish historians themselves observe:
“Herzl regarded Zionism's triumph as inevitable, not only because life in Europe was ever more untenable for Jews, but also because it was in Europe's interests to rid the Jews and relived of anti-Semitism: The European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that anti-Semitism would be harnessed to his own Zionist-purposes." [Benny Morris: “Righteous Victims”]
A child's destiny is in the hands of his/her parents, and when they put their children in danger as Zionist aggressors on another's usurped lands, they are the criminals, not the ones who are fighting in their own self-defense, anymore than the Allies were when they killed millions of civilians in their non-stop bombings of civilian infrastructures during World War II in supposed self-defense, or dropped two atomic bombs on civilians knowing fully well that the Japanese were going to capitulate anyway, as the historical records show.
With the passage of time, with newer Jewish generations continually being born on Palestinian lands, the land theft will be a fait accompli - which is why, contrary to all the talk of time not favoring the Jews in Israel due to the higher birth rate of the Palestinians in their intensely pitiable bantustans, it is actually time that is the Zionist's best friend today despite all their deceptive denials. They well understand, that who today dare evict a Californian, born and raised for generations in Los Angeles on main street, the land usurped from the Mexicans? No one today will consider it "justice" to evict the surfing dude any more than the new Jewish generations being born in today's Israel. If only the Zionists can hold on long enough for enough people to be born on occupied lands, in the settlements, in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, in Israel's pre-1967 occupied Palestinians lands, then these new Jews are people of the soil, they are born in Palestine – no longer imported from New York, Eastern Europe, and India. Their realities will take precedence over the realities of the displacement of Palestinians into further smaller and smaller “reservations”.
The systematic resettlement of Palestine looks quite analogous to America - and who does not know today how that land theft was accomplished from the native American Indians? Thus with the passage of time, the problem of the occupation of Palestine will become more intractable to peaceful solutions that could in any way favor the cornered Palestinians, and the Zionists will temporarily win by default. This is entirely their game plan behind their invention of Campus Watch, behind their control of the American media, behind their support of the institutional scholars and the Neocons (many of whom are either Zionists themselves or Zionist sympathizers), and the foolish Christian Zionists whom they adroitly manipulate with visions of Rapture. Even though Ariel Sharon is arguably justified in claiming today:
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that ... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it” [Talking to Shimon Perez in October 2001 as heard on Israeli radio]
The motivation today, obviously, is to hush up their conquest and resettlement in front of the American public.
Tomorrow, the motivation will be to extract their pound of flesh from the Gentiles to seek their own revenge of 3000 years of anti-Semitism. If the Zionist Jews cannot spare even their own brethren in their fanaticism for Zionism as already evidenced above, they are surely not to spare their historical enemies once their aims are accomplished. One can already see that the life of an ordinary Israeli Jew enjoying tremendous subsidies, and social, health, and retirement benefits in Israel using American tax payer gifts of Billions of dollars annually, is far superior to what the ordinary American citizen enjoys in America from his own Government. Indeed, the discrepancies are quite astounding, and the lack of questioning by the uninformed American public is not at all unexpected. Today the Zionist control of the American public opinion is really only to gain time by keeping the state of Israel financially afloat and viable with American Government help.
Whereas the American public and its conscionable students are trained in continual obfuscation to keep them confused and chasing red herrings of Islamic fundamentalism* and war on terrorism**, rather than learning the truth about what is happening in Israel with the American tax payers mighty dollars. Once the reality of fait accompli has been sewn in Palestine, there will be no further need of Campus Watch – the political will in America will continue to support the Jewish State as it has done so over the past half century due to its own Hectoring Hegemonic reasons of imperial interests in the Middle East. The two already share a lot in common in their founding histories of settler colonization, and the power brokers in the ruling elite of both nations share a bizarre interdependency of mutual goals and aspirations, with the Zionist money and influence largely controlling the destinies of almost all the elected representatives across the board, with the appointed Cabinet also usually either mostly Zionist, or incredibly sympathetic to them. And perhaps the American public may yet see the Star of David finally flying over the White House. It is already displayed very prominently during every single Press conference from the White House, standing solemnly next to the Old Glory, in case one hadn't noticed. Its prominence is of little surprise when Ariel Sharon is greeted each time with hugs as a “man of peace”. And it will be quite acceptable to as openly discuss the complete colonization of Palestine by Israel then, after the Palestinians have been “tamed”, with the same kind of distant remorse, as it is okay to discuss the colonization of America today in every sixth grader's history book, but with little or no remorse. The Zionists in Israel are already setting the precedence for elaborate public cleansing of their souls for their primal sins by practicing their vacuous laments in public. Israeli historian Benny Morris openly revealed in the Israeli press 56 years later, how unfortunate it was that 700,000 Palestinians died in 1948***. Is that a whole lot different than what American history books now write when openly describing small pox laden blankets deliberately given to the indigenous American Indians to accelerate their demise?
Footnotes [*Zbigniew Brzezinski: January 1998 Interview to the French magazine "Le Nouvel Observateur"] [**Noam Chomsky: “The U.S. Is a Leading Terrorist State” - an Interview with David Barsamian in Monthly Review 2001; Western State Terrorism] [**Ramsey Clark: Neighborhood Bully - Interview by Derrick Jensen] [***Tariq Ali: To be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice]
