This blog contains material I wrote and posted on between the years 2005 and 2011 only. It does not contain any new material. For newer writing, please check my main blog (Bill the Butcher).

Saturday, 24 November 2012


I said some of this a while back during a discussion on the blog of one of my contacts; I’m repeating it here now for everyone.

As more than one person has noted, if you say a word against the racist and murderous pseudo-state of “Israel”, you’re immediately labelled “anti-Semitic” (I’ve been called that myself, many times). This is very interesting on at least two levels.

On the first level is the question of why this term “anti-Semitic” should be used at all, instead of “anti-Jewish”. After all, the pseudo-state of “Israel” calls itself a Jewish state. Its raison d’etre, or so it pretends, is its Jewishness. Why then not go ahead and say, straightforwardly, that anyone opposing it is “anti-Jew”?

The answer to that is quite interesting: by orthodox Judaic standards, “Israel” has no right to exist until the coming of the Messiah. So unless one thinks of the Zionist vermin who terrorised and murdered the Arabs of such villages as Deir Yassin and forced them into refugee camps as some kind of collective Messiah, by Judaic standards the pseudo-state has no right to exist.

Then there is the fact that if you say “anti-Jew”, you face the question of why Jewish organisations like Gush Shalom and Netur
ei Karta should oppose “Israel”, not to mention "Israelis" like Ilan Pappe. Jews against Jews? How come?

Also, a very great number of the people who support “Israel” in the West are deeply prejudiced against Jews, only slightly less than they are against Muslims. If you ask them to bend over backwards to support “Jews” they are likely to balk more than a bit. It’s easier when you insert another term. Even if they know all about what you’re doing, it makes it easier for them to pretend otherwise.

And then, of course, if you say “anti-Jew” you bring up the question of just who a Jew is. As most Jewish historians themselves admit, almost all Jewish mythology – about the Flight From Egypt, the genocidal massacre of the indigenous tribes of Palestine, the Destruction of the Temple, the Diaspora, and so on – are myths, as mythological as Kings David and Solomon. The Jews migrated from Palestine as any other people migrated, and as any other people migrated they spread to distant lands. And for a while, in the first centuries of the current era, Judaism was an evangelising religion actively seeking converts, and it found such converts in large numbers, especially in Eastern Europe. All this is well known. And in the centuries since then, intermarriage and further conversion have brought many more non-Jewish people into the Jewish fold, from black Ethiopians to Mizos in India who call themselves one of the lost tribes of Israel, Mongoloid ethnicity and all. Very few of today’s Jews have any ancestral blood links to the Eastern Mediterranean, whether Palestine or anywhere else.

So we move naturally on to the second question: why “anti-Semitic” as a term, in particular? The original Jews were a Semitic people, of course; as were the Arabs among whom they lived. Nobody denies that. The Palestinians are Arabs and therefore are also Semites. But the Arabs and Palestinians stayed where they were; they did not spread out all over the globe, and being a more insular people they did not intermarry much outside the community, even with other Arabs. So we can say that while the Jews and the Palestinians started out equally Semites, the Palestinians stayed Semitic while the Jews grew progressively less Semitic until there is  hardly any Semitic blood left among them at all.

But if you admit that, you have a problem. You can ignore all the history that disproves the Jewish mythology; you can insist (against all facts) that “Israel” was the historical homeland of the Jews and the Jews alone; but if you admit that the Jews are less than purely Semitic, you also admit that almost none of them have even a mythological claim, however ludicrous, to Palestine. Therefore you have to constantly repeat the link between Jews and the term “Semitic”, trying by constant repetition to turn myth into perceived fact.

 This is also the reason why you never find any mention in the pro-Zionazi Western media about the fact that Palestinians are Semitic. The most reprehensible anti-Semitic crimes in the world are those inflicted by the Zionazi pseudo-Semites (and the US, whose foreign policy is controlled in very large measure by the pseudo-Semitic Jewish Lobby) on the genuine Palestinian Semites, but if you depend for your knowledge on the Western media, you’ll never know that fact.

“Anti-Semite”, indeed. 


