31 March 2019 — planningmotivedotcom
Pioneered and honed in the British Labour Party, now extended to the US Democratic Party
Israeli sponsored Zionism excels in political white noise. Every-time the State of Israel engages in an atrocity or is being accused of an atrocity, the anti-Semitic volume control is turned up to drown out what is happening. When the brave Palestinians in Gaza decided to rattle their cage to draw the world’s attention to their plight and were shot down by their jailers, the accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party were ratcheted up to unbalance the party and deflect this crime. Now that the International Criminal Court is about to charge Israel with war crimes, the accusations of anti-Semitism are once again flying everywhere.
In many ways the history of the Jewish People is unique. Their historical importance however derives from the Old Testament, whose monotheism formed the foundations for the three great Western religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The original Jews were not a nation because their culture was not territorially distinct, formed within an identifiable homeland. This has raised the perennial question as to whether the Jewish People are a race, a discrete culture or a nation or simply bound by a “God-given” book. Jewish scholars tend to reject the definition of a race because the assimilation of non-Jews through conversion into its ranks over the centuries has complexed the Jews. In addition, there has been a significant loss of Jews to other religions. The latter of course is seldom dis cussed.
Only the entry and exit to and from this “exclusive religion” can explain its diverse genetic composition. More specifically why the population of Ashkenazi Jews ended up comprising 91% of the Jewish people by 1931 despite being of European ancestry rather than Arab character. What needs to be discussed, is why the Sephardi (Arab) Jews formed such a small minority, when at one point all Jews had to be dark skinned rather than fair skinned.
The answer describes the tragedy that has befallen Palestine. While it is true that Sephardi Jews were put to the sword in the 6th century invasions and subsequently at the hands of invading Christians beginning with the 11th Century First Crusade, this does not account for the small proportion of Sephardi Jews. To unearth the most likely reason is to draw Zionist fire, which Professor Sands did when he published his book The Invention of the Jews which pointed to the the conversion to Islam by many Jews after the spread of Islam in the 7th century. (More lost tribes.) When Islam became dominant in the region offering preferential tax treatment to those who became Muslims, there was a financial incentive to convert particularly as Islam claimed a close affinity to Judaism because both embraced monotheism and eschewed idolatry. It is likely that many Jews, particularly those engaged in the cash economy and trade, would be swayed by financial interests rather than the rabbinical condemnation of Mohammed as being a “false prophet”.
If it is true that many of the Palestinians are biologically connected to early Arab Jews, while fair skinned Ashkenazi Jews are connected only through conversion, then the re-invasion of Palestine by these fair skinned Jews is pitting outsiders against the original inhabitants of the region, many of whom originally worshiped in Solomon’s Second Temple. Thus, highlighted once again, is the dishonest and reactionary nature of nationalism in the modern world and how it substitutes myth for anthropological history.
Not only were the Jews divided by composition but also by class. The many entrances to the Second Temple attests to this. Some were designated by ritual and ceremony, others by status, and one purely by sex, the always segregated women. Similarly, within the temple there were areas reserved for the Jewish aristocracy.
It is man who creates god, not god who creates man. This statement requires corroboration which is provided by the largest religion on the planet, Christianity. Christianity has over 2 billion adherents representing 31% of the world’s population (2015) making it the largest religion haunting the planet. (https://www.thoughtco.com/christianity-statistics-700533) More interestingly, this large body of believers is compartmentalised into 41,000, yes 41,000 different denominations or sects. Half of all Christians belong to the 23 Catholic Churches. How can so many denominations exist, if not man- created? All these junior messiahs and prophets offering their distinct brand of salvation to the masses who are susceptible to the lure of a higher power because they themselves are disempowered by their loss of the means of production and therefore the means of building a secure life.
Not only do humans create god in their own image but they then turn “him” into a ventriloquist’s dummy in order to legitimise their political ambitions and actions. Thus, in the case of the Jews, they become the “chosen people” offered the “promised land” regardless of whether it is inhabited by others, in this case the long-settled Canaanites whom the god of Abraham considers to be unworthy worshippers of idols. Through this mechanism, the Israelites via the Abrahamic Covenant, grant themselves permission to ethnically cleanse the region in order to establish an agrarian Kingdom in which slavery is still practised. (Nowhere is the dishonesty of religion more brazen than in the sanitising of the commandment to rest on the seventh day where the word servant has been substituted for slave in its modern re-write.)
