Israelis target Macy Gray with racist diatribes after she agrees to play Tel Aviv (and who are the “assholes?”)
Jan 22, 2011 06:24 pm | Max Blumenthal
The Israeli media is filled with reports about Macy Gray confirming her plans to perform in Tel Aviv in March. This should have been an occasion for Israelis to celebrate their continuing ability to behave as a normal society despite occupying millions of people, holding Gaza under siege, maintaining an apparatus of racism against its non-Jewish citizens. But in a poorly calculated stunt designed to wash her hands of human rights concerns, Gray had first asked her “fans” if she should perform despite what she called Israel’s “disgusting” treatment of the Palestinians. Within hours, thousands of people who had no prior interest in Gray or her music flocked to her Facebook page (they only had to “like” her page in order to post) to register their opinions. Gray, who appeared to have every intention of performing anyway, remarked after announcing her plan to go to Tel Aviv, that some of those urging her to boycott were “assholes.”
www eurweb
It wasn't enough for Macy Gray to agree to perform in Israel. She has to take a virtual loyalty oath, too.
Under normal circumstances, Gray’s roundhouse attack on some supporters of BDS and her subsequent pledge to perform in Tel Aviv should have pleased nationalistic Israelis. However, her initial criticism of Israel’s occupation has invited a firestorm of racist, sexist and generally hateful diatribes from Israelis. Indeed, many Israelis are more furious with Gray for performing inside their country than for refusing to come. Several internet forums, including one called “Don’t Betray,” have sprouted up to incite public anger at artists such as Gray who have criticized Israel — even if they agree to perform in the country. Meanwhile, the talkback sections of articles in the Hebrew media about Gray’s Tel Aviv shows have provided a forum for the most extreme screeds about the singer.
I have collected and translated a sampling of talkbacks from an article in the Hebrew edition of Ynet, the online version of the Israeli paper Yedioth Aharonoth, which highlight the attitude of some Israelis towards Gray. The talkbacks are almost entirely negative towards Gray, with many urging her to cancel her show for daring to criticize Israel, while others call her a “nigger” and denigrate black music as “contaminated.” Gray might be vaguely aware of Israel’s systematic abuse of Palestinians, but is she aware of the racism towards black Africans inside Israel, including Ethiopian Jews? Has she considered how she might be treated if she were living in Israel? And who are the “assholes” anyway?
Some of 500+ comments from the talkback section to the Hebrew Ynet article provocatively entitled “Gray is against Israel but not canceling:”
THe ugly niggers are joining the Darfurians entering here. All of you go away. wedontwantyou
Go find whoever is going to shag you you fucking whore. Every piece of garbage opens their cunt on us. muslimit
David from Safed: She should take all her brothers the Sudanese and Eritreans and fuck off here.
Another “afro american.” Nice name that the niggers made for themselves. Max
Black music is inferior music that fits you. No name [Another commenter calls him a racist.] “No name” replies: What is racist about that? To say “black” is racist?
Who wants you? You look like a monkey. Mikhal
It’s really disgusting that Israel is going to see black!!! music. Disgusting. Contaminates your soul. Ayela
Don’t come we don’t need your ugly fat ass here. Dude
Blacks and Muslims always go together. Brainless fraternity of people. Shai
[Responding to other commenters denying that any occupation exists]: Right, what chutzpah of us to survive in the jungle around us, as if she can’t understand the jungle. M
They [Americans] killed thousands of innocent people in Iraq but they come to complain here. moshe
What Israeli fans does she have here? Leftist garbage maniacs [bastards] need to be killed whoever comes to her show. victor
What Palestinian people? What peaceful people? Maybe terrorism? Maybe right of return on your expense? Bruriera Hess
Don’t give us favors. IF she’s contemplating coming Israel should cancel the show. Dontgiveusfavors
I returned the ticket. And you? Anee
Maybe they will let her perform in Gaza. Raymond
Go to Gaza, perform and fuck for the Hamas. May your name be cursed. pessey
When you’re being spit at at least you have to get a kleenex to clean it up. hamitnaseh
Fuck you who wants you here anyway? Sharon
[Quote by David Ben Gurion]: “It doesn’t matter what the goyim will say it matters what the Jews will do.” LT
Sweetheart, don’t come here. We don’t want you. Who do you think you are talking about us? IsraeliJewishFighter
Those who are “disgusting” towards the Balestinians [mocking the Arabic pronounciation of Palestinian] are the Balestinians themselves. Hineh
Please don’t cancel. What are we going to do without your show? My Asshole
This post originally appeared on Max Blumenthal's blog.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Zionist free pass for right wing gun nuts
Why are the leaders of the pro-Israel, anti Muslim crowd not taking advantage of the "antisemitism" angle in the outcry over the Tuscon killings?
They certainly don't shy away from branding anyone who criticizes Israel as antisemitic. They always justify Israel as a haven for the Jews, since antisemitism is apparently encoded in the DNA of all the gentiles (must be the GOY gene), and a new holocaust could happen with the snap of a finger...even in the USA. Or maybe it's especially in the USA what with all of the pro-Palestinian activists carrying out boycotts of Israeli products stolen--oops! I mean manufactured in illegal West Bank settlements.
Never shy about about citing human rights groups and activists as promoters of Jew hating, prominent Jewish zionist leaders have taken a pass on exploiting the shooting of a Jewish member of Congress and the killing of her Jewish staff member. Jews being targeted and killed right here in America! What's the problem with using this to strengthen the case for Jewish victimhood and rev up the base?
Why not jump on Sara Palin for using the term "blood libel" to defend herself for the justified criticism of her glorifying violence with her various pictures and videos posing with really big guns telling her supporters to "reload" and target the "enemies of America" in Congress?
Hyper-zionist loud mouth Alan Dershowitz defended Sara Palin's use of the term "blood libel in the quote below:"
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Abe Foxman of the rabidly pro Israel Anti Defamation League also defended Palin and remarked that Rep. Gifford's being Jewish had nothing to do with the shooting rampage of Jared Laughner.
Any complaints about Palin's web page drawing the cross hairs of a gun sight over Gabriele Giffords' congressional district? Nope.