One of the most persistent myths, assiduously cultivated by the Zionist nazis who are the "citizens" of the so-called State of "Israel", is that anyone who is against "Israel" is essentially anti-Jew. Or, as they say, "anti-Semitic". Which is even on the face of it an inaccuracy, because Arabs are as much Semites as Jews (and after remaining confined to West Asia and North Africa, rather than spread throughout the world, probably a good sight more).
In any case, this is a typical fascist trick. It works like this –
  1. Take a small clique, and claim that these people represent the nation
  2. Target the "other" – someone who is (and this is important) too weak to respond effectively, but is convenient and to hand, and who dresses, prays, or looks different – and make this "other" the image of the Enemy. Blame everything on the Enemy.
  3. Claim that the clique is protecting the nation against the Enemy
  4. Identify the clique with the nation
  5. Therefore, anything that goes against the clique is by definition anti-national.
It's amazing how often this works. It worked in Nazi Germany (Jews and non-«Aryans» as targets) and came within an ace of working in the BJP's India (non-Hindus, especially Muslims, as targets) – and the danger here is not quite gone yet. (And is it a coincidence that the BJP and its affiliates are India's biggest supporters of the Zionist entity? I think not.)
Any criticism of the actions (more precisely the racist Nazi crimes) of "Israel" is therefore met with accusations of "anti-Semitism". In this the leaders of "Israel" have always made thorough use of the Holocaust and are actually manipulating the images of gas chambers and crematoria as a weapon to serve their own imperialist aims. It seems that none of them sees anything odd or incongruous in this.
Of course the things they say are far from true. Not even from the start, when some Jews in nineteenth century Europe got the bizarre idea that they could shift all Jews over to Palestine, which was already full of people with their own lives and their own lands who would not be likely to welcome their coming. Would you like foreigners to come and take your lands at gunpoint because – they claim – their forefathers came from these parts thousands of years back and their "god" promised them this land? Is it possible to be daft enough to think anyone could? Yet the process was carried through because it served the purposes of the European countries who, whatever their pious declarations to the contrary, were more than happy enough to see the Jewish «problem» in their countries solved. Solved by emigration if not by genocide. Of course, there were Jews like the self-styled "premier" of "Israel", Golda Meir, who claimed that Palestine was a "land without a people for a people without a land" and there are still Jews who claim that the Palestinians do not exist. And the Jews of the time, fresh from the Holocaust, were happy enough to mass murder Palestinians in massacres like Deir Yassin. What we would certainly call terrorist violence today, led by terrorist outfits like Haganah, Irgun, and the Stern Gang. And "Israel" claims to lead the world against terrorism!
Even at the very outset there was opposition against the idea of "Israel" from Jews themselves. One must understand that there was a substantial percentage of the Jewish community, worldwide, that was steadfastly against the creation of "Israel", as such a state was (according to scripture) not to come into existence until the return of the messiah. The creation of "Israel" had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity- it was about politics, and questionable pipe-dreaming on the part of meddlers who just didn't know what they were getting themselves into. Or did they? "Israel" has shown a singular ability to camouflage its own crimes and use the corpses of dead Arabs and Jews alike as a stepping stone to its own imperialist vision.
Some "Israelis" had the sense to know this. Here is David Ben Gurion, "patriotic" "Israeli":
"...if I were an Arab leader I would never make peace with Israel. That is natural..We have taken their country." David Ben Gurion quoted in the Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, pp 99. One needs to point out again that even the Orthodox Jews have never accepted that "Israel" is representative of Jews. Here is just a short list of Jewish organisations which are against "Israel".
Orthodox Jews against Zionism
Neturei Karta
Jews not Zionists
Jews against Zionism
And there are many, many more
Even within "Israel" there is – miniscule, but that’s understandable, these people have been systematically brainwashed into believing that they are under siege, that makes excellent politics as George W Bush can certify – opposition to the behaviour of this "country" from outfits like Gush Shalom (and its remarkable member, the ex-terrorist turned peace activist Uri Avnery).
 Also, even from within the ranks of the so-called "Israeli Defence Force" we have the Refuseniks (and this webpage links to other refusenik organisations) who refuse to commit war crimes in the service of a lie. And these people are those who refuse to knuckle under to those Zionist Nazi scum who happen to be Jews and contaminate Judaism for eternity (just like their genocidal forebears, Joshua et al – note that the genocide was less complete than usually recorded, but it happened, and so much for the Promised Land theory).
And so much for the "anti-Semitism" of anti-"Israel" viewpoints.
Now, what does "Israel" want? Does it think it can continue suppressing the Palestinian people, continuing its state sponsored terrorism, creating itsApartheid Wall, settling Jews on Arab land, and all that without any repercussions? It can’t even control Gaza. How does it think that, if it can get its American godfathers to help it attack Iran and Syria, it can rule over them as well? Have these morons ever heard of the hubris of empire? They can’t even control Gaza. How can they control millions of Muslims? Or do these insane people want to make their own Auschwitz and Dachau  in Lebanon’s valleys and Iran’s deserts?
An "Israeli" I read says "Israel" wants to establish a free, democratic Lebanon. Excuse me while I laugh. Was it democracy that we saw in Gaza when Hamas won an election and was promptly punished by being blocked from its sources of revenue for daring to do so? Is it democracy when well over 200 human Arab beings - all civilians, even the corporate media admits well over 95% of those murdered in Lebanon are civilians – are killed and Beirut airport bombed? Is the wholesale destruction of infrastructure democracy? In contrast to the average "Israeli" civilian, who is armed to the teeth and ready to kill, the average Arab is a sitting target. And as I said in a previous blogpost, I thought Lebanon was a free country now a beacon for anti-Syrian hope? Or so says Bush?
Now, what do the Americans want? Apart from the Jewish lobby, to whom all American politicians of necessity pander, there are two other groups. The first is the neocon establishment which subsidises "Israel" to the tune of – get this - $120per second. This is the same gang which invaded Iraq and which, a few years back, set in motion Islamic extremism by coddling the jehadis in Afghanistan. They still have an imperial dream and want to use "Israel" as an ally to help conquer the Muslim world – or that part of it which owns oil. The reasons are of course two-fold. The first is, direct control of oil. The second is, indirect control over the world by controlling the oil.
At least these two groups can’t be accused of being anti-Jew. They are evil, twisted, murderous, but they are not directly anti-Jew, even though their actions are not going to help Jews. But the third group of pro-"Israelis" in the US is far more interesting.
This is the "rapture right." These people, of questionable sanity,
are adherents to a bizarre, millennial version of Christianity, who see a great, apocalyptic war in Israel as the first step to the battle of Armageddon.
These guys see the Jews as misguided children, too dumb to realise that Jesus was the messiah. And they are happy about it, because after the battle of Armageddon, all but 166,000 Jews will be condemned eternally to hell, while the benighted few cavort in an earthly paradise every bit as fictional as the Muslim martyr's verdant, virgin-filled garden. I kid you not.
Therefore, the "Israelis" are not exactly being allowed their way out of love and affection…
But this is just guff. In the final analysis, just take a look at who is supporting "Israel", backing it all the way. Would you take as anything but evil any cause or "nation" backed by George W Bush?

No comments:

Post a Comment