Posting 8. to the On the Ground category, by George Salzman, 15 May 2006
I received a request yesterday to place this announcement. It is another effort to build a part of the grassroots information and news infrastructure, which I’m glad to help publicize. —G.S.
The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), at www.imeu.net, works with journalists on their stories about Palestine and the Palestinians. In the short time IMEU has been around, they’ve placed numerous commentaries in the mainstream media and connected journalists with good Palestinian spokespeople for their publications and shows.
Since May 3, they’ve been running a campaign to bring awareness to the Nakba. Each day, they’ve featured profiles of survivors, statistics, historical information and more. For the 58th anniversary on May 15th, there is a powerful roundtable featuring seven prominent Palestinians with their thoughts on the Nakba (imeu.net/news/article001375.shtml), along with the Nakba material from the past two weeks.
Take a look at www.imeu.net. If you know journalists who could use assistance with their stories on Palestine and the Palestinians, please feel free to have them contact the IMEU at or 510-451-2600.
Posting 21. The Jewish-Israel Lobby category, by Bill Templer, 15 May 2006 TILLEY AND FORWARD TO A ONE-STATE SOLUTION
Virginia Tilley’s article on Hamas and Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’ in Counterpunch is strong if perhaps a bit too ‘legalistic’ and complex in argument (http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley05112006.html ). I think the core of her own concern lies toward the end:
“Carving the West Bank into cantons has eliminated any hope of a viable Palestinian state. The two-state solution is not working. In these conditions, should Hamas recognize Israel’s ‘right to exist’ if it is recognized to be eliminating Palestinian sovereignty altogether? […] The Road Map is based on the supposition that the only peaceful solution in Palestine is to establish one state for Jews and another for everyone else. If Israel’s ‘right to exist’ does not entail sustaining a Jewish majority (which necessitates discriminatory legislation, ethnic cleansing, land grabs, and social engineering), then the ethnic logic supporting two states disappears. Why agree to compose two secular-democratic states sitting next to each other in this small land? No one can articulate an answer, because ethnic demography is their only rationale. […] The entire Road Map logic has become nonsense, too.”
Virginia is the most cogent academic voice today projecting a one-state solution as the path forward, and I can recommend her The One-State Solution (Ann Arbor 2005). She tries in this Hamas article not to foreground that concern, but it is her central thrust on the Palestine/Israel question. Though she projects a democratic ‘secular’ state, I think some people inside Hamas could find her thinking quite compatible with the cultural and religious expression of Islam in a symbiotic egalitarian Arab-Jewish political frame.
In her final chapter on concrete steps, Virginia addresses the question of “what qualities of ‘Jewishness’ would necessarily be lost if Israel ceased to have a Jewish majority?” (p.220). Though “the whole apparatus of Basic Law and public policy that now privileges Jewish nationality in Israel would have to be dismantled,” the urgent question is “how the core spirit and functions of the Jewish national home—sanctuary, national expression—can be preserved while providing Palestinians and all non-Jews with full political equality.”
She goes on: “a completely ethnic-blind system would not suffice; mutual guarantees would have to ensure both Arab and Jewish collective interests, particularly in the transition. […] if Jewish life could sustain meaningful expression in a country so stabilized, the benefit to Zionism would actually be enormous, for it would defuse Israel’s daunting ‘demographic threat’ permanently, by making it meaningless. […] Debating the state’s exact design is, however, premature at this point. As in South Africa’s transition, the protagonists must sort out the new state’s design themselves through legitimate forums.” (p.221).
On p. 222 Virginia sets out some bulleted ‘provisions’ for the transition, well worth pondering. She even goes so far as to say: “sustain the Law of Return for Jews,” while heavily curtailing “the activities of the WZO and the Jewish Agency regarding the active promotion of Jewish aliyah” — and working out avenues for massive Palestinian return. The Jewish settlements in the West Bank would be absorbed into this unitary state, while eliminating “preferential access to land, water and transportation,” and any special incentives for these settlements, in a frame of working for the aim of “ethnic parity” in all spheres (p. 223).
This is not just ‘dreaming.’ Virginia is associated with the group One Democratic State (www.one-democratic-state.org ) that I have mentioned before, where you are welcome to come on board. I find Virginia’s analysis and vision as laid out in the 2005 book non-socialist,and non-populist, too little concerned with a ‘bottom-up’ movement among Palestinians and Jews for a new kind of people’s commonwealth, but that is secondary within this broader frame. Ihud in 1942 called for a “Federative Union of Palestine and neighboring countries,” grounded on a “Union between the Jewish and Arab peoples, essential for “cooperation between the Jewish world and the Arab world in all branches of life—social, economic, cultural, political.” That was the vision of Buber, Akiba Ernst Simon, Judah Magnes, Henrietta Szold and others. Their party today would be banned in Israel under Art. 7(a) of the Basic Law.
Importantly, Virginia is very careful not to demonize average Israelis, whatever their brainwashing by the powers that be. As far as I can see, she doesn’t have a class analysis of what is wrong with power and plutocracy inside Israel, but maybe that is an unfair judgment on my part.
In mild critique, I think her Counterpunch piece on Hamas does not sufficiently foreground one major aspect of Israel’s distinctive political DNA: namely that it is the state of a movement, what some theorists in Germany in the 1930s called a Bewegungsstaat. That movement is committed to the pro-active “ingathering of the exiles,” and is thus by definition a never-bounded project, where a written Constitution is also exceedingly problematic. In talking about the Israeli ethnocracy, this core aspect is essential. The Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet le-Yisrael) act in some ways as a state within a state inside the Israeli polity as the pincer arms of this movement of ingathering.
This is a paramount reason why Palestinians cannot ‘recognize’ the essentially borderless state. Precisely because it is the ‘state of a global movement’ to in effect imbibe and vitiate (negate) the diaspora. No polity anywhere on the planet is constituted as an ethnocratic Bewegungsstaat to pro-actively gather in, ‘return’ and reunite millions of individuals quite literally from the ‘earth’s four corners.’ In her book, Virginia does deal with the unique role of the Jewish Agency and Keren Kayemet le-Yisrael. REVISITING LAZARE
In the related discussion on the Lobby and its reality and implications, here a quote worth pondering:
“To those who denounce the Jewish peril before you, respond by attacking capital, whatever kind it might be, Jewish or Christian. Capital without any qualifier. To those who enlist you to cry ‘Down with Israel!’ answer ‘Down with Capital! Down with property!’ and don’t go any further than that; don’t allow yourself to be distracted from your route by those who want to guide you into an impasse which will lead you to nothing. Finance, speculation, capital, property, in one word, all your enemies are not Jews, they are universal: they are Christian, Muslims, Buddhists. Be careful not to help them and to compromise the cause by unconsciously supporting theirs. They will laugh at you after you will have foolishly served them as an auxiliary, and they will profit from their victory to better enslave you.”
It is from Bernard Lazare (1865-1903), a French social anarchist and writer active in the 1890s active on behalf of many causes and very centrally engaged in the struggle against anti-semitism in France. His classic study Antisemitism: Its History and Causes (1894) is well worth reading, today perhaps especially, in part as an anarchist antidote to Shahak. This book on anti-Judaism, its discourses and practices, is one of the few by a social anarchist historian, online in full: http://marxists.architexturez.net/reference/archive/lazare-bernard/1894/antisemitism/index.htm
Its first speculative chapter seems to resonate to frequencies in Shahak’s approach in Jewish History, Jewish Religion a century later (denouncing Jewish xenophobia and exclusivism), which is why Lazare paradoxically is sometimes quoted in openly anti-semitic diatribe. Yet Lazare’s anarchy shines through his analysis, even in chap. 1. And his concomitant struggle against French anti-semitism, such as Edouard Drumont’s La France juive, a classic vicious anti-semitic work on ‘Jewish supremacy’ in France that in part inspired Henry Ford’s The International Jew. Ford’s tirade was once an insidiously influential book worth (re)reading today in the polarized light of the current Lobby discussion.