In a similar fashion North-American Christians have turned to god to legitimise the USA being the pre- eminent imperial power on the planet. As god’s given country, the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people is set aside, and, with this religious licence, the USA has killed over 40 million people since the Second World War to maintain its economic monopoly. Christianity has served US capitalism well. The ventriloquist’s dummy has given his master, absolution. The USA which in its progressive period tabled a constitution separating state and religion now preaches “God Bless America”. As the graph below shows over half the population believes the USA is God’s favoured child
There is thus an affinity between the state of Israel and the state of America. Both it appears have the same god given destiny, both it appears have god on their side. The only thing that separates them is scale.
Nationalism is a product of capitalism. In so far as it marks the transition from agrarian societies and localism to an industrial society requiring a unified national market, it is progressive. In so far as it later replaces this vertical national movement against feudalism into a sideways national movement against rival states, it becomes reactionary, and, by this we mean the use of the nation state to further the regional or global aims of a particular capitalist class.
By the time Zionism matured, the progressive phase of capitalist nationalism had been exhausted at least in the regions where the bulk of Jews lived. This was reflected by the schism within world Jewry between those who became anti-capitalist and inclusive, and those who retained the nationalist goal of an exclusive Jewish homeland. The Jewish people embodied both the hope for the future emancipation of all of humankind, as well as those who sought a Jewish salvation at the expense of humanity. The former was revolutionary, the latter counter-revolutionary.
Five factors emerged that would create and maintain Israel in its present form. The first was the defeat of the Palestinian liberation struggle against British occupation between 1936 and 1939. This uprising was brutally crushed by the British aided by locally armed Zionists encouraged by the British. Here highlighted in technicolour was the counter-revolutionary nature of Zionism.
The second factor was of course the Holocaust. However, had the Palestinians prevailed in their just struggle before the war, it is unlikely that the Holocaust would have resulted in the State of Israel in the Land of Palestine.
The third factor was the anti-Semitism percolating throughout the USA during and after the war. This prevented the mass emigration of European Jews to the USA after the war which was their preferred option. Had the USA granted entry to half-a-million Jews the pressure to create the state of Israel would have been defused.
Fourthly, the rivalry between the USSR and the USA after the war. Just as Stalin’s sabotaging of the workers’ struggle in Germany led to the success of Hitler and ultimately to the Holocaust, so his desire to obtain a foothold in the Middle East propelled the USA to support the State of Israel. It was the USSR that first supported partition and it was the USSR who offered to come to the assistance of the militarised Zionists by invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter and it was the USSR who initially armed the rampaging Zionist army.
Finally, and belatedly the USA woke up to the threat of Arab nationalism financed by oil wealth. Key to this nationalism was Egypt, the most populated and industrialised nation in the Arab world. Israel came to be seen as the disrupter of this nationalism by means of military humiliations. Once this confluence of interests emerged after the Suez fiasco, and once US foreign policy to Israel changed recasting Israel as an indispensable Western Asset, so too did US public opinion towards Israel change.
The British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn
Israel and Saudi Arabia are key to western intervention in the Middle East. Israel is the hammer and Saudi Arabia the anvil of western imperialism in the region. Anything that disturbs this carefully crafted relationship threatens western interests. This is the substance of the Zionist led attack on Corbyn.
A Corbyn led Labour government would end the unconditional support Britain has given to both Israel and Saudi Arabia. It would be more even handed with the Palestinians. This the Zionists find intolerable because it is representative of the global ebb in support for the State of Israel. The Zionist drive to end free speech on Zionism is not a mark of strength, but a sign of weakness. They seek to silence criticism as the swell of criticism itself rises around the world. They are gaining costly and temporary victories in a war they will ultimately lose.
Only a political rascal confuses anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. In order to be a non-racist, it is obligatory to oppose both Zionism and anti-Semitism. Why, because each in its own way is racist. The former discriminates against Palestinians while the latter discriminates against Jews. Thus, to be against discrimination in general, to be a true democrat, it is necessary to oppose Zionism and anti- Semitism which Jeremy Corbyn, a leader out of his depth, does.
But say the Zionists artfully, to oppose Zionism is to oppose the right of the Jews to their own state. How clever. if Zionism means that only Jews have a right to return to the region and Palestinians do not, then that state is historically illegitimate. Communists support the right of Jews to return. But we also support unconditionally, the right of Palestinians to return. That means we support a joint Arab Jewish state, not an exclusive Zionist state based on expelling the Palestinians, a process which is ongoing.
What we do not support is a two-state solution. Such a state, which is consonant with “facts on the ground”, legitimises and perpetuates the Zionist state while depriving the Palestinians of their historical rights and land claims. A revolutionary working class, internationalist to its core, which seeks inclusive emancipation, would never tolerate this violation of democracy for even one second.