Sure, own up all you want, lament all you want, but after the fact, years later when it matters not, for the suffering and the tortured are already dead – not while it is occurring, when something can be done to stop it. Then propaganda prevails, as it does today on every issue surrounding Palestine, and which the institutional scholars help perpetuate even further by not dispelling it right off the bat among the gullible public. The fact that this is true can be seen in the belated confessions of the Zionists themselves, even about how they do propaganda:
“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” [Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972]
After a fait accompli in Palestine, the only mechanism that will subsequently dislodge the Israelis in the future then becomes quite obvious: “Battle not with monsters lest ye become one; for when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you” as the author that gave moral currency to the superman's superior morality, once so perceptively noted. Not all humanity at the receiving end of oppression and attempting to rectify the grave calamitous injustices purveyed upon them by the vilest of foes, are created of the same mold as the courageous peace activist, peacefully and unarmed, sought justice from her own people on behalf of their beleaguered victims, and fell victim herself at the hands of her own ruthless and barbaric people*. She stared the monstrous bulldozer right back in the face keeping her Oath of Maimonides, defied Nietzsche, and reclaimed for her own soul for eternity, and for her Judaic religion temporarily, a semblance of morality that has been so deftly usurped by the Zionists for over a hundred years in their usurpation of another's peoples rights and properties.
Footnote [*Rachel Corrie: rachelcorrie.org]
This is the problem with the value proposition “might is right”. When the once victorious ends up on the vanquished end, or the subjugated fight-back in their self-defense with the same prejudice that is used against them – for vengeance knows no bounds nor recognizes kin, the mighty has left himself no recourse to plead his case for justice when the ax falls. When the weak start getting stronger, the lamentations of “foul” tend to carry little wait with justice minded observers – as what goes around, comes around multiplied several times, be that for good, or be that for the worst crimes in human history. This unbounded revenge of the victims shall not fail to snare, the conscionable among the mighty, who had boldly stood up to the might and challenged their self-proclaimed right to wreak havoc on defenseless peoples – for such is the nature of curse that visits upon an entire society that remains unjust. A radioactive fallout can be equally merciless to all, unless the unjust society, as a moral imperative, remedies their injustices instead of preparing to defend themselves against the revenge of the victims – for there is no defense unless you kill them all whom you have aggrieved.
Today, that is at least 1.5 Billion Muslims – for disunited as they may politically be today, and adroitly manipulated by the mighty in their own favor they may also be, no one could predict that the Cold War would end so un-perspicaciously, and neither can anyone predict what new alliances will emerge tomorrow. The threat of Globalization and rising disparity between the haves and the have-nots unites 4 Billion peoples of the planet together, sharing the common grievance of exploitation and economic subjugation that has deliberately left them in the “third world” for decades through the machinations* of the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO memberships that their poor nations are being forced to accept in a partnership of the unequals. Necessity can make equally strange bed fellows as politics. A few generations is but seconds in civilizational lifetimes. The seeds of injustices sown in one generation by the chauvinist old men may often be harvested in another generation by their children and grandchildren, who would often find the situation quite incomprehensible, and understandably so because it isn't of their making – the makers are all dead, bequeathing their legacies of bitter and bloody histories and unjust treaties for a new generation to bear the brunt of their parent's transgressions. How can one now identify the monumental criminals?
Footnote [*John Perkins: “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”]
One can see that already the founder generation of Israel is safely dead or will soon be, while the children of Israel are bearing the Zionist sins as well as the brunt of their punishments. Delay Justice longer, and only more injustice will follow with more mayhem. It is quite amazing how a defenseless peoples have given the fifth or sixth largest military power in the world a run for their money (American money) over the past 57 years and refuse to die away. That fact alone should tell the rational and thoughtful Jews something – that they could not stand up to their own oppressors in Germany, did not fight back, dropped all their rights to self-defense as if they never had them, and had to be rescued by a world at war. Generations of Palestinians have lived and died under the watchful brutality of Israeli watch towers and American made tank turrets since 1948*, and yet refuse to surrender, refuse to crawl on their bellies to escape. Even their small children are courageous enough to fight-back by throwing stones at the mighty Israel tanks quite unafraid. The entire Palestinian peoples stand alone battling the strongest military power in the region, yet still hanging on with the same tenacity under a meager subsistence, that the Muslims showed in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet Union for a decade. The Jews when they were defenseless showed the world their mettle, just as now they show the world the barbarism of their civilization. The Palestinians when they are defenseless are now showing the Jews their mettle. A single Palestine today, without further delays, is now an imperative, with the expulsion of all foreign implanted Jews, and rights restored to all former residents of the land, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, being the only Just solution that will ensure the peaceful survival of the Jewish race in the future – Zionist or not. Palestine is still big enough to accommodate all its peoples – it's not big enough to accommodate a Jewish State** apartheid or not. From the planet Mars, this is what the state of affairs on Earth appears to be. If only any sane people on Earth were listening.
Footnotes [*ifamericansknew.org] [**Lasse Wilhelmson: Zionism as Jewish National Socialism]
In another world, these beleaguered Palestinian peoples would be the epitome of bravery and courage, subject of many Hollywood movies and epic novels glorifying their strength, endurance, and their struggle for human justice, and their unimaginable plight would be an immediate cause for a collective invasion by the peoples and nations of the world to liberate the Palestinian peoples from their misfortunes of heavenly proportions only comparable to “one of Sinai when something was revealed”.