What's up?
The gun-obsessed, racist, Christian fundamentalist far right that has been burning up the air waves with violent rhetoric gets a pass because they are supporters of Israel, even the antisemitic ones are ok--maybe especially the antisemitic ones since they support the zionist premise that Jews are alien elements and don't belong anywhere except Israel.
The gun nuts are tied in with the Tea Party which is tied in with Christian Zionists who are in bed with Israel and its defenders.
Now if only Jared Laughner was a Muslim...
They certainly don't shy away from branding anyone who criticizes Israel as antisemitic. They always justify Israel as a haven for the Jews, since antisemitism is apparently encoded in the DNA of all the gentiles (must be the GOY gene), and a new holocaust could happen with the snap of a finger...even in the USA. Or maybe it's especially in the USA what with all of the pro-Palestinian activists carrying out boycotts of Israeli products stolen--oops! I mean manufactured in illegal West Bank settlements.
Never shy about about citing human rights groups and activists as promoters of Jew hating, prominent Jewish zionist leaders have taken a pass on exploiting the shooting of a Jewish member of Congress and the killing of her Jewish staff member. Jews being targeted and killed right here in America! What's the problem with using this to strengthen the case for Jewish victimhood and rev up the base?
Why not jump on Sara Palin for using the term "blood libel" to defend herself for the justified criticism of her glorifying violence with her various pictures and videos posing with really big guns telling her supporters to "reload" and target the "enemies of America" in Congress?
Hyper-zionist loud mouth Alan Dershowitz defended Sara Palin's use of the term "blood libel in the quote below:"
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Abe Foxman of the rabidly pro Israel Anti Defamation League also defended Palin and remarked that Rep. Gifford's being Jewish had nothing to do with the shooting rampage of Jared Laughner.
Any complaints about Palin's web page drawing the cross hairs of a gun sight over Gabriele Giffords' congressional district? Nope.
What's up?
The gun-obsessed, racist, Christian fundamentalist far right that has been burning up the air waves with violent rhetoric gets a pass because they are supporters of Israel, even the antisemitic ones are ok--maybe especially the antisemitic ones since they support the zionist premise that Jews are alien elements and don't belong anywhere except Israel.
The gun nuts are tied in with the Tea Party which is tied in with Christian Zionists who are in bed with Israel and its defenders.
Now if only Jared Laughner was a Muslim...
Thursday, January 13, 2011
David Rovics new song for Bradley Manning who is being detained in inhumane conditions by the government
Political balladeer David Rovics sings his new song about Bradley Manning the U.S. soldier who is accused of providing massive amounts of allegedly secret information about US activities around the world to Wikileaks.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
New Book on the Arab World and the Holocaust
The Holocaust, Palestine and the Arab World: Gilbert Achcar interviewed
Arwa Aburawa, The Electronic Intifada, 10 January 2011
Gilbert Achcar (Arwa Aburawa)
In his latest book The Arabs and the Holocaust, Gilbert Achcar, a professor of Development Studies at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, explores the Arab world's complex and sometimes contradictory relationship with the Holocaust.
Focusing on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Achcar tackles the Zionist caricature of all Arabs as anti-Semitic Holocaust-deniers complicit in Nazi crimes by meticulously deconstructing the evidence put forward. Achcar also doesn't shy away from condemning the persistence of unacceptable attitudes towards the Holocaust across the region. The Electronic Intifada contributor Arwa Aburawa spoke to Achcar about The Arabs and the Holocaust.
Arwa Aburawa: Your book is a huge undertaking which explores Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust from the rise of Hitler to the present. What motivated you to write the book?
Gilbert Achcar: Well I came across this subject through various conferences and what struck me was the massive distortion that exists in the way Arabs and Palestinians are represented in relation to the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and Nazism. Over the last few years, I also noticed that there was an increase in the literature portraying the Arabs or the Muslims as basically Nazi-like people or Nazi-minded or stating that they supported Nazism in history. So, that's why I decided to write this book and although I started with very modest intentions, the more I worked on the topic, the more it became clear that I needed to go for a voluminous book in order to cover all major issues. So what I ended up with is a thorough, critical examination of Zionist and pro-Zionist narratives, which portray the Arabs and the Palestinians through what they claim is the historical record.
By deconstructing Zionist representations of the Arabs and the Palestinians, I also wanted to dispel any Arab self-representation that conforms to the Zionist image or internalizes it in adopting reactionary attitudes of an anti-Semitic character. So this book is a contribution to the defense of the Palestinian and Arab causes against such distortions as well as a contribution to a more accurate representation of Arab attitudes.
AA: The main argument of your book is that Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust and anti-Semitism -- in contrast to widespread clichés about Arabs -- are quite complex, contradictory and have changed over the course of history. What are some of the main political movements and figures which influenced Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust?
GA: The Zionist narrative of the Arab world is based centrally around one figure who is ubiquitous in this whole issue -- the Jerusalem Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who collaborated with the Nazis. But the historical record is actually quite diverse. The initial reaction to Nazism and Hitler in the Arab world and especially from the intellectual elite was very critical towards Nazism, which was perceived as a totalitarian, racist and imperialist phenomenon. It was criticized by the liberals or what I call the liberal Westernizers, i.e. those who were attracted by Western liberalism, as well as by the Marxists and left-wing nationalists who denounced Nazism as another form of imperialism. In fact, only one of the major ideological currents in the Arab world developed a strong affinity with Western anti-Semitism, and that was Islamic fundamentalism -- not all Islam or Islamic movements but those with the most reactionary interpretations of Islam. They reacted to what was happening in Palestine by espousing Western anti-Semitic attitudes.
However, that was only one particular current and when we look at the balance sheet of Arab participation in the Second World War, we see that it was overwhelmingly on the Allied side. Even with the presence of the Mufti in Europe, all his exhortations for Arabs and Palestinians to join the forces of the Nazis and Italian fascists led to very, very little results -- almost negligible. This just shows what little credibility and popularity the Mufti actually commanded in the Arab world. There were incomparably more Arabs who fought with the British and French troops against Germany and Italy than the other way round, so this really refutes the widespread notion that the Arabs supported the Nazis.