Within the Zionist state of Israel, nearly half of all Jewish adults support the expulsion of all the Arabs from within the current borders of the state. On the other side, only 5% support the unconditional return of the Palestinians. A further 10% support a conditional return, conditions which would see them ending up in ghettoes. Currently, the political tide is hardening against the Palestinians whipped up by the never-ending claim that Israel is under constant threat.
Corbyn and MacDonald are accidental leaders. They are clearly over their heads. Labour is hobbled by two irreconcilable contradictions. The first is the “broad tent/unity at all cost” contradiction. The second contradiction is that all its Manifesto proposals must be fully costed and funded. We are only concerned with the first contradiction, the toleration within the Party of its lying and scheming opponents.
The Blairites today are a small minority in the Labour Party, actually a rump. They have never accepted that the party has changed, and that the vast majority of members oppose the discredited Blairite neo-liberal and neo-con militarist agenda. However, because the Blairite minority contains the majority of MPs together with those found in positions of power in local government, and, because they are supported by the media, they punch well above their weight.
The weaponizing or more accurately, the politicisation of anti-Semitism, is one of the devices being used to attack Corbyn’s leadership. He has sought to absorb this attack. However, his appeasement, and his conceding that there is a significant problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, has played into the hands of the Zionists. The Zionists cannot be appeased. Their political objective is to prevent a Corbyn led Labour government at all cost and by whatever means. The reason they cannot be appeased is because the attack on anti-Semitism is a diversion, it is aimed at making Labour unelectable thereby preventing a change in British Foreign Policy in the Middle East unfavourable to the Zionist State of Israel.
Corbyn should have stood up to the Zionist challenge from the outset. And he should have done so by showing he was the real defender of the Jewish community in Britain. The reason: the weaponizing of anti-Semitism can and will backfire hurting the Jewish Community itself. The misuse and even abuse of anti-Semitism because is fortifying and emboldening the real anti-Semites. Since 2008 actual anti- Semitism has increased in Britain. A core value of anti-Semitism is that the Jews run the world and manipulate events to strengthen their control. They see the “Jewish” interference in the Labour Party as justification for their views, that the “Jewish Bankers” do not want a party that will curb their industry.
The Zionists are thus playing right into the hands of the anti-Semites. Every academic study and opinion poll, even those conducted by Jewish organisations, has shown the level of racism and anti- Semitism to be much lower in the Labour Party than in the Tory Party. When was the last time a Tory minister graced the platform of an anti-racist march or rally? And yet the racist leadership of the Tory Party, amplified by the media, without shame and po-faced, are attacking one of the most consistent fighters and campaigners against racism, for “being soft on racism in the form of anti-Semitism”.
The question therefore is not whether the Labour Party is immaculate. It is why it has been singled out. Why the finger is only pointed at it. Why it is only since Corbyn has been elected, that it has attracted anti-Semites? This is political mischief at its worst. It seems that if a party is pro-Israel while still having numerous anti-Semites and racists in its ranks it is cleared, but if a party becomes anti- Zionist or attracts an influx of new members who are, it suddenly has become anti-Semitic.
Having pioneered and honed this attack in the Labour Party the Zionists are now extending it to the USA. Mirroring political developments in Britain, the left is also in the ascendance in the Democratic Party, squeezing the toxic Clintonite (Blairite equivalent) rump. Polls have shown dwindling support for Israel amongst younger voters in North America. Just as in Britain, and no doubt inspired by the Israeli Embassy in Washington, these Cintonite equivalents of the Blairites, these war mongers, are once again denouncing the left as being anti-Semitic.
Returning to Britain. There is a second consideration. The political landscape in Britain is different to that in Europe. In Europe there has been a consistent rise in far-right parties. Here UKIP has collapsed. What is different? In Britain there has been a resurgent left party, which because of its leader and Manifesto that has held the right at bay. The Labour Party is now the biggest membership party in Europe with over half-a-million members. If the anti-Semitic smears hobble this party making it unelectable, this will open the floodgates to the right in Britain. Britain will see the rise of the right and it will become a far less hospitable place for Jews.
Hence, whichever way the problem is examined, the weaponization of anti-Semitism will end up hurting British Jews. This is no aberration. Zionism has never served the interests of the Jewish People. Mossad has always stirred up enmity between Jews and their neighbours, particularly in the Arab Countries in the 1950s and 1960s. The Zionists could argue that this enmity stems from the very formation of the State of Israel, but if that was the simple case, why did various Israeli Embassies aggravate these enmities rather than defusing them.