As Ford says there in Chap. 13: “Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as ‘anti-Semite,’ a ‘Jew-baiter.’ Nor need encouragement be looked for from politicians, people or Press. […] There is a vague feeling that to use the word ‘Jew’ openly, or to expose it nakedly in print, is somehow improper. […]
The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the super-sensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter. There is probably not a newspaper in America, and certainly none of the advertising mediums which are called magazines, which would have the temerity even to breathe seriously the fact that such a Question exists.”
1921. Sound familiar? The abridged edition of the book is available here, side by side on the cybershelf with Shahak: http://www.abbc2.com/historia/ford.htm
Lazare initiated journalistic discussion in France on the notorious Dreyfus Affair, among the very first dreyfusards. Lazare was in some ways a follower of Bakunin, who called for a“free federation of individuals, districts, provinces, and nations within humanity,” from the grassroots up. Lazare was the first in France to call for a social revolutionary anarchist Jewish path forward as part of the young Zionist movement there.
Eleven months ago, a square Place Bernard Lazare was dedicated in his name in the 3rd arrondissement in Paris. There is an active Cercle Bernard Lazare in Grenoble, website online (www.cbl-grenoble.org ). It continues his concern for social revolution, struggle against racism, and justice in Palestine (which Lazare doubtless would have been in the forefront of today). The Cercle Bernard Lazare still looks to a two-state solution. I have little doubt Lazare would today be struggling for a path forward geared to a democratic antiauthoritarian anticapitalist unitary Arab-Jewish federative state, and beyond.
I wanted to call attention to Lazare because I think he remains a paradigm in the joint struggle for revolutionary socialism and against anti-Judaism, and a masterful critic of the construction of ‘Jewish supremacism’ in the ferment of his day.
Posting 7. to the On the Ground category, by George Salzman, 11 May 2006
On 8 May I got an urgent e-mail from Heba El Sadeq <> on behalf of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, which I prefaced with a brief remark and distributed to my “large” e-mail distribution list, as follows:
The Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and the director, Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj MD, are totally credible, and when they speak of a “Medieval siege” I believe them. We ought to do whatever we possibly can to allow them to live and to not suffer destruction by the Israeli conquerors. Their message is brief.
Dear Friends,
Please read the following appeal and distribute widely to your friends and mailing list and the media. You are kindly asked to contact your members of Parliaments to make them know and act to stop this catastrophe.
Regards,
Heba
Medieval siege of 1.4 million souls in Gaza
It might not be generally known that a humanitarian crisis is building rapidly in Gaza. Because taxes that are due to the Palestinian government are being withheld by Israel and financial support by the EU has ceased, there is no money to pay public servants, including health workers. Most have not been paid for two months, and this in a place where over fifty percent of people live below the poverty line. Drugs are running out. Without anaesthetic agents, for instance, it is proposed the main public hospital in Gaza City, the Shafa, be closed. Little or no material is being allowed through the commercial checkpoint of Karnai at the northern border with Israel.
A medieval element has been superimposed on this economic and physical siege. Artillery pieces have been firing shells into ‘open ground’ for the last two months, and this into one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The ostensible purpose is to quell the firing of the primitive Qassam rockets, which have killed eleven Israeli subjects in the last two years. On the morning of the 24th of April, the first author heard the explosions of about sixty shells whilst he discussed the formation of an educational medical centre with the senior physician at the El-Wafa hospital. It is reported that over six thousand have been fired. Life and limbs have been lost. The children are terrified and precious homes are being damaged or destroyed.
None of these actions are justified in international law. Indeed the opposite obtains. The EU and other nations are complicit by their involvement, or at least by their silence.
We ask for humanity, reason and the law to prevail – immediately.
David Halpin FRCS <>
Eyad El-Sarraj MD <>
Derek Summerfield MRCPsych <>
——————————
Please visit our site:
Gaza Community Mental Health Programme www.gcmhp.net
Four people wrote back to me on the 8th and 9th, as follows:From: Jeff Blankfort <> Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 23:20:53 -0700
We spent some time with Dr. El-Sarraj two years ago in Gaza. He is quite a human being. Arafat had him arrested several times when he complained about PA human rights violations.
Given what is going on right now, the Jews of Israel and I speak of the majority are no better than were the majority of Germans under Hitler. And those Jews who are exploiting the Darfur tragedy for their nefarious purposes while the starving of the Palestinians is going on are the dregs of humanity. I am angry and frustrated at our weakness.
Jeff
From: Lawrence Salzman <> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:09:53 EDT
George: If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist and stops firing rockets into Israel from northern Gaza, the tax money that Israel collects for the Palestinians, will begin to flow once again to the Palestinian government. Realize these monies were turned over to the Palestinian government for years and in spite of the ongoing conflict. The EU will also change its policy toward Hamas.
Realize goods and services in the form of thousands of Palestinians who worked in Israel has essentially stopped since Hamas took over the Palestinian government because of their stated policy of not recognizing Israel’s right to exist. There have been several suicide bombers who killed and wounded both Israelis and Palestinians at the northern check point in Gaza into Israel. Doesn’t take too many suicide bombers to close that trading between Israel and Palestinians.
Again, for you to compare the Warsaw Ghetto to Gaza is insulting. LosFrom: A long time friend, JA <> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:51:30 -0400 To: Martin Posner <> CC: George Salzman <>
Thanks Martin and George. I forwarded George’s message to our . . . long-term friends, Carol and Arnold Saltzman. Arnold has long been a cantor at Adas Israel, but now, because of problems with his voice, is studying to be a rabbi. Carol, his wife, is a wonderful actress who heads up an improv musical troope. Normally, they are very liberal and we can talk to them about everything, but they evidently support the current Israeli position of denying taxes to the Palestinians. In my view, the Israeli hawks have tragically replicated in Gaza the very conditions of the Warsaw Ghetto — murders, assassinations, long lines, degrading conditions, soldiers shooting innocent civilians, and even children, for sport.
Yet, there are many Israeli citizens who disagree with the Israeli leadship; they simply don’t have the power right now. … [T]he Saltzmans, though liberal, often host parties at which . . . Charles Krauthammer and his wife, Robin attend. Charles, as you must know, is a hard-right conservative columnist known for his bitter, sharp partisan attacks. I personally like Charles but have avoided arguing with him since I completely disagree with almost everything he writes. He used to be liberal and supportive of Mondale; but has become a bitter man. Who knows why? Perhaps, it’s because of his being paralyzed by a diving accident and wheelchair bound. I wish I could make the case with such friends for a position that supports peace and justice for both sides … but they seem hardened against appreciating the Palestianian position.
Now, on the radio, Bush prepares the nation for war against Iran. I suspect he’s doing it at the urging of Israel. And there has been talk of using nuclear weapons because of their bunker busting capacities. I’m quite rattled today listening to Bush, Condi Rice, and others treat the Iranian President’s letter, which sought to establish some basis for dialogue and diplomacy, with a dismissive sneer as a “mere diversion.” The US appears to be determined to attack Iran, no matter what.
It’s so outrageous and the results will, of course, be appalling. The army is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan; the budget is completely out of hand and European economists are predicting that the American dollar will have to be devalued by half; Americans will be much more vulnerable to terrorist attack as a result. What to do? Even if we march, this Administration will ignore us. But I will march and get on the phone. God willing, we can stop it, but I think we have little hope of affecting the outcome.