AA: Clearly, we can't really talk about Arabs and the Holocaust without mentioning the Mufti. But what was his role in the Holocaust and how complicit was he in the Nazis' war crimes?
GA: The first thing that must be said about Amin al-Husseini is that there is a lot more interest in him in the West and in Zionist literature than there is in the Arab world. It is amazing that in the Arab world, his name has almost disappeared into oblivion and almost no one refers to him, whereas in the West new books on him are coming out all the time. There is an entire industry dealing with the Mufti in the West from Zionist and pro-Zionist sources and the key aim of this industry is the Nazification of the Arabs. They are trying to Nazify the Arabs, if not the Muslims in this age of Islamophobia, through the figure of the Mufti.
Now the fact is that al-Husseini did his best up to 1937 to serve his British masters and prevent the Palestinian national movement from clashing with them. It was only in 1937 that he broke with the British and went into exile. In 1941, he fled to Europe and lived between Rome and Berlin, supported by the two fascist regimes until the end of the war in 1945. He became the key figure in their propaganda towards the Muslim world: he gave a lot of speeches over the radio and wrote lots of statements reproducing the whole range of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda. Due to his ideological allegiance to Islamic fundamentalism and its tendency to essentialize the enemy, he held rabidly anti-Jewish views.
The crucial point here is that even after 1943, when he learned about the genocide of the Jews and that millions of them had already been massacred, his contribution to the harsh anti-Semitic discourse broadcast from Germany continued. His knowledge of the genocide did not deter him one bit; rather he increased his anti-Semitic vitriol. He supported a regime which he knew was committing an awful genocide, one of the worst crimes against humanity, and so it makes what he did at the time criminal. He even took it upon himself to write to Axis power governments asking them to not allow Jews to leave to Palestine, adding -- and here to get to the criminal aspect of the letters -- that he suggests they send them to Poland instead where he knew there were concentration camps. So he went far beyond his role as a national leader fighting for the interests of his country into complicity with the Nazis. Clearly, this is something that has to be denounced for what it is.
AA: In your book you state that the impact of Nazism on the Arab world was actually limited. Considering that the Nazis were fighting the Arabs' colonial enemies at the time -- the British and French -- why was this?
GA: Well, there were a lot more people attracted to Nazi ideology in Western countries, including Britain and the United States, than there ever were in the Arab world. In fact there were fewer adherents to Nazi ideology in Arab countries, even in relative figures, than were found in Europe and North America. One of the reasons for this was fascist Italy's persecution of Libyans and the perception that it was a colonial power a lot worse than Britain or France. There was also a perception in the Arab world when the war started that this was a conflict between imperial powers who wanted to divide the world amongst themselves. Most people were observing the war therefore with a more or less neutral attitude and were only hoping that Arab independence might result from the clash of world powers. So even as "the enemy of their enemy," support for the Nazis was by no means automatic.
Of course, my book isn't just about developing an ideological counter-narrative portraying all the Arabs as anti-fascist progressives. That is not the point of my book at all. Anyone reading it will see that I don't try to hide anything on the Arab side and I don't mince my words when it comes to Arab attitudes that I believe must be condemned -- especially that of the Mufti. At the same time, I reject all suggestions that the Mufti was the embodiment of all Arabs or all Palestinians and expressed their collective attitude -- that was not the case and is purely slanderous. I mean, when you read the Zionist propaganda you get the impression that the Mufti al-Husseini was one of the key figures in the Nazi regime, which is of course completely ridiculous. In terms of al-Husseini's overall contribution to the Nazi regime, his input is negligible compared to thousands and thousands of Nazi leaders, bureaucrats and military commanders.
AA: If the Mufti was so unrepresentative of the Arab world, why has he become such a pivotal figure in any discussion of the Arab world and the Holocaust?
GA: The answer to this question is quite simple. The reason for this distortion is that until the Second World War, the Zionist movement didn't have any arguments for its colonization of Palestine other than religious or colonial. The fact that the German Jews were persecuted by the Nazis did change this but even then, the natural reaction from the Arab world was to say"'we condemn and resent the persecution of the Jews, but why should the Arabs and the Palestinians be made to pay for what the Europeans did?" The Zionist movement knew that a decision on Palestine would soon be made by the victors of the war and therefore did their best to depict the Palestinian Arabs as accomplices of the defeated Nazis. So to the Arab saying "why should we pay for what the Europeans did?" the response became, "because you played a part in the genocide." So in this way, 1948 and the Nakba was represented in the Zionist narrative as the last battle of the Second World War against Nazism.
One striking illustration of this argument is in the famous, openly racist interview that [Israeli historian] Benny Morris gave to [the Israeli daily]
Haaretz in 2004 and in which he basically says that in 1948 the choice was between the ethnic cleansing -- he doesn't shy away from using this term -- of the Palestinians by the Jews or the genocide of the Jews by the Palestinians and the Arabs. In order to justify whatever cruelty they do to them, the Zionists and their unconditional supporters paint the Palestinians and the Arabs as Nazis. You can see this same pattern at work up to our time. How was the cruel war against Lebanon in 2006 justified? Well, by portraying Hizballah as Nazis. And how was the criminal slaughter in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009 justified? Again, Hamas were portrayed as Nazis.
AA: Although your work is careful to point out the complexity of views with regards to the Holocaust in the Arab world, there is no denying the presence of Holocaust denial. How and why did Holocaust denial emerge in the Arab world?
GA: What needs to be said first of all is that Holocaust denial in the Arab world is not the same as Holocaust denial in Germany, for instance. In Germany, it can only emerge out of deep anti-Semitism as Germans have every means of knowing about the full scale of the genocide. But for people in Palestine, the Holocaust is a historical event which is not directly related to their own history. So when some Palestinians say that the Holocaust has been invented or exaggerated by the Zionists in order to blackmail the West, they are attempting to give an explanation for the way in which Israel uses the Holocaust to legitimize its aggression. It seems to hold also for an explanation of the fact that Western powers, especially the United States, tend to support Israel unconditionally. Of course, this is a stupid and very simplistic argument, which is why I call it "the anti-Semitism of fools."
In most cases, Holocaust denial becomes a very weak and stupid form of protest by people who feel crushed by the military violence and supremacy of the Israeli state. This explains why Holocaust denial attitudes increase every time Israeli violence flares up. Palestinians are facing this harsh reality and the misguided views of some of them on the Holocaust must therefore be judged in their context. We can't put the two on the same level, in the same way that we can't judge the racism of a white anti-Black lynching mob as being equivalent to the anti-White racism that might develop amongst their victims. One could say they are both forms of racism, but there is a crucial difference: the racism of the oppressed is reactive to the one that inspires their oppressors, and this is a distinction that I emphasize.
Last but not least, whatever form of Holocaust denial exists in the Arab world, it is denial of something that Arabs are not actually responsible for. Much more serious is the official denial of the Nakba [the 1948 ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine] by the Israeli state -- this is an instance of state denial of a crime that they perpetrated. Fortunately the Nakba was no genocide and can't be compared to the Holocaust in that respect, but it was nevertheless a crime against humanity and, moreover, the Nakba is not finished -- in the sense that the oppression of the Palestinians by the State of Israel continues to this day. So the denial by the State of Israel of this reality and of its responsibility in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and in their continuing oppression is ultimately much more serious that any expressions of Holocaust denial by Arabs or Palestinians.
AA: The claim that the Holocaust has been exploited by the State of Israel for political gain is a statement which needs to be carefully assessed. Would you agree?
GA: Yes, of course. It is obvious that the Israeli state and Israeli politicians make cynical use of the Holocaust to justify their stances. What is even worse is that the Israeli government perpetrates war crimes and crimes against humanity -- as confirmed by Judge Goldstone who is a Jew and a Zionist himself -- and tries to justify them in the name of the Holocaust. This is a major insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. This said, the Holocaust (and this is still not understood by everybody in the Arab world) is not the property of "the Jews" or the Zionist movement. In fact, the Zionist movement has little legitimacy to speak for the victims of the Holocaust, as the historical record shows that it failed to prioritize the rescue of the Jews during the Holocaust and focused instead on its goal of a Jewish state.
The Holocaust is one of the major tragedies of the twentieth century and it bears universal lessons for us all about the dangers of ethnic discrimination and racism. This is what the Holocaust is about and these lessons teach us that we need to counter the Zionist state and what it is doing to the Palestinians. In fact, as victims of national quasi-racial oppression, the Palestinians are much more entitled than the Zionists to invoke the lessons of the Holocaust.
AA: In your book you assess the impact of 11 September 2001 and the rise of the neoconservative narrative and the impact it has on the clichés about Arabs as Nazi-supporting anti-Semites. In your view, are perceptions of Arab attitudes to Nazism getting better or worse?
GA: They are getting worse. After 11 September and the Islamophobic trend increased sharply, especially in the United States, the Zionists seized the opportunity to intensify their anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian propaganda since most Palestinians are Muslims. There's a widespread discourse about so-called Islamofascism which tries to weave a narrative that starts with the Mufti and ends with Bin Laden, Hamas and Hizballah, with every opponent to Israel in between, be it Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein or Yasser Arafat. So it is important to challenge these attitudes, just as it is necessary to fight those attitudes in the Arab world and among Palestinians that are facilitating this kind of propaganda.
Most people in the Arab world would agree that the Holocaust was an awful crime perpetrated by the Nazis. The best illustration of this is the fact that Zionism is widely compared to Nazism -- of course, this comparison is over the top but it shows that people see Nazism as an insult. People should also know other stories, like that of the West Bank villagers of Bilin who dressed in striped pajamas similar to those of concentration camp inmates in order to protest against the Israeli army in January 2009, during the onslaught on Gaza. Again, the comparison is certainly over-exaggerated but the demonstrators' intent was clear. This was a way of identifying with the Jewish victims and saying: "We are the Jews of the Middle East who are oppressed by the Israeli state in the same way that European Jews were oppressed by the Nazis."
Arwa Aburawa (http://arwafreelance.wordpress.com/) is a freelance journalist based in the UK who writes on the Middle East, the environment and various social issues.
Arwa Aburawa, The Electronic Intifada, 10 January 2011
Gilbert Achcar (Arwa Aburawa)
In his latest book The Arabs and the Holocaust, Gilbert Achcar, a professor of Development Studies at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, explores the Arab world's complex and sometimes contradictory relationship with the Holocaust.
Focusing on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Achcar tackles the Zionist caricature of all Arabs as anti-Semitic Holocaust-deniers complicit in Nazi crimes by meticulously deconstructing the evidence put forward. Achcar also doesn't shy away from condemning the persistence of unacceptable attitudes towards the Holocaust across the region. The Electronic Intifada contributor Arwa Aburawa spoke to Achcar about The Arabs and the Holocaust.
Arwa Aburawa: Your book is a huge undertaking which explores Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust from the rise of Hitler to the present. What motivated you to write the book?
Gilbert Achcar: Well I came across this subject through various conferences and what struck me was the massive distortion that exists in the way Arabs and Palestinians are represented in relation to the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and Nazism. Over the last few years, I also noticed that there was an increase in the literature portraying the Arabs or the Muslims as basically Nazi-like people or Nazi-minded or stating that they supported Nazism in history. So, that's why I decided to write this book and although I started with very modest intentions, the more I worked on the topic, the more it became clear that I needed to go for a voluminous book in order to cover all major issues. So what I ended up with is a thorough, critical examination of Zionist and pro-Zionist narratives, which portray the Arabs and the Palestinians through what they claim is the historical record.
By deconstructing Zionist representations of the Arabs and the Palestinians, I also wanted to dispel any Arab self-representation that conforms to the Zionist image or internalizes it in adopting reactionary attitudes of an anti-Semitic character. So this book is a contribution to the defense of the Palestinian and Arab causes against such distortions as well as a contribution to a more accurate representation of Arab attitudes.
AA: The main argument of your book is that Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust and anti-Semitism -- in contrast to widespread clichés about Arabs -- are quite complex, contradictory and have changed over the course of history. What are some of the main political movements and figures which influenced Arab attitudes towards the Holocaust?
GA: The Zionist narrative of the Arab world is based centrally around one figure who is ubiquitous in this whole issue -- the Jerusalem Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who collaborated with the Nazis. But the historical record is actually quite diverse. The initial reaction to Nazism and Hitler in the Arab world and especially from the intellectual elite was very critical towards Nazism, which was perceived as a totalitarian, racist and imperialist phenomenon. It was criticized by the liberals or what I call the liberal Westernizers, i.e. those who were attracted by Western liberalism, as well as by the Marxists and left-wing nationalists who denounced Nazism as another form of imperialism. In fact, only one of the major ideological currents in the Arab world developed a strong affinity with Western anti-Semitism, and that was Islamic fundamentalism -- not all Islam or Islamic movements but those with the most reactionary interpretations of Islam. They reacted to what was happening in Palestine by espousing Western anti-Semitic attitudes.
However, that was only one particular current and when we look at the balance sheet of Arab participation in the Second World War, we see that it was overwhelmingly on the Allied side. Even with the presence of the Mufti in Europe, all his exhortations for Arabs and Palestinians to join the forces of the Nazis and Italian fascists led to very, very little results -- almost negligible. This just shows what little credibility and popularity the Mufti actually commanded in the Arab world. There were incomparably more Arabs who fought with the British and French troops against Germany and Italy than the other way round, so this really refutes the widespread notion that the Arabs supported the Nazis.
AA: Clearly, we can't really talk about Arabs and the Holocaust without mentioning the Mufti. But what was his role in the Holocaust and how complicit was he in the Nazis' war crimes?
GA: The first thing that must be said about Amin al-Husseini is that there is a lot more interest in him in the West and in Zionist literature than there is in the Arab world. It is amazing that in the Arab world, his name has almost disappeared into oblivion and almost no one refers to him, whereas in the West new books on him are coming out all the time. There is an entire industry dealing with the Mufti in the West from Zionist and pro-Zionist sources and the key aim of this industry is the Nazification of the Arabs. They are trying to Nazify the Arabs, if not the Muslims in this age of Islamophobia, through the figure of the Mufti.
Now the fact is that al-Husseini did his best up to 1937 to serve his British masters and prevent the Palestinian national movement from clashing with them. It was only in 1937 that he broke with the British and went into exile. In 1941, he fled to Europe and lived between Rome and Berlin, supported by the two fascist regimes until the end of the war in 1945. He became the key figure in their propaganda towards the Muslim world: he gave a lot of speeches over the radio and wrote lots of statements reproducing the whole range of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda. Due to his ideological allegiance to Islamic fundamentalism and its tendency to essentialize the enemy, he held rabidly anti-Jewish views.
The crucial point here is that even after 1943, when he learned about the genocide of the Jews and that millions of them had already been massacred, his contribution to the harsh anti-Semitic discourse broadcast from Germany continued. His knowledge of the genocide did not deter him one bit; rather he increased his anti-Semitic vitriol. He supported a regime which he knew was committing an awful genocide, one of the worst crimes against humanity, and so it makes what he did at the time criminal. He even took it upon himself to write to Axis power governments asking them to not allow Jews to leave to Palestine, adding -- and here to get to the criminal aspect of the letters -- that he suggests they send them to Poland instead where he knew there were concentration camps. So he went far beyond his role as a national leader fighting for the interests of his country into complicity with the Nazis. Clearly, this is something that has to be denounced for what it is.
AA: In your book you state that the impact of Nazism on the Arab world was actually limited. Considering that the Nazis were fighting the Arabs' colonial enemies at the time -- the British and French -- why was this?
GA: Well, there were a lot more people attracted to Nazi ideology in Western countries, including Britain and the United States, than there ever were in the Arab world. In fact there were fewer adherents to Nazi ideology in Arab countries, even in relative figures, than were found in Europe and North America. One of the reasons for this was fascist Italy's persecution of Libyans and the perception that it was a colonial power a lot worse than Britain or France. There was also a perception in the Arab world when the war started that this was a conflict between imperial powers who wanted to divide the world amongst themselves. Most people were observing the war therefore with a more or less neutral attitude and were only hoping that Arab independence might result from the clash of world powers. So even as "the enemy of their enemy," support for the Nazis was by no means automatic.
Of course, my book isn't just about developing an ideological counter-narrative portraying all the Arabs as anti-fascist progressives. That is not the point of my book at all. Anyone reading it will see that I don't try to hide anything on the Arab side and I don't mince my words when it comes to Arab attitudes that I believe must be condemned -- especially that of the Mufti. At the same time, I reject all suggestions that the Mufti was the embodiment of all Arabs or all Palestinians and expressed their collective attitude -- that was not the case and is purely slanderous. I mean, when you read the Zionist propaganda you get the impression that the Mufti al-Husseini was one of the key figures in the Nazi regime, which is of course completely ridiculous. In terms of al-Husseini's overall contribution to the Nazi regime, his input is negligible compared to thousands and thousands of Nazi leaders, bureaucrats and military commanders.
AA: If the Mufti was so unrepresentative of the Arab world, why has he become such a pivotal figure in any discussion of the Arab world and the Holocaust?
GA: The answer to this question is quite simple. The reason for this distortion is that until the Second World War, the Zionist movement didn't have any arguments for its colonization of Palestine other than religious or colonial. The fact that the German Jews were persecuted by the Nazis did change this but even then, the natural reaction from the Arab world was to say"'we condemn and resent the persecution of the Jews, but why should the Arabs and the Palestinians be made to pay for what the Europeans did?" The Zionist movement knew that a decision on Palestine would soon be made by the victors of the war and therefore did their best to depict the Palestinian Arabs as accomplices of the defeated Nazis. So to the Arab saying "why should we pay for what the Europeans did?" the response became, "because you played a part in the genocide." So in this way, 1948 and the Nakba was represented in the Zionist narrative as the last battle of the Second World War against Nazism.
One striking illustration of this argument is in the famous, openly racist interview that [Israeli historian] Benny Morris gave to [the Israeli daily]
Haaretz in 2004 and in which he basically says that in 1948 the choice was between the ethnic cleansing -- he doesn't shy away from using this term -- of the Palestinians by the Jews or the genocide of the Jews by the Palestinians and the Arabs. In order to justify whatever cruelty they do to them, the Zionists and their unconditional supporters paint the Palestinians and the Arabs as Nazis. You can see this same pattern at work up to our time. How was the cruel war against Lebanon in 2006 justified? Well, by portraying Hizballah as Nazis. And how was the criminal slaughter in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009 justified? Again, Hamas were portrayed as Nazis.
AA: Although your work is careful to point out the complexity of views with regards to the Holocaust in the Arab world, there is no denying the presence of Holocaust denial. How and why did Holocaust denial emerge in the Arab world?
GA: What needs to be said first of all is that Holocaust denial in the Arab world is not the same as Holocaust denial in Germany, for instance. In Germany, it can only emerge out of deep anti-Semitism as Germans have every means of knowing about the full scale of the genocide. But for people in Palestine, the Holocaust is a historical event which is not directly related to their own history. So when some Palestinians say that the Holocaust has been invented or exaggerated by the Zionists in order to blackmail the West, they are attempting to give an explanation for the way in which Israel uses the Holocaust to legitimize its aggression. It seems to hold also for an explanation of the fact that Western powers, especially the United States, tend to support Israel unconditionally. Of course, this is a stupid and very simplistic argument, which is why I call it "the anti-Semitism of fools."
In most cases, Holocaust denial becomes a very weak and stupid form of protest by people who feel crushed by the military violence and supremacy of the Israeli state. This explains why Holocaust denial attitudes increase every time Israeli violence flares up. Palestinians are facing this harsh reality and the misguided views of some of them on the Holocaust must therefore be judged in their context. We can't put the two on the same level, in the same way that we can't judge the racism of a white anti-Black lynching mob as being equivalent to the anti-White racism that might develop amongst their victims. One could say they are both forms of racism, but there is a crucial difference: the racism of the oppressed is reactive to the one that inspires their oppressors, and this is a distinction that I emphasize.
Last but not least, whatever form of Holocaust denial exists in the Arab world, it is denial of something that Arabs are not actually responsible for. Much more serious is the official denial of the Nakba [the 1948 ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine] by the Israeli state -- this is an instance of state denial of a crime that they perpetrated. Fortunately the Nakba was no genocide and can't be compared to the Holocaust in that respect, but it was nevertheless a crime against humanity and, moreover, the Nakba is not finished -- in the sense that the oppression of the Palestinians by the State of Israel continues to this day. So the denial by the State of Israel of this reality and of its responsibility in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and in their continuing oppression is ultimately much more serious that any expressions of Holocaust denial by Arabs or Palestinians.
AA: The claim that the Holocaust has been exploited by the State of Israel for political gain is a statement which needs to be carefully assessed. Would you agree?
GA: Yes, of course. It is obvious that the Israeli state and Israeli politicians make cynical use of the Holocaust to justify their stances. What is even worse is that the Israeli government perpetrates war crimes and crimes against humanity -- as confirmed by Judge Goldstone who is a Jew and a Zionist himself -- and tries to justify them in the name of the Holocaust. This is a major insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. This said, the Holocaust (and this is still not understood by everybody in the Arab world) is not the property of "the Jews" or the Zionist movement. In fact, the Zionist movement has little legitimacy to speak for the victims of the Holocaust, as the historical record shows that it failed to prioritize the rescue of the Jews during the Holocaust and focused instead on its goal of a Jewish state.
The Holocaust is one of the major tragedies of the twentieth century and it bears universal lessons for us all about the dangers of ethnic discrimination and racism. This is what the Holocaust is about and these lessons teach us that we need to counter the Zionist state and what it is doing to the Palestinians. In fact, as victims of national quasi-racial oppression, the Palestinians are much more entitled than the Zionists to invoke the lessons of the Holocaust.
AA: In your book you assess the impact of 11 September 2001 and the rise of the neoconservative narrative and the impact it has on the clichés about Arabs as Nazi-supporting anti-Semites. In your view, are perceptions of Arab attitudes to Nazism getting better or worse?
GA: They are getting worse. After 11 September and the Islamophobic trend increased sharply, especially in the United States, the Zionists seized the opportunity to intensify their anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian propaganda since most Palestinians are Muslims. There's a widespread discourse about so-called Islamofascism which tries to weave a narrative that starts with the Mufti and ends with Bin Laden, Hamas and Hizballah, with every opponent to Israel in between, be it Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein or Yasser Arafat. So it is important to challenge these attitudes, just as it is necessary to fight those attitudes in the Arab world and among Palestinians that are facilitating this kind of propaganda.
Most people in the Arab world would agree that the Holocaust was an awful crime perpetrated by the Nazis. The best illustration of this is the fact that Zionism is widely compared to Nazism -- of course, this comparison is over the top but it shows that people see Nazism as an insult. People should also know other stories, like that of the West Bank villagers of Bilin who dressed in striped pajamas similar to those of concentration camp inmates in order to protest against the Israeli army in January 2009, during the onslaught on Gaza. Again, the comparison is certainly over-exaggerated but the demonstrators' intent was clear. This was a way of identifying with the Jewish victims and saying: "We are the Jews of the Middle East who are oppressed by the Israeli state in the same way that European Jews were oppressed by the Nazis."
Arwa Aburawa (http://arwafreelance.wordpress.com/) is a freelance journalist based in the UK who writes on the Middle East, the environment and various social issues.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Fidel Castro's Thoughts on Israel, the US and Iran
What Would Einstein Say?
Today the leaders of the State of Israel practice genocide and are associating themselves with the most reactionary forces on the planet.
By Fidel Castro
January 08, Escambray" -- In a Reflection published on August 25, 2010 under the title of “The Opinion of an Expert”, I mentioned a really unusual activity of the United States and its allies which, in my opinion, underlines the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran. I was referring to a long article by the well-known journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, published in the US journal The Atlantic in September of that year, entitled “The Point of No Return”.
Goldberg was not anti-Israeli, quite the opposite; he is an admirer of Israel and holds double citizenship with the US and also did his military service in that country.
At the start of his article he wrote: “It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way”
The parentheses in the paragraph are also his.
After mentioning the enigmatic phrase, I carried on with the analysis of that Gordian knot of international politics that could lead to the war which was so feared by Einstein. What would he say if he had learned about the “frustration operations” destined to make the most capable nuclear scientists disappear?
Maybe because it was so absurd and incredible, I didn’t pay too much attention to it, but months later, upon reading the recent accusations by the Iranian government, as well as news and opinions of well-informed people, the memory of that paragraph returned to my mind with a vengeance.
Four weeks before the end of 2010, an AFP agency dispatch informed:
“An Iranian nuclear scientist has been killed.
“Teheran accuses the United States and Israel of being behind a double assassination. “AFP. November 30, 2010
“‘The hand of western governments and the Zionist regime is behind the assassination attempts’. Mahmud Ahmadineyad had no doubts when it came to look for the people guilty of the double attack on the nuclear experts that took place early yesterday in Teheran. Majid Shariari, professor at the Shahid Beheshti University of Teheran and member of the Nuclear Society of Iran lost his life and his wife was injured in an explosion reported a few metres from their home. His colleague Fereydoon Abbasi, a laser physicist at the same university and his wife were also injured after a similar attack. Even though some newspapers announced Abbasi’s death, it was finally the Mehr agency that confirmed that he had managed to save his life. According to the Fars agency, ‘unknown terrorists’ on motorcycles drove closet o the vehicles to plant the lapa bombs.”
“Members of the Ahmadineyad Executive and the Minister of the Interior, Mostafa Mohamad Najjar, directly accused the CIA and Mossad – the intelligence services of the US and Israel, respectively – of being behind these actions that presume a new blow for the country’s nuclear race at the doors of a possible new round of talks with the 5+1 members...”
“With yesterday’s attempt there are now three Iranian scientists who have been killed since 2007. Dr. Masoud Alí Mohamadi lost his life in Teheran last January after the explosion of a bomb as he was leaving his home, a death that has not yet been cleared up by the authorities who also accused the western intelligence agencies of trying to abort what they considered to be a right, the nuclear race for civilian purposes. The first victim in the heart of the scientific community was Ardeshir Hosseinpour, killed under strange circumstances in 2007 at the nuclear centre of Isfahan.”
I don’t remember any other moment in history when the assassination of scientists has been transformed into official policy on the part of a group of powers armed with nuclear weapons. The worst is that, in the case of Iran, it is being applied on an Islamic nation, with which, even if they are able to compete and surpass it in technology, they could never do it in a field where, for cultural and religious questions, it could surpass them many times in the willingness of its citizens to die at any moment if Iran should decide to apply the same absurd and criminal formula on the professionals of their adversaries.
There are other serious events related to the carnage of scientists, organized by Israel, the US, Great Britain and other powers against the Iranian scientists, something about which the mass media does not inform world opinion.
An article by Christian Elia published on the Rebelión website on August 25, 2010, reports that:
An explosion has killed the father of the “drones” (unmanned planes) – of Iran – but he is just the last of the scientists who have lost their lives in the country.
“To find a photo of Reza Baruni on the Internet is a mission impossible. However, in the last few days, his name was at the centre of a mystery that has many international aspects...”
The only thing certain is that Reza Baruni, the Iranian aeronautical engineer, is dead. An air of absolute mystery hangs over everything else. All the industry analysts consider Baruni to be the father of the [...] UAVs (unmanned vehicles) of the Islamic Republic [...]. On August 1st, 2010, his house was blown up.”
“On August 17, 2010, Debka (very close to Israeli intelligence) publishes news of Baruni’s death and reveals its conclusions: the Iranian engineer’s home blew up because of the explosion of three very powerful explosive devices. Baruni was murdered.”
“But the murkiest episode in contrast is the death of Massud Ali-Mohammadi, professor of nuclear physics at Teheran University, murdered on January 11, 2010 in the Iranian capital. Professor Ali-Mohammadi died in the explosion of a motorcycle-bomb detonated from a distance at the time the professor was leaving his home to go to work…”
An article published on the CubaDebate website informs:
“Israel acknowledges that it has murdered an Iranian scientist last week.”
“Mossad, the Israeli secret service, acknowledged that last week it murdered Majid Shahriari and wounded another physicist in Iran, according to Mossad sources, in an operation carried out in Teheran. ‘It is the latest operation by the head of the Mossad’, the people heading Israeli secret services state with satisfaction at a meeting in their Gelilot headquarters to the north of Tel Aviv.”
“Gordon Thomas, a British expert in the Mossad, confirmed in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph that Israel is responsible for this double murder destined to obstruct the Iranian nuclear program.”
“Thomas states that all the Israeli assassination attempts in the last few years against personalities associated with the Iranian nuclear project have been committed by the Kidon (bayonet) unit. According to the Jewish newspaper Yediot Ahronot this unit is made up of 38 agents. Five of them are women. They are all between 20 and 30 years old and they speak several languages – including Persian – and they are able to come and go from Iran with ease. They are based in the Negev Desert.”
In the days of the Diaspora, the left wing in the world united in solidarity with the people of Israel. Persecuted for their race and religion, many of them fought in the ranks of the revolutionary parties. The peoples condemned the concentration camps that the European and world bourgeoisie wanted to ignore.
Today the leaders of the State of Israel practice genocide and are associating themselves with the most reactionary forces on the planet.
The alliance between the leaders of that State and the South Africa of the hateful apartheid regime is still to be cleared up; in complicity with the United States they supplied the technology to develop the nuclear weapons directed towards striking at the Cuban troops which, in 1975, were confronting the invasion of racist South Africa, whose disdain and hatred of the African peoples was no different from the Nazi ideology which murdered millions of Jews, Russians, gypsies and other European nationalities in the concentration camps of Europe.
If it hadn’t been for the Iranian revolution – stripped of weapons it swept over the best-equipped ally of the United States on the flank of the Soviet super-power – today it would be the Shah of Iran, supplied with nuclear weapons, and not Israel, who would be the principal bulwark of the Yankee and NATO empire in that region that is so strategic and immensely rich in oil and gas for the sure supply of the most developed countries on the planet.
It is an almost inexhaustible subject.
Fidel Castro Ruz - January 6, 2011
Today the leaders of the State of Israel practice genocide and are associating themselves with the most reactionary forces on the planet.
By Fidel Castro
January 08, Escambray" -- In a Reflection published on August 25, 2010 under the title of “The Opinion of an Expert”, I mentioned a really unusual activity of the United States and its allies which, in my opinion, underlines the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran. I was referring to a long article by the well-known journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, published in the US journal The Atlantic in September of that year, entitled “The Point of No Return”.
Goldberg was not anti-Israeli, quite the opposite; he is an admirer of Israel and holds double citizenship with the US and also did his military service in that country.
At the start of his article he wrote: “It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way”
The parentheses in the paragraph are also his.
After mentioning the enigmatic phrase, I carried on with the analysis of that Gordian knot of international politics that could lead to the war which was so feared by Einstein. What would he say if he had learned about the “frustration operations” destined to make the most capable nuclear scientists disappear?
Maybe because it was so absurd and incredible, I didn’t pay too much attention to it, but months later, upon reading the recent accusations by the Iranian government, as well as news and opinions of well-informed people, the memory of that paragraph returned to my mind with a vengeance.
Four weeks before the end of 2010, an AFP agency dispatch informed:
“An Iranian nuclear scientist has been killed.
“Teheran accuses the United States and Israel of being behind a double assassination. “AFP. November 30, 2010
“‘The hand of western governments and the Zionist regime is behind the assassination attempts’. Mahmud Ahmadineyad had no doubts when it came to look for the people guilty of the double attack on the nuclear experts that took place early yesterday in Teheran. Majid Shariari, professor at the Shahid Beheshti University of Teheran and member of the Nuclear Society of Iran lost his life and his wife was injured in an explosion reported a few metres from their home. His colleague Fereydoon Abbasi, a laser physicist at the same university and his wife were also injured after a similar attack. Even though some newspapers announced Abbasi’s death, it was finally the Mehr agency that confirmed that he had managed to save his life. According to the Fars agency, ‘unknown terrorists’ on motorcycles drove closet o the vehicles to plant the lapa bombs.”
“Members of the Ahmadineyad Executive and the Minister of the Interior, Mostafa Mohamad Najjar, directly accused the CIA and Mossad – the intelligence services of the US and Israel, respectively – of being behind these actions that presume a new blow for the country’s nuclear race at the doors of a possible new round of talks with the 5+1 members...”
“With yesterday’s attempt there are now three Iranian scientists who have been killed since 2007. Dr. Masoud Alí Mohamadi lost his life in Teheran last January after the explosion of a bomb as he was leaving his home, a death that has not yet been cleared up by the authorities who also accused the western intelligence agencies of trying to abort what they considered to be a right, the nuclear race for civilian purposes. The first victim in the heart of the scientific community was Ardeshir Hosseinpour, killed under strange circumstances in 2007 at the nuclear centre of Isfahan.”
I don’t remember any other moment in history when the assassination of scientists has been transformed into official policy on the part of a group of powers armed with nuclear weapons. The worst is that, in the case of Iran, it is being applied on an Islamic nation, with which, even if they are able to compete and surpass it in technology, they could never do it in a field where, for cultural and religious questions, it could surpass them many times in the willingness of its citizens to die at any moment if Iran should decide to apply the same absurd and criminal formula on the professionals of their adversaries.
There are other serious events related to the carnage of scientists, organized by Israel, the US, Great Britain and other powers against the Iranian scientists, something about which the mass media does not inform world opinion.
An article by Christian Elia published on the Rebelión website on August 25, 2010, reports that:
An explosion has killed the father of the “drones” (unmanned planes) – of Iran – but he is just the last of the scientists who have lost their lives in the country.
“To find a photo of Reza Baruni on the Internet is a mission impossible. However, in the last few days, his name was at the centre of a mystery that has many international aspects...”
The only thing certain is that Reza Baruni, the Iranian aeronautical engineer, is dead. An air of absolute mystery hangs over everything else. All the industry analysts consider Baruni to be the father of the [...] UAVs (unmanned vehicles) of the Islamic Republic [...]. On August 1st, 2010, his house was blown up.”
“On August 17, 2010, Debka (very close to Israeli intelligence) publishes news of Baruni’s death and reveals its conclusions: the Iranian engineer’s home blew up because of the explosion of three very powerful explosive devices. Baruni was murdered.”
“But the murkiest episode in contrast is the death of Massud Ali-Mohammadi, professor of nuclear physics at Teheran University, murdered on January 11, 2010 in the Iranian capital. Professor Ali-Mohammadi died in the explosion of a motorcycle-bomb detonated from a distance at the time the professor was leaving his home to go to work…”
An article published on the CubaDebate website informs:
“Israel acknowledges that it has murdered an Iranian scientist last week.”
“Mossad, the Israeli secret service, acknowledged that last week it murdered Majid Shahriari and wounded another physicist in Iran, according to Mossad sources, in an operation carried out in Teheran. ‘It is the latest operation by the head of the Mossad’, the people heading Israeli secret services state with satisfaction at a meeting in their Gelilot headquarters to the north of Tel Aviv.”
“Gordon Thomas, a British expert in the Mossad, confirmed in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph that Israel is responsible for this double murder destined to obstruct the Iranian nuclear program.”
“Thomas states that all the Israeli assassination attempts in the last few years against personalities associated with the Iranian nuclear project have been committed by the Kidon (bayonet) unit. According to the Jewish newspaper Yediot Ahronot this unit is made up of 38 agents. Five of them are women. They are all between 20 and 30 years old and they speak several languages – including Persian – and they are able to come and go from Iran with ease. They are based in the Negev Desert.”
In the days of the Diaspora, the left wing in the world united in solidarity with the people of Israel. Persecuted for their race and religion, many of them fought in the ranks of the revolutionary parties. The peoples condemned the concentration camps that the European and world bourgeoisie wanted to ignore.
Today the leaders of the State of Israel practice genocide and are associating themselves with the