The answer is Aliyah. Herding the Diaspora into Israel, ensuring Jews maintain the demographic upper- hand. The same applies here. If the Israeli Embassy and its agents in the Labour Party open the flood- gates to the right, so what, it will just mean more British Jews heading for the safety of Israel.
And so we arrive at the dark and reactionary heart of Zionism. The Rabbis of old recognised that it was not the gravity of the Torah which held the Jews together, it was not this internal force, rather it was an external force, the pressure of anti-Semitism. They recognised that in the absence of anti-Semitism, Jews tended to integrate into the society’s that surrounded them or at least adopted their ways. Similarly, with Zionism, it needs anti-Semitism to convince world Jewry of the need for a safe haven – Israel. Anti-Semitism legitimises and enhances Zionism, which is why Israel is not averse to manipulating this scourge for its own ends.
The clash of civilisations
One of the recurring themes of the far right is that Islam seeks to invade and colonise the West. As with all things on the right, the least important element is the truth. Historically Islam, at least before it was politicised by Western Imperialism, was a tolerant religion, and it is widely recognised that up to the First World War it was more hospitable to Jews than the Christian world. Furthermore, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in and after World War One, it is the Arab World that has been invaded and pillaged by Western Imperialism hundreds of times. Since then no Muslim country has invaded Europe or the Americas in retaliation.
The British did not invent Wahabism, extreme Sunni Islam, but once it located this sect two hundred years ago, it cultivated, nurtured and armed it. The aim was to disturb and undermine the Ottoman empire by turning Muslim against Muslim. Britain and France coveted the Middle East as it was the gate-way to India and the Far East, and this meant confronting the power that ruled the area, the Ottomans.
When the Ottomans crushed the first Wahabi rebellion because of its cruelty in the area now known as Saudi Arabia, it was the British who resurrected the House of Saud. The House of Saud is Britain’s child and Imperial Britain ensured it would not be overthrown again by signing the first Middle Eastern Treaty in 1860 with Saudi Arabia. Thus, the strain of cleric-fascism that has run through Sunni Islam is the direct result of Imperialist machinations in the Middle East.
The only “democratic” regime in the Middle East it is said exists in Israel as though the Muslim world devalues democracy. The absence of democracy there stems primarily from democratic struggles in the Middle East being crushed by imperialism, as for example Iran in the 1950s, or from the autocratic aristocracies that remain in place only because they are supported by the West.
The result of this political engineering has often been tragic, such as Syria, where the origins of today’s conflict stems from the French use of minorities to control the northern Arab populations as part of their post-1920 Mandate with Britain. Countries were assembled and disassembled to prevent the growth of unified independence movements and to provide Imperialism with allies and agents in the region.
The invention of Arab aggression was always used to mask Imperial economic ambitions in the Middle East. After 9/11, Bush did not bomb Saudi Arabia, despite the FBI identifying 15 out of the 19 hijackers as Saudis. There was not one Iraqi amongst them. Indeed, Saddam Hussein was hated by Al-Qaeda because he was a secular ruler, and Hussein’s secret police returned the favour by shooting any supporters of this group they found. Yet the Bush administration claimed the opposite, not only was Iraq harbouring weapons of mass destruction, they were harbouring Al-Qaeda groups as well.
This created the pretext for invading Iraq, an innocent country, but one endowed with oil whose industry was under embargo, therefore ripe for exploitation. Estimates vary as to the total loss of life from the First Gulf War, between the wars when Iraq was blockaded and through to 2007. The Iraqi death toll is put at between 1.5 million and 2.5 million. This is approximately 10% of the population if we take the 1997 census which found a population of 22 million. This catastrophe is comparable to the death toll in Germany and the Soviet Union during World War 2.
The tragedy of Iraq is “made in the USA”. It was Bush Snr, then head of station for the CIA in the Middle East, who engineered the “perfect coup” putting Saddam Hussein in power. It was the USA who egged Hussein on to attack Iran. It was the USA who enticed Hussein into Kuwait in order to cut him down to size. It was the USA who imposed sanctions on Iraq to keep it weak, killing hundreds of thousands
of innocents in the process. And it was Iraq that was battered by the USA, the global bully, to show the world what happens when it is attacked. Imagine if an Arab country had done this to a European Country or a state in the United States!
Here the Frankenstein analogy is apt. For there to be political Frankenstein groups or movements, a doctor is needed, and that doctor is Imperialism. Remove the Doctor and the Frankensteins will disappear. By this we mean organisations inspired by 6th century politics. Until the West stops interfering in the Middle East, and until all Western troops and secret agents are removed from the region, the convulsions will not stop, and, the peace needed to look forward, rather than backward, will not materialise.