But alas, alas, alas, no. Not so on this planet Earth. The financial, (im)moral, and intellectual support of the Jews in the Diaspora continues to flow into Israel, especially from the United States of America. The financial, military and political support of the Christian Zionists in America, through the world's most powerful President, who even calls Israel's leader a “man of peace”, continues to provide the Israelis Carte Blanche for hastening the return of Jesus by bringing about the realization of Eretz Yisrael for the Jews, and with it, the final Armageddon. The world's political leaders endlessly and willfully debate this or that peace initiatives knowing fully well what the peace will eventually be like – of the same type as that prevailed after the colonization of the Americas.
And while all this goes on today under their very noses, the academe debate “history of the Arab-Israeli conflict” – as a history, somehow abstractly removed from today, and not as monumental war crimes against humanity currently in progress, a task for which the erudite scholars, wearing the mantle of Socrates and Plato, by the very imperatives of their profession to seek truth and dispel falsehoods, are charged with the responsibilities to energize, implore and exhort their students to help end the travails of innocent peoples as the highest human imperative. For indeed what other purpose does erudite scholarship serve but to be a gadfly? For what other purpose does the academic seek the freedoms of academe but to:
“constantly disturb, .. bear witness to the misery of the world, .. be provocative by being independent, .. should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be assigned to him, nor can he be made to fit into any of the histories written by the victors. .. he stands out as an irritant wherever he is” [Vaclav Havel: “Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala”, quoted by Mark Chmiel in “Moral Leadership”]
And for what other purpose do the Jewish scholars prolifically lament their own misfortunes in books upon books:
“Below his breadth, the Jew asks of is gentile neighbour: 'if you had known, would you have cried in the face of God and man that this hideousness must stop ...?' The Jew is a living reproach.” [George Steiner: “Language and Silence: Essays on Language, Literature, and the Inhuman”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]
“We tell the story not only for the Jewish people; we tell it for the world. Only the tale of what the world has done to our people can save the world from a similar fate. It is very ambitious, I know. It is arrogant. We want to save the world from destruction. And perhaps only we can.” [Elie Wiesel, “Against Silence: The Voices and Vision of Elie Wiesel”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]
But instead, what do we see the academics do with their precious freedoms as they worry about Campus Watch taking it away from them? They seek class evaluations that have: “overall been good to excellent”, while arguing for: “Israel's right to exist.”
“How is it possible that a man so intelligent, knowledgeable, and informed could not have been aware of the anti-Jewish laws of Vichy? The plundering, the persecutions, the arrests, the roundups – how could he have failed to know about them?” [Elie Wiesel, on French president Francois Mitterand's World War II experience, And the Sea Is Never Full, quoted by Mark Chmiel]
Replacing Vichy with Palestine, and Jewish with Palestinians in the above lament could arguably make today's honest intellectual and truthful scholar stand up and answer the same questions.
[Sobbing may be heard here if the heart is not made of stone] Upon the conclusion of these bizarre observations of rather Kafkaesque proportions, I am compelled once again to fall back on the weighty words of one of the most erudite expert eyewitnesses on this subject matter, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Director of the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, who so eloquently speaks for all victims for all times residing in all the worlds in the universe in his passionate memoirs All Rivers Run to the Sea:
“and I still curse the killers, their accomplices the indifferent spectators who knew and kept silent".
Even if the inebriation of power has today made the value proposition “might is right” ubiquitous in the settlement of the affairs of mankind, let the future historians and judges bear witness where each intellectual and scholar courageously stood in the imperatives of his distinguished profession, and what role he or she played in bringing misery, or sustenance, to the peoples.
I thank you in advance for your generous patience in reading this long first inquiry along with the few observations on the plight of the Palestinians that my conscience drove me to make, but which cannot possibly do justice to their profound misery. I made these observations not under the presumption of such atrocities having escaped your own knowledge, as no scholar of distinction may remain unaware of such facts as are openly visible for all to see. As empirical evidence of monumental crimes against humanity before a reasonably thinking person, these facts remain incontrovertible, and are not a mere matter of personal opinion or conjecture. I only present them here as background material supporting my inquiry.
I now eagerly await your own strong and clear response, and the equally strong and clear response of your other learned compatriots in American and Israeli Academe, so that I may educate myself with the Occam's Razors clarity that I am certain I will surely receive from you as teachers of truth, benefiting all in search of it.
It is quite clear to me that you must possess some secret evidences, moral truths, and profound ability to reason critically, that I fear are all denied me as an ordinary human being not wrapped in the cloak of academe scholarship and respectability. Otherwise claims from distinguished scholars for “Israel's right to exist” in Palestine at the barrel of a gun makes no sense to me, for it senselessly continues to create further animosity among the quarrelsome children of Abraham, which may inevitably lead to a fratricidal Armageddon where there are no winners (except for perhaps the Christian Zionists and their illustrious moral leader, the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, who gets his marching orders directly from the divine: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”).
My second inquiry letter into the topic of Campus Watch follows.
I remain,
Sincerely Yours,
a student of all truth-tellers and falsehood repellers, grateful to my parents and teachers for all that is truthful and factual in this letter, and shameful of my own failings for what may have escaped it.


Zahir Ebrahim
Founder: Project Human Beings First – a work in progress
Truth and Justice activist by Imperative
Computer Architect by Profession


Postscript: If a tiny good comes from this open letter, if it touches the heart and mind of even a single Academic in America or Israel leading them to reverse their position on Zionism; leading them to stand up and courageously denounce Zionism in front of their students with reason and logic, without regard to self-serving interests of career and class reviews; leading them to force their students to examine their own key value propositions in support of their claims, and grading their work on the logic of their analysis alone in how well their proposed values support their claims – thus forcing a self-examination of either the values or the claims, by either demonstrating hypocrisy, or a war criminal attitude, and thusly training their eager young minds in how to continually avoid both as an unqualified virtue regardless of self-interests, for these brightest young minds are indeed the leaders of tomorrow; leading them to publicly proclaim the curse of Zionism and exhorting the peoples to end it; leading them to loudly renounce their citizenship of Israel and return back to their own native lands from whence they had come from; leading them to fully boycott Israel, and divest from anything Israeli; then such a tiny good will surely multiply exponentially, and in justice for both the Jews who fall victim to their parent's fanaticism for Zionism and to the crimes of uncourageous silence of their Jewish elders in Israel and the Diaspora, and the Palestinians. Future is what is important today – for history is but a responsibility for the future. But those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future (Orwell).
N.B. The reference links embedded in the text are current today, but may not remain so in the future. In order to preserve those references, it may be prudent to download the contents of the links for easy access in the future.


The author, a justice activist, formerly a Silicon Valley systems architect (see engineering patents at http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents ), founded Project Humanbeingsfirst.org in the aftermath of 9/11. He was, mercifully, most imperfectly educated in the United States of America, which might explain how he escaped the fate of “likkha-parrha-jahils” mass produced from its vast manufacturing consent complex with all his neurons still intact, and still firing on all cylinders. Bio at http://zahirebrahim.org ; Email: humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com ; Verbatim reproduction license at http://humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright .


Source URL (First Inquiry Letter: The fine art of academic scholarship for Zion): http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/10/zion-and-fine-art-of-academiology.html


Source URL (Second Inquiry Letter: Zion and the poor American Academic): http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/10/zion-and-poor-american-academic.html
First written April 24 to May 15, 2005 | Published on Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:00 pm 23229 53


The fine art of academic scholarship for Zion - First Inqiury Open Letter by Zahir Ebrahim

The Plebeian antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

Home is Humanbeingsfirst.org

INDEX here.

Okay to copy, print, or post this document; verbatim reproduction only.
Comment here. Full Copyright Notice here.

Reprint License

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity, provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images, quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.