From: Farouk Barakat a> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:33:16 -0400
Dear George,
Does all the work you do to get information out to your large mailing list help to curb your anger? Sometimes I feel like screaming, but no one listens. Maybe it is wrong, but I have mostly even stopped writing letters and making phone calls. Too many deaf ears. But I do spread info to friends and family - but I feel that they are so like minded that even though it reinforces their view, it does little to change the world. Thanks again for being there.
Edith I wrote in reply to these 4 correspondents and CCd it to 30 others, which led to additional exchanges. There are two threads in this exchange: one on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Israeli actions regarding Gaza, and the other oriented towards building grassroots strength aimed at eventually being able to determine the course of history — as the Zapatistas would say — “from below”. This latter thread is my major interest, emphasizing as it does “On the Ground” work, even though it seems largely unable to have a significant impact on immediate events. I am posting the briefer comments here, and will post the longer ones at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/2006-05-11.htm as soon as possible.From: Jeff Blankfort Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:36:01 -0700
George,
I forget if Lawrence Salzman is a relation of yours but if so, the apple seems to have fallen far from the tree and has already turned, as they say. Hamas, of course, has not fired a single rocket or taken any armed action against Israel since declaring a truce a year ago, but for Lawrence, apparently, one Palestinian is much like another and until they recognize the
legitimacy of Israel’s ongoing theft of their homeland, and say “yes, massa,” they are going to be starved to death. The firing of rockets by Islamic Jihad is, of course, stupid, because it allows the supervictimizer to play the victim even though not a single Israeli has been killed by one of those rockets while Israel’s version of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht have been daily firing missiles into Palestinian homes in gaza killing civilians. If anyone objects to my comparing the Israeli military with that of the Nazis, I would ask for a better historical comparison. After all, the Israelis have made “collective punishment,” which was a symbol of Nazi military occupation, a major part of their pacification policy over the years despite the fact that it is an open violation of international law. But we know what Israel thinks about that or about the existence of non-Jews, in general.
JeffDate: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:03:04 EDT
For the record, George is my brother. And, for the record, George is the apple that has fallen far from the tree. We are apples from the same “tree.”
Your note seems to deny what George sent me earlier in an article which outlines some of the truth, i.e., that Israelis have been killed by rockets launched from Gaza. Right now, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting and killing each other as Hamas and Fatah battle it out to see who will control the security forces.
Do you have a clue why the exit and entrance point in Gaza into Israel has been closed so much of the time? Try thinking suicide bombers. Both Israelis and innocent Palestinians have been killed by these bombers.
Are you aware that those Palestinians who are launching rockets into Israel set up their launchers in civilian areas? They do this quite specifically as they want Israel’s responses to wound and kill some innocent Palestinians so they can point and yell at Israeli “aggression.”
I’ll leave it at that as I really don’t want to spend the time responding to everything you wrote as I’d have to stop my involvement in the rest of my life. Lawrence SalzmanFrom: Marianne Torres <> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:19:15 -0700
How many of you have seen an aerial shot of the Apartheid Wall around either Qalqilya or Tulkarm? Wonder why it is that the first thing it brings to mind is the Warsaw Ghetto!!
And Lawrence, recognizing the FACT of a nation’s existence (”recognizing Israel”) is a completely different thing from “recognizing Israel’s right to exist”, unless of course your intent is to force the Palestinians to grovel rather than negotiate. The two are very different concepts. How could any people recognize the “right” of another to steal their land and ghetto-ize and torment their people?
And of course, Israel has made it clear again and again that it will not reciprocate with its demands. Israel will not recognize Palestine’s “right to exist” - rather confounds me how they can demand that from Palestinians or Hamas. Hamas has said many times recognition of the state and renunciation of violence is reciprocal, and that they are prepared to make it a quid pro quo.
Why am I too cynical to believe that Israel will ever give to Palestinians that which they demand Palestinians give to them?
Marianne
Spokane[This item refers to an exchange of newspaper articles between Lawrence and me, on the same topics under discussion here, and a remark I made in a subsequent note. —G.S.]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:16:51 EDT
In a message dated 5/10/2006 10:54:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> By the way, you don’t need to inform me about the Nazi’s intentions and what they did.
George: When you compare Israel’s responses to Gaza to the Nazi’s responses to the Warsaw Ghetto, I do think you need to be informed. LosFrom: Lawrence Salzman Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:33:48 EDT To: Marianne Torres
In a message dated 5/10/2006 2:24:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> How many of you have seen an aerial shot of the Apartheid Wall around either Qalqilya or Tulkarm? Wonder why it is that the first thing it brings to mind is the Warsaw Ghetto!!
Guess you’re not aware that the Nazis herded all of Warsaw’s Jews into the Ghetto so they could be slaughtered efficiently. Haven’t heard that Israelis have stormed Qalqilya or Tulkarm to kill all the Palestinians there. By the way, both of these town have been starting points for suicide bombers who have killed hundreds over the years in Israel from Passover services north of Tel Aviv to luncheonettes in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
By the way, if you are the person who lives in Spokane, Washington, when are you leaving the stolen land you live on? I assume you dismiss this, as Native Americans are not launching rockets into Spokane.From: Lawrence Salzman Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:40:45 EDT To: Marianne Torres
In a message dated 5/10/2006 2:24:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> And Lawrence, recognizing the FACT of a nation’s existence (”recognizing Israel”) is a completely different thing from “recognizing Israel’s right to exist”, unless of course your intent is to force the Palestinians to grovel rather than negotiate.
First of all, Abbas wants to negotiate, but Hamas has not let him. Frankly, your logic in the above is obtuse, to say the least. Hamas does not recognize Israel or recognize its right to exist. It only “recognizes” Israel to the extent that Hamas is aware that Israel is there.A contribution to this interchange from Dorothy Naor will be included with the other longer comments on my website. It is headed
To: Marianne Torres, Jeff Blankfort CC: George Salzman, . . .
Hi All,
I don’t usually enter your (or other) debates . . .From: Jeff Blankfort Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:57:26 -0700 To: Lawrence Salzman
Try thinking occupation, killing, humiliation and dispossession for 39 years and maybe you will have some glimmer of understanding of what you are supporting. The sickness among Jewish supremacists is no less than that of those other believers in the “master race.” You’re not in very good company.
A contribution to this interchange from Manuel Garcia will be included with the other longer comments on my website. It is headed
From: Manuel Garcia, Jr. <> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:46:51 -0700 To: Dorothy <>
Hello everybody (as Grover might say),
Thanks for the informative, if depressing responses. Doesn’t it strike you . . .A contribution to this interchange from Bill Templer will be included with the other longer comments on my website. It is headed
From: Bill Templer <> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
1. Dorothy Naor’s input on an IDF training facility for urban house-to-house combat operations in al-Naqab desert is part of the fascist reality . . .From: Marianne Torres Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:40:14 -0700 To: Bill Templer . . .
Bill, I suggest the late Israeli Professor Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years for a very clear discussion of this issue. I suspect Shahak’s work is at least a partial source for Blankfort’s reference.
MarianneFrom: Dan Hughes <> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:04:25 +0200 To: Manuel Garcia, Dorothy Naor …
I can’t resist a comment on point 2 in this letter. We can just allow force to rule, or we can do what? Exercise a greater force to prevent it ruling? Or maybe change the human race? Fascinating to hear a plan to accomplish either — like maybe send Jesus back down (he wasn’t wildly successful however, was he?)From: Dorothy Naor Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:59:26 +0200
How about educating children to believe in ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? DorothyFrom: Dan Hughes Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:06:20 +0200
Let’s be serious: the Christians have been talking like that for 2000 years, and what difference has it made? Do you have a realistic programme to get children to learn stuff like that? Or just encouragement?From: Dan Hughes Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:39:55 +0200
The authors have responded in the latest LRB, and perhaps all your people know this already. But it’s good stuff, and perhaps you’d like to send it on to your big group. If I could only have two journals, they’d be the London Review of Books (LRB) and the NYRB (NY=New York). (If I could only have one, it would be the LRB:)
“The Israel Lobby”
From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
We wrote ‘The Israel Lobby’ in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it … From: Jeff Blankfort Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:49:20 -0700
Aside from Shahak who uses historical references, any number of Israelis, public officials and public figures have said or written that since the international community did nothing to save the Jews in WW 2, Israel and Jews, in general, owes nothing to the international community, and that attitude is reflected in its public and foreign policies. In other words, Jewish supremacy is accepted as legit in Israel and by most supporters of Israel whether or not they would put it those exact terms. Of course, the record of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis and their sabotaging of rescue efforts by non-Jews should eliminate the Israelis from having anything to say on that issue. Most Israelis, across the political spectrum, have contempt for Jews in the diaspora, as well, all for different reasons and all of them, in essence , correct. The rightwingers consider their supporters abroad to be “checkbook zionists” while the left, finds them contemptible for their refusal to oppose criminal Israeli policies and actions.
Jeff
Posting 6. to the On the Ground category, by George Salzman
Arenas of struggle: keeping our perspective — a reply to Bill Templer’s “The Last Taboo?”, his posting, No. 20. to The Jewish-Israeli Lobby category
A principal arena in the struggle for liberation is in direct resistance to repression by governments and their corporate bedfellows, the giant capitalists. Equally important is the struggle to build our own grassroots infrastructure in opposition to the dominant infrastructure. This work I refer to as “On the Ground” efforts. Far less significant are the debates among academics and intellectuals on the precise meanings of words, who said what, what it means and how it might be misinterpreted by right-wing hatemongers. As an unregenerate “self-hating academic” (and a Jew), I am determined not to get sucked into such diversions, a variety of intellectual masturbation. Hence my “answer” to Bill Templer.
Posting 20. to The Jewish-Israel Lobby, by Bill Templer
Robert Fisk’s article in the Independent (April 27, 2006) “Breaking the Last Taboo: The United States of Israel?” perpetuates the false notion that critique of Lobbytalk comes almost only from the pro-Zionist Jewish right in the states, or in Australia, where Fisk has faced the ‘Jewish lobby’ in Oz. Why cannot those extremely critical of vicious Israeli voelkisch policy at the same time be concerned about potentially racist anti-Jewish discourse inside Lobby analysis and its web of rhetoric and implication?
London-based sociologist David Hirsh critiques Fisk in an article “Slipping Standards” that is worth reading: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_hirsh/2006/04/conspiracy_is_an_easy_way_out.htmlI I don’t agree with Hirsh on a number of points, but the initiative on the Left and website he has organized over the past year ENGAGE http://www.engageonline.org.uk brings together much thoughtful commentary about the dangers of this discourse. Hirsh like Avnery and Chomsky is highly critical of Israel, but Hirsh like Avnery thinks Israel should not be destroyed. And is a fierce enemy of what he perceives as anti-Jewish rhetoric disguised as ‘anti-Zionist’ in Britain and elsewhere, and now using the Lobbytalk as a ‘cocoon.’ I suggest you look at Engage: the journal, the articles. The arguments. Remember these are people on the Left, a whole spectrum. What Jeff Blankfort might inimically call the ‘Jewish Defense League within the Left.’
There you can also see the consciously offensive ‘stars and stripes’ cover of the Independent for April 27 that many Jews will find anti-Semitic in the classic sense. Of course there is more than one reading of the image:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=391 What’s yours? I think some of you may be pretty unaware of anti-Semitic discourse and imagery over the decades. The new xenophobic far right anti-Roma / anti-Turk / anti-Jewish party ATAKA in Bulgaria uses imagery of a similar kind. Is this where the Anglo-American Left is wending?
Hirsh notes: “There is a real, current danger of the emergence of an anti-semitic movement in Europe and America - as well as elsewhere. This is not, at the moment, a battle on the streets. It is a battle on the level of discourse. And much of the careless discourse comes from the very anti-racists, liberals and socialists who ought to be the most sensitive to the danger of the emergence of this kind of racist movement. The left needs to get its act together on this. If the left can’t or won’t fight anti-semitism then we will all be in real trouble - because nobody else will.”
Sounds a bit similar to some of my own comments here a week ago. Hirsh and I differ regarding a ‘transformed’ Israel, because I’ve argued for a kind of radically de-Zionized version of Buber’s vision in the old Brit Shalom of a single unitary cooperative commonwealth, a ‘no-state’ solution. A Palestinian/Israeli zapatismo.
ITEM: Regarding blanket claims in Lobbytalk, take this one from Mearsheimer/Walt: “Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy … stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israeli lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism.”
COUNTER-FACT: One of the most outspoken critics of Israel and an eminent Palestinian social scientist has just been granted a full professorship at a major US university, and at no time was there any attempt to ’smear’ him. Nor had he ever experienced any such interference in his work. He is feared in academic circles in Israel for his astute scientific analysis of land policy, and the workings of the Israeli ethnocracy. How many other Palestinian social scientists are teaching in American academe and not being targeted by campus-watch.org and similar rightwing initiatives? Worth examining. Sure, Juan Cole is being targeted. But the above is a pretty broadside salvo. A scholar probably more radical than Cole, and a Palestinian left-nationalist in his analysis, is not. Why? The campus-watch.org website has only a small number of US campuses on its hit list. Take a look for yourselves.
Writing in the LRB, Robert Pfaltzgraff of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Cambridge/MA has some interesting comment: “The authors allege that ‘over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence’ at US think-tanks, and give a list that includes the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. The basis on which the authors make this assertion escapes me. We have undertaken studies of US policy towards the Gulf States as well as Israel and other countries in and around the Middle East. To the extent that such studies support Israel or any other states in the region, this is the result of an independent analysis of US needs and interests. If Mearsheimer and Walt had taken the time to interview me or any of my colleagues, they could easily have discovered this.”
In any event, I suggest you look at ENGAGE as a tonic against the excesses of your own conviction in this discussion. I agree with its major thrust, not its defense of left-liberal Zionism. And not with its principled opposition to the idea of academic boycott, where I am much closer to Ilan Pappe.
But the same rage for justice that can attack the Israeli plutocracy can also criticize racist suggestion and innuendo about Jews and ‘Jewish power’ in America and what some of us think is now emerging, a kind of ‘Sozialismus des dummen Kerls,’ as August Bebel characterized anti-Semitism on the left in Germany some 130 years ago. Hirsh is a comrade in the struggle against that. As is the Alliance for Worker’s Liberty socialist tendency in the UK that Hirsh and ENGAGE seem near to: http://www.workersliberty.org/ (’Jewish-dominated’?) , a grouping itself in solidarity with the Alliance for Green Socialism http://www.greensocialist.org.uk/ags/
As Liz Burbank recently wrote: “Making an israeli ‘lobby’ the issue and making the terms of the terms of this set-up debate ‘either-or’, ‘yes-no’ takes U.S. imperialism off the hot-seat. […] Meanwhile this vicious deception must be exposed and opposed because it aids our real enemies and because this strata’s role and influence is critical, beyond its own academic circles, in general media propaganda, and in broad mass movements as well as revolutionary working class and anti-imperialist movements. […] By design or default, this timely sneak attack has all the earmarks –and intended effects –of a psyops job–soon to be translated undoubtedly via the capitalist media for broader consumption.” (“Cui Bono & Some Thoughts on “The Ferment Over the ‘Israel Lobby,’” 29 April 2006).
Posting 5. in the On the Ground category, by George Salzman
The following sequence of e-mails began as a response to a statement I made about the Israel-Palestinian conflict (which I cannot find right now, but will include if possible), and went on to the topics of ownership of land, government oppression, taxes, citizens’ resistance, “traditional” 18th and 19th century piracy, gun ownership, etc. The e-mails circulated among a variable “small” list ranging from a few up to about 50 individuals, depending on whether people responded individually, hit Reply or hit Reply All.
Subject: Re: Jewish lobby report doesn’t help achieve Middle East peace
From: Lawrence Salzman <>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:21:39 EDT
To: George Salzman <>
In a message dated 4/22/2006 11:42:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, George Salzman writes:
> The Israeli and U.S governments have no interest in a just peace or a two-state “solution”.
George: If these are your words, you’re about as on target as you were in 1948 in supporting Henry Wallace and in the 1960s when you supported Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
In Israel’s recent election Lukid lost much ground and now is a minor party in the Knesset. Israeli voters overwhelmingly voted for parties that are for a two-state solution.
You apparently ignore and/or dismiss the political and social impact of last Monday’s suicide bombing in Tel Aviv where nine people waiting on a line at lunchtime to buy something to eat were killed and dozens wounded. Hamas not only didn’t condemn this senseless bombing, but said it was a response to Israeli policy.
George, do you really think people will react to such terrorism by deciding to commit political suicide and even possible personal suicide? Frankly, it’s absurd that you could assume such policy on the part of Hamas and its directly or indirectly controlled terrorists would have the effect Hamas proclaims it desires, that is, Israel should let itself be destroyed without any response.
What Hamas is “achieving” is to convince Israelis that their only course of action is to perform surgery, geographic and economic.
Geroge, if Israel were as you seem to believe, it would have “solved” the problem in the manner Hamas has stated it wants to solve the problem if and when it gains the power, i.e., just going in and killing by the tens of thousands.
You and I can read all the writings of all the people and all their respective opinions and thoughts, but the bottom line is that Hamas has stated with absolute clearity that it will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. If you were told by another that he/she didn’t recognize your right to live, you’d defend yourself, or at least I assume that’s what you’d do. I don’t picture you lying down on the ground and motioning to the person threatening you to thrust his knife into your back.
I read these notes that are sent around and some of them are signed “brother.” George, I hope you never have to count on these people if you’re ever in need and have nothing to give them in return for their help. I’m probably one of the very few whom you could really turn to in a time of true need. Los
————————————————————————————
From: George Salzman
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:30:18 -0500
To: Lawrence Salzman
CC: Adam D. Sacks <>, Alan M. Dershowitz <, … (CCs to a total of 30)
BCC: (Blind CCs to 22 addresses)
Oaxaca, 22 April 2006
Lawrence, why don’t you post your note to the weblog, or at least send it to the “small” multiply-addressed group? I’m unable to deal individually with everything coming in, and find what you write totally ignores the history of Zionist conquest of the Palestinians, which was wrong from its inception. We can disagree of course without becoming “enemies.” I know that and I treasure that possibility.
Maybe we’ll have a chance to argue this summer, and maybe you’ll take the opportunity to read some accounts of what I understand to have been the history. I believe you are immersed in a false interpretation, which is tribalist, racist, capitalist, and nationalist, in essence very right-wing, though I know you think of yourself a liberal Jew. I’m doing my best to stimulate open discussion. Of course I have my bias: Everyone is potentially my “brother” or “sister”. I don’t give a shit about whether someone is labelled Arab, Jew, Russian, Catholic, Baptist, we are all, to use my friend Joe Bageant’s term, “brothers under the skin.” Give up thinking that “Arabs” and “Jews” are different kinds of homo sapiens. Forget Thomas Friedman and The Jew York Times. It just occurred to me, I can send this note to the “small” group. Have you read the papers by Gabriel Ash that I mentioned in my earlier note today? If not, I recommend them to you.
All best wishes,
George
Although this “multiple-address e-mail” is going to a relatively small group of recipients, not to my “mass” e-mail distribution list (of about 1400), if you wish to be added to or removed from this “small” list, please let me know.
————————————————————————————
From: Dan Hughes <>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:56:13 +0200
To: George Salzman, Lawrence Salzman
The IRA ‘terrorism’, such as it was, was unpleasnt (I lived in London during all of it), but it was effective. It has brought about a change. If the other guy has jets and uses them on you, and you don’t any help like that from the USA, what do you do?
Silly nonsense, much of this.
————————————————————————————
From: Lawrence Salzman
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:48:19 EDT
To:
CC: (CCs to a total of 31 addresses)
In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:30:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> I’m doing my best to stimulate open discussion.
George: When you refer to the New York Times as the “Jew York Times” do you really think you’re stimulating discussion or just appealing to those who think as you do?
You tell me I ignore what you write. Realize you ignore the facts I present to you. Please tell me what political purpose is served when a suicide bomber blows himself up at a luncheon counter at lunchtime in Tel Aviv, killing nine and wounding dozens?
Let’s assume Zionists “stole” all this land from Palestinians. Okay, when are all these folks who think as you do, including that women in Seattle who told me my response was stupid when I mentioned to her that she’s living on land stolen from Native Americans, going to “go home” to where their families came from? When we chatted on the phone you sort of chuckled and asked me if they should move back to Europe. Well?
Realize, we were still stealing Native American land when grandpa’s three sisters and their husbands, left Minsk in the 1880s and became pioneers in what at that time was called Palestine and controlled by Turkey. The time dimension is the same. Therefore, people who feel as you do who live in the Southwest and other areas where we stole land from Native Americans, including parts of the Northwest should reverse their families earlier emigration and return to Europe or possibly Asia, depending on their background.
I’ll leave it at that as I don’t want to “yell” at you as I believe you’re as blind as you claim I am. Be well. Los
————————————————————————————
From: Adam Sacks <>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lawrence Salzman, George Salzman
CC: (CCs to 31 addresses)
Not only did “we” steal land from indigenous peoples on this continent (and not only in the west), but we continue to steal from them. Nor are we the only ones to overrun and destroy cultures throughout a long history of human migrations and mixing, but the scope of our work is unprecedented in its breadth and destruction.
Does that mean it is forever thus? Well, maybe, but I think we must nevertheless do our best to bring humanity into human affairs. We have the potential for a global perspective and the opportunity to know and do better. That’s why I maintain that at least some of the problems with Zionism, little that I know about it (notwithstanding the reflex stereotyping on the part of people who don’t know anything about me), like most of the other “isms” including mainstream environmentalism, is the concentration of wealth and decision-making power away from people whose lives are directly affected.
The forces of colonialism and corporate globalization are doomed because they are unsustainable. Unfortunately, following the current course they will take much of life on earth with them, nor do they show any signs of turning the ship around. We might have an opportunity to change that course, but only when human beings everywhere have the opportunity to exercise our birthrights - to make the decisions that affect our lives and to base our decisions on the seventh generation.
Where to start? Right in our local communities, and when we organize right (and non-violently) we become a wedge under the toenail of the oligarchy which has the potential to bring it to its knees.
Cheers,
Adam
————————————————————————————
From: Thomas K Wilson <>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:03:39 -0500
To: Adam Sacks, Lawrence Salzman, George Salzman
CC: (CCs to 11 addresses)
There are a couple things on my mind as I follow this exchange. One is the extent to which our rantings and ravings and bickerings have NO effect on the progress of Imperial Capitalism as it crushes the life out of us and the planet. Another is this whole thing about who has a “right” to what property.
Should the US support the secular state of Zions Biblical claim to the land they are calling Israel? Who knows, and what the hell IS the US anyway? What and who is it really comprised of? Can the state be said to actually exist any more than, say, imaginary debt backed fiat “money”, for example?
As far as I can tell, the state is merely comprised of the intentions and activities of a few and the acquiescence of the rest, for their own purposes (whether or not they even understand what those purposes are or that they are able to agree or not agree to anything). For the most part this arrangement is enforced at gunpoint. In fact, the state, as it exists nearly everywhere, is, in and of itself, the definition of coercion.
(George, if this is too heady for you or Bageant, oh well; but I hammer nails for a living and I have discussions like this all the time with “Joe Sixpack” as we’re so derisively labeled by the elitist “progressive” intelligentsia. We’re not stupid just because our fingernails are broken.)
What matters is what is actually happening. When someone is shot in the head they are usually actually dead. When someone forces you off “your” land or out of your domicile then you are shelterless. If the other guy is armed and you are not and he intends to do you harm then you are shit out of luck.
First of all I do not see how anyone can assume to “own” property. What I understand is that we all need to eat and to shelter ourselves and our progeny, where ever it is we happen to be, either by birth or misadventure. In order to do that we need some level of security; of the ability to continuously use a piece of land or an area of land. We could, as pirates do, steal what we need from other people who have produced the things we want or need, or trade for it and live like the Romani, moving from place to place. Some how each of us has to make it from cradle to grave.
I , personally, have an arrangement with the state and some usurers posing as bankers, whereby I occupy a piece of land in return for which I turn over pieces of paper representing time I’ve spent doing tasks for other people (that they are unable or unwilling to do for themselves). In return for the surrender of these “chits” for which I’ve traded the irreplaceable hours of my life as well as skills I’ve had to pay to acquire (either in time or money), my “right” to use this property is enforced by other men with guns (who are also compensated with pieces of paper for the use of their time and skills). In return I get a piece of paper which serves as my title to this arrangement.
You could say I have a treaty with the state which protects my use of the land, WHICH I CANNOT EVER LITERALLY OWN.
As long as I want to continue to use the land, I have to pay, either for the protection of the state, or for the imaginary claims of the usurers (who created the pieces of paper in the first place with their clever pens by “lending” “money” they did not actually possess [actually manipulations of other men’s promises to repay].) NOBODY EVER OWNED THAT LAND AND NOBODY DOES STILL. NOBODY EVER REALLY PAID A NICKEL FOR THE LAND, ONLY THE “TITLE”, SO HOW DOES ANYONE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND MONEY FROM ME FOR IT? Because they have more guns than I do.
The only fact that is not in dispute is that men with guns control its use. What matters is that which actually happens.
What about Israel? The only reason Israel exists is that the would-be-Israelis had more guns, and arrangements with people with more and bigger guns, to take control of the land they now occupy. Any claim to Biblical title is imaginary shit, just like claims to any title to any land anywhere by anybody (including the allegedly indigenous). Membership in the club (Juda-ism in this case) is also imaginary shit. Everyone is from somewhere else and ultimately their ancestors were not members of the club but made up the rules and, voila’, the club existed, at least in their imaginations. Make up the rules and then decide who to exclude from the club. All clubs are imaginary shit even if the people you exclude don’t look or talk like you. Even if you get guns and shoot them.
We shoot each other for imaginary reasons all the time (like those goddamned communists we had to shoot to keep America safe from…?).
The question is, do the people of the United States want to be a party to enforcing this claim? [I sure as fuck don’t. Do you?]
The question then becomes, how do we opt out of this arrangement? How do we get clear of the enforcers?
How are we bound and how do we dissolve the bonds?
The bonds dissolved in the USSR when “they” could no longer afford to pay their military to enforce the contracts they assumed to hold against the people. The same could be said for Argentina. The same was true in Rome.
The power the “theys” of the world hold over us is imaginary (and monetary) in nature. As I’ve said, money is also imaginary, just like club memberships. That does not mean that the men with guns are using imaginary bullets.
I would say if all of us held an equal ability to force our will on others or protect ourselves from having the will of others forced on us then we would have a mighty fine Mexican Standoff.
The only political party worth a crap: http://www.gunsanddope.com/
————————————————————————————
From: Adam Sacks
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 06:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Thomas K Wilson <>, Lawrence Salzman <>, George Salzman <>
CC: Adam Sacks <>, Alan Dershowitz <>, As’ad Abukhalil <>, Gush Shalom <>, Benjamin Melançon <>, Bill Templer <>, Dan Hughes <>, Dorothy Naor <>, Eldad Benary <>, Fred Nagel <>, Gabriel Bolaffi <>
Hey TK -
Aside from the gun scenario, in which I think we all wind up shooting one another or always wondering when/where the next bullet is coming from (just like now), I think your analysis is right on target. I do disagree with you about pirates, however. They got a bum rap since they were anti-nation-state, and the nation states wrote the history books.
Many pirates were men (and some women) who were impressed into the British Navy and abused and tortured (and often slaughtered) to keep them working as cogs in that empire machine. Every once in a while they pulled off a mutiny, and established democracy at sea. The pirate code in the late 17th and early 18th centuries was based on all that they were determined never to do to each other – as the Brits had done unto them – and they established democracy on the high seas. One person, one vote; elected officers who were obeyed only in the heat of battle, otherwise they were just like everyone else; booty shared equally; health care, such as it was, for everyone. No wonder they had to be eliminated, and to top it off, forever the target of calumny. But that’s what nation states do for a living.
BTW, what I see in my work is that some of the most radical democratic work in this country is being done by so-called “Joe Sixpacks”; we “progressives” are mostly part of the problem, not the solution – which has always been the case in the “progressive” movement since its beginnings in the late 19th century.
Cheers,
Adam
————————————————————————————
From: Lawrence Salzman
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:14:43 EDT
To: Thomas K Watson
CC: George Salzman
In a message dated 4/23/2006 6:08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> There are a couple things on my mind as I follow this exchange.
Enjoyed reading your note, even though I don’t agree with everything you say. However, I do relate to your idea that nobody “owns” land as our “ownership” is time dimensioned while the land is assumed to be forever, hopefully. We “rent” land, even though most have the illusion that they own it.
As far as present day Israel, it has the same legitimacy as any other nation. It fought for its life, and yes, with the assistance of some other countries. Those who tried to prevent Israel’s birth were also supported by other countries, but they did not prevail.
Realize, without the help of France, the American Revolution might just be a paragraph in British history books.
One of the folks who feels that Israel is a country founded on “stolen” land, called me stupid when I suggested to her that she lives on land stolen from Native Americans in the state of Washington. That was a most interesting comment on her part, not for what it said, but what it implied. She accepts as a given that she’s entitled to live on stolen land because “we” drove the former owners off of the land and anyway, they are not a problem anymore. We humans are capable of rationalizing any behavior that suits our thoughts and most often are not even aware we are implicitly accepting facts “on the ground” and in disregard to how these facts developed.
Anyway, I could go on, but that’s enough for the moment. For the record, George is my “older” brother. He’s 80 and I’m the kid at 75. We have disagreed politically at least as far back as 1948 when he supported Henry Wallace while I went for Harry Truman.
Just another thought. When viewing another’s logic, always try to determine his/her assumptions. It’s assumption which “drive” logic and you can reach any conclusion logically if you choose, explicitly or implicitly, the “proper” assumptions.
As has been said, “False assumption, impeccable logic, absurd conclusion.
————————————————————————————
From: Thomas K Wilson
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:59:29 -0500
To: Adam Sacks, Lawrence Salzman
CC: George Salzman, L. Urban Kohler <>
I’m responding to this limited group since I don’t dare hit “reply all” since there’s no way for me to see the entire list of addressees, and several people just asked to be un-included (don’t ask me why I can’t I just can’t). If any of you think this exchange would be of interest to anyone you are free to forward:
I don’t feel any differently about Israel than I do any other aggressive nation state. I dislike them all and disagree with their “right to exist” just like and for the same reasons that I disagree that corporations have rights.
I understand why many Jews from a variety of countries wanted a place of their own where they might have some freedom from assaultive neighbors (Richard III threatened to murder some of my ancestors if they didn’t convert or leave England in the 1300’s) but the fact that they decided on Palestine and not Miami was just utter fucking stupidity as far as I can tell (I understand that’s a vast oversimplification; I’m familiar with the history of the Zionist movement). Maybe stupidity tinged with wishful (fantastical) thinking and lots of arrogance. As if any God worth his/her salt would be that much of a prick, to send his/her “chosen” people to someplace they’d be guaranteed to be hated.
It was as much a move of Anglo imperialist anti-Semitism (nobody wanted those Jew-bastard-troublemakers in their country; least of all Harry Truman) as any act of faith.
It was a dumb move. Like, I’d take my dumb white ass to Harlem because some of my ancestors owned property there once (and they may have). I don’t think so. But I digress.
Adam, the gun scenario is central to the argument. Might may or may not make right, but an oral argument will never trump a loaded .38 .
I will grant you that not everyone is cut out to take their own protection into their own hands, but all of us need protection to exist. The pirates understood this. How many of them armed themselves exclusively with fountain pens? None, I think. They had an equal say in their society because they insisted on it and could back that up. They would have guffawed Ghandi off the plank.
The ability to apply equal and opposing force of some kind is what keeps us in balance. That applies to truth and reason and walking and swimming and tai chi, as well as force of arms.
Keep in mind that aside of various epidemics, states have been responsible for way more loss of life than individuals or even gangs. States have murdered over 100 million people (non-combatants) since about 1900. Usually those people were disarmed, legally or by force, by the state first; then they were slaughtered.
How is putting all of us on an equal defensive footing going to do anything worse than that? I see no improvement over that in the current unequal, racist and classist system. If we do not need states for protection we do not need states. In fact, states are by and large “protection rackets” that we are unable to resign from without being brutalized.
I will not accept that there is a class of people (the police/military) who have superior judgment, are wiser or more capable of protecting me than I am myself. It is entirely unfair, not to mention foolish, to lay that responsibility on anybody else.
The question is; how do we get from blabbing to each other on the internet to turning these ideas into practical on the ground practice by real people? Obviously, many people are living in intentional communities, or, like me, have gone back to the land to one degree or another. I don’t know how to accelerate this process (necessity may do it in the near future) effectively. I also don’t have any idea how to stop the mayhem which is being committed in my name by persons effectively beyond my control.
One last thought. I believe voluntary association is more to the point than the over simplistic idea of “non-violence”.
I think that if I am not harming anyone and someone attempts to coerce me into doing anything I don’t choose to, especially if they threaten my life (anyone attempting to coerce you while wearing a gun is threatening your life), then that should be considered by any sane person to be a capital offense. I think coercion needs to get a real bad rep; like seriously bad; like no-one-would-be- stupid-enough-to-attempt-it bad.
————————————————————————————
From: Adam Sacks
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: Thomas K Wilson, Lawrence Salzman
CC: George Salzman, L. Urban Kohler
Hi TK -
Great insights, and I think will have to agree to disagree about arguing with loaded .38s. If someone is hell-bent on pulling the trigger there’s not much to say. But oral arguments frequently trump explosion chemistry, and shooting has never led to anything but more shooting as far as I can tell. Nor is there any way your loaded .38, your Uzzi, your dirty bomb, is going to trump the armed might of the nation state. It’s the oral argument (or demagoguery) that
ultimately rallies the populace to change that (for better or worse).
If I’m anything resembling a pacifist, it’s because violence never seems to result in peace (unless you call such things as the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction “peace”). Even if pulling the trigger in locale “A” quiets things down a bit, the ripple is felt elsewhere in this irrevocably connected web we weave.
Cheers,
Adam
————————————————————————————
From: George Salzman
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:15:38 -0500
To: Adam Sacks
CC: Thomas K. Wilson, Lawrence Salzman, L. Urban Kohler, James Herod <>
Oaxaca, Tuesday, 25 April 2006
Hi Adam,
Thanks for responding to Thomas. I’ve been over my neck these last couple of weeks, and am unable to jump in as I’d like. I am as outraged as you Tom, but small arms are just that, small. The excerpt from James Herod’s essay, Getting Free, is also the view I have of how we ought to proceed:
A further assumption I make is that it is impossible to defeat our ruling class by force of arms. The level of firepower currently possessed by all major governments and most minor ones is simply overwhelming. It is bought with the expropriated wealth of billions of people. For any opposition movement to think that it can acquire, maintain, and deploy a similarly vast and sophisticated armament is ludicrous. I have nothing against armed struggle in principle (although of course I don’t like it). I just don’t think it can work now. It would take an empire as enormous and rich as capitalism itself is to fight capitalists on their own terms. This is something the working classes of the world will never have, nor should we even want it.
This does not mean though that we should not think strategically, in order to win, and defeat our oppressors. It means that we have to learn how to destroy them without firing a single shot. It means that we have to look to, and invent if necessary, other weapons, other tactics. But we must be careful not to fall into the nonviolence/violence trap. Is tearing down a fence a violent act, or resistance to the violence of those who erected the fence in the first place? Is throwing a tear gas canister back at the police who fired it an act of violence, or resistance to an act of violence? Nonviolence is a main ideological weapon of a very violent ruling class. They use it to pacify us. They use their mass media to preach nonviolence incessantly. It’s an effective weapon because we all (but they don’t) want to live in a peaceful, nonviolent world. We would do well to chart a careful course through this swamp.
These 2 paragraphs are from the preface to his essay, at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/P.htm. I’ve found James’ work inspirational and suggest you check it out. He’s only wrong about a few points, the ones he and I disagree on.
————————————————————————————
From: Lawrence Salzman
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:02:16 EDT
To: Thomas K. Wilson
CC: George Salzman, Adam Sacks, L. Urban Kohler, James Herod
In a message dated 4/25/2006 10:13:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
> The only way Israel is going to end the Palestinian “problem” is either by
> absorbing the Palestinian state whole (which looks pretty unlikely) or by
> exterminating anyone in the middle east capable of presenting resistance
OR;
> by getting the fuck out of Palestine.
> This shit about creating a heavily armed and fortified garrison state is not
> just not workable; it is not rational.
> There may be other solutions that would work that have not occurred to me
> (duh) but clearly I can’t think what they are.
Here’s an idea. Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist. Appoint Abbas, for instance, and let him sit down with Israeli leaders and attempt to pound out a two-state compromise, as he has often stated is the path to peace.
Realize the recent election in Israel clearly expressed the desire of the voters for a two-state solution. Likud lost many of its seats in the Knesset and is now a minor party.
When you people leave the land you are living on that has been stolen from Native Americans, I’ll be more impressed with your basically no-compromise attitude to a “solution” of the conflict between Palestinians and Israel.
Do any of you really think suicide bombers will bring Israel to its knees? By the way, study what happened in Hebron in 1929 when Arabs living there killed and drove out all the Jews. There had been Jews living in Hebron literally since the time of King David as it was the capital of Judea at that time.
It was King David who moved the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem. (The names are still the same after roughly 3,000 years.) The Jews living in Hebron in 1929 were not “Zionists,” but religious Jews whose families had lived there for centuries if not since biblical times. When you cut someone with a knife, the wound heals, but it leaves a scar.
Unfortunately, the “solutions” proposed by many who send these notes back and forth will not solve the problem in either George’s or my lifetime. Actually, our family which goes back to the 1880s in what was then Palestine, were for a bi-national state. Unfortunately, it developed into a political impossibility for reasons just like the Hebron pogrom and other “incidents” such as the killing of two of our great uncles who were farmers. There can be no solution unless both sides sit down and pound out a compromise.
————————————————————————————
From: L. Urban Kohler <>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lawrence Salzman <>
I don’t know if this is really relevant to the discussion, but my feeling from election results, etc. is that most Middle-easters would love to find a peaceful compromise, but that there is something naive being assumed by any of us when we point out that current strategies are not working.
I think it’s because a small faction (maybe it could be described as a guerilla movement that thrives on crisis and instability, which could include some unexpected bedfellows, such as arms makers and bankers, as well as neocons) really don’t want peace.
Another thing I see operating is something former 60s activist Rennie Davis (one of the “Chicago 7) believes is a newly discovered principle of physics, that perception actually CREATES physical reality. Here’s something I wrote to a local talk show after hearing Rennie Davis interviewed:
As a veteran of 1969 war moratorium protests in DC I was excited to hear Rennie Davis on JeffExchange. He makes a good case for the power of perception in creating reality. (and for the conclusion that we can & must create a better world by expecting and percieving our world the way we desire it to be)
But how can I escape from the pessimistic thought that a very powerful faction of humanity (the most powerful, not in numbers but in capacity to create reality,) now percieves, and insists that we ALL percieve, the world as divided into armed camps with greedy and competetive agendas and machiavelliasn intentions?
Does not THIS perception currently “precede reality” and is this not exactly why we have this greedy, nasty, deadly world? (certainly there are people and areas that son’t fit this negative description, but overall, uhnless you are pollyanna ostrich, you have to see that for most, life is less than utopian!)
A perfect smaller example of what I would call a self-fulfilling reality driven by preconceptions (Rennie’s physics principle of thought preceding physical reality) is Israel’s prdicament. By perceiving themselves the objects of Arab hatred and acting accordingly they have BECOME the objects of Arab hatred. It’s like my neighbor’s dog, a sweet-looking border collie, who sets up incessant barking whenever I am in my yard and if I approach the fence and talk sweetly to her, even bring her treats (which she accepts) she neverltheless gets more agitated the closer I get, charging at me and baring fangs, and barking ever more visiously.
Yes, perception precedes and creates reality! My neighbor’s dog, Israel, and the neocons all live in the world created by their perceptions. But this is MY world too, yet against my will I am helping pay for their perpetrating of these ugly perceptions. It seems to me perceptions backed by bared fangs, by occupation and intimidation and by pre-emptive war, are winning out over perceptions backed by love. Much as I’d like to (and try to) address my neighbor’s dog and the world’s problems with love, so far it is not working. I honestly don’t blame the dog.
I truly believe the majority of us (perhaps every single one of us!) has good intentions. For this we deserve love, and yet our world does not seem to be a manifistation of widespread good intentions. How come??
————————————————————————————
An added note: In a private e-mail, Adam Sacks mentioned the book The Many-Headed Hydra, by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, a history of the Atlantic trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. I don’t have his note (can’t save everything), but recall him saying it was a period of much racial and ethnic mixing, a very vital time. Sounds interesting — so much does.
Please, if you want to add comments to the above discussion, it would be a great help if you decide to post them directly to the blog rather than writing me. On the other hand, if you want to write other individuals whose addresses are given, that’s fine with me. It’s just that I’ve been overwhelmed with the volume. Many thanks for your interest.George
Posting 19. to The Jewish-Israeli Lobby category, Nadia Gould’s request for clarity
Oaxaca, Sunday, 23 April 2006
Dear Nadia,
This is in answer to your e-mail, namely
————————-
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Blankfort’s article in Counterpunch
From: Nadia Gould <>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:27:24 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
To: George Salzman <>
Dear George,
Have you seen my book Hitler made me a Jew (Boson Book sold at Barnes and Noble or Amazon)? I started to read your enclosed email correspondance and I couldn’t continue — it scared me I am now 77 — if you read my small (84 pages) book you will understand all the emotions it brings back – 6 millions Jews were systematically killed when the world stood still doing NOTHING and let it happen and I was a lucky one to escape through Spain and Portugal – I know ANTISEMITISM I can smell like the gas from my stove – How many Jews are left in this world today? You (or the people with whom you discusss) are telling me that Israel is imperialist - racist - elitist … etc… Please write you or
whoever is writing you — write it all in CLEARER language EXPLAIN what you are really saying because if you say what I began to smell I feel sick —
Nadia
—–Original Message—–
From: George Salzman
Sent: Apr 21, 2006 12:53 AM
To: Jeffrey Blankfort
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Blankfort’s article in Counterpunch
Oaxaca, Thursday, 20 April 2006
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for writing. Glad to hear from you, and that you can accept my appreciation of your work in spite of my previous criticism. The articles that Manuel Garcia referred to in his latest two notes, the ones by Gabriel Ash, are for me not such easy reading, but I think he’s doing something that completely escaped me, especially the second article, which ends with . . .
————————-
Nadia, I’m sorry that the writing in the e-mail correspondence is not clearer and easier to understand. I urge people to use straightforward everyday language, but many academics seem reluctant to do that. Separately from the question of clear language, there is the problem that the issues are fairly complex. No one with even only the most basic acquaintance with the 20th century does not know of the horror of the Nazi slaughter of European Jews. It was a genocide against Jews by Christian nations, not by Islamic nations. The major powers decided to “provide a homeland” for Jews — in Palestine — which was inhabited by people who had lived there for ages. The founding Zionists were well aware they would have to push out the Palestinians.
If you have not read the research paper by Mearsheim and Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, you can glance at their clear discussion (on pp. 9-10 of the full version at papers.ssrn.com/abstract=891198) of the Zionists’ awareness that their project would entail much suffering by Arabs.
For example, they write,
The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi-national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben-Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” 32
To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” 33 Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.” 34
. . .
. . . Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?” 37
I think that’s about as clear writing as you’ll find anywhere, and it’s all carefully referenced. When I got your note I went to look at our earlier correspondence. The first note, about 2 and 1/2 years ago, was
———————
Subject: regarding your last message
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:03:05 -0500
From: Nadia Gould <>
To: George Salzman <>
Dear George ,
I thank you for sending me your last message even though I had asked you to stop sending me your newsletter - this last one was very interesting and I appreciated getting the website address of the Shalom people - it is a funny coincidence that I had received a day earlier the address of website of Hamas (located in Holland) - I have traveled in Muslim countries for many years and I have lived in the homes of great wonderful warm people - the best - I love many things about the culture believe me- I personally, am not religious but I, barely, escaped the Holocaust at the very end of 1942 read my book!!!
my dear George, PLEASE show me websites from the Muslim world that could be compared to the Shalom in Muslim countries – if you can — I will maybe change my mind for the moment I am not convinced that the Palestinians are not the pawns of the extremists Muslims who hold the Moderates everywhere in the Muslim world hostages-
sincerely ,
Nadia
NADIA GOULD
212 666 7553
LOOK FOR MY BOOK
IN BOSON BOOKS
NON-FICTION
———————
I have not seen your book, which you promised to mail me but apparently forgot to do. There are two excellent groups in Palestine I happen to know of offhand, The Palestine National Initiative (Al Mubadara) which has a website at http://www.almubadara.org/en/ (somewhat out of date), and The Gaza Community Mental Health Center. In a recent paper, at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/2006-02-18.htm, I wrote,
Among the many responses to Hamas’s sweeping electoral victory is the relatively brief assessment of Dr. Eyad El Sarraj, psychiatrist and founder and director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Center (GCMHC). It is not among those many articles cited by Bill Templer, possibly because it was published after Templer completed his article. I got it by e-mail from the GCMHC on February 12. It is available at http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/onvictorhamas.html.
The Gaza Community Mental Health Center is first rate. You might also contact a friend, Laurie White <>, a Jewish woman from Ann Arbor who is part of an organization, Zeitouna <, of Arab and Jewish women who are soon going to Israel-Palestine and who are devoted to achieving real peace, peace with justice and dignity for all people. The main point is to recognize our common humanity. The horrors of the past cannot be undone, but we can try to use our intelligence and compassion to change the course of history to bring an end to such horrors.