Two major tragedies befell the Jewish people in the 20th Century. The first was the Holocaust and the second was the State of Israel. This is the opposite view to that held by the Zionists. Why was this a tragedy rather than a triumph? It was a tragedy because the Palestinians were punished for a crime not of their making and because the Jews were turned into oppressors. But what began as two tragedies could easily become three, the use of nuclear weapons to preserve the Zionist state.
What began as a Holocaust in Europe could end in a Holocaust in the Middle East as it almost did in 1973. What was whispered was finally made public in the 2013 declassified papers. (www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24157/Default.aspx) These papers showed that during the “Yom Kippur” war the use of nuclear weapons was being actively discussed as the Israeli army reeled before the Egyptians and Syrians. However, It was not Golda Meir’s overriding of defence minister Dayan that prevented there use, instead it was the effect this threat had on the Soviet Union.
The threat to deploy nuclear weapons, more imminent than during the Cuba crisis, risked a direct confrontation between the USSR And the USA. This the USSR sought to avoid even if it cost its allies the war. They therefore held back the weapons and fuel needed to defeat the Israeli army. On the other side the US poured planes and arms into Israel. Had the USSR not blinked first, world history would be very different today.
Under the pressure of economic events – the crash of 2008 followed by that of 2019 – world Jewry is once again splitting into two camps, the progressive inclusive camp and the reactionary exclusive camp. The Zionists are aware they are on the losing side of history. Their misuse of the anti-Semitic smear, really an attack on Free Speech, is a sign of weakness implying a lack of confidence.
The Zionist attack on the left is based on an implied recognition that neither Hitler nor Israel would have existed, had the revolutionary left succeeded in Europe thus preventing the rise of Stalin. Similarly, they recognise a resurgent left would once again threaten the State of Israel because the left would not tolerate an exclusive and unjust Jewish State in the land of Palestine. Thus, what appears to be a struggle against anti-Semitism is in reality a struggle to preserve the Zionist State by undermining all parties that seek to change current Western foreign policy towards Israel.
Secondly, Netanyahu is correct to identify an existential threat to Israel. Only it is not Iran. It is the sun setting on the American Empire. It is not only the autocratic Gulf regimes that cannot exist without the support of the USA, it is Israel as well. When the USA cannot afford its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East, and the time is fast approaching, it will abandon Israel. The question is on what side China will fall.
The situation can arise when Israel not only loses the meaningful support of the USA but finds itself surrounded by hostile neighbours because of its failure to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians.
This raises a connected issue. Can Israel play a minor imperialist role in the Middle East as the most advanced capitalist economy, and if this is the case, will it modify the harsh treatment of the Palestinians in order to open up regional markets. In short is the crude Zionist settler expansionism becoming an obstacle to the needs of Israeli Monopoly Capital.
This is analogous to the earlier Apartheid regime, South Africa. By the 1970s, Afrikaner Monopoly Capital had matured and the racial segregation of the working class no longer served its longer term interest. When Prime Minister Vorster, representing the decaying old political order, confronted Afrikaner Capital in alliance with English Capital, he was forced to resign.
Israel today, like South Africa then, expresses a high degree of capital centralisation, second only to Sweden. Less than 20 families own 60% of corporate wealth in Israel. From being one of the most egalitarian societies in 1965, it is now the most unequal next to the USA. “When it comes to inequality, Israel is second only to the USA among developed nations, an OECD report…..said” (in 2015) https://www.timesofisrael.com/oecd-report-inequality-worst-in-israel-and-us/ The question is posed: is Israeli Monopoly Capital able to assert itself politically or is it just as tangled up in current contradictions as the USA?
Finally, what about the Israeli working class. The hyped-up threat of imminent Arab invasion by neo- liberals such as Netanyahu has served the employers well. The distracted Israeli workers have been fleeced. Of the 22% of Israeli society living under the poverty threshold, 85% are Jews. Of the 85% of Jews, 59% are the working poor rather than the unemployed. https://brookdale.jdc.org.il/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/Facts_and_Figures_Poverty_in_Israel_2018.pdf While there have been sporadic outbursts against inequality, whatever class struggles occur are held back by Zionism, and if large enough, branded unpatriotic.
To change the character of class struggle in Israel requires building a European and Arab socialist movement. One which Israeli workers can identify with. Until then they will remain the factory and military fodder of US and Israeli capital.
Brian Green, March 2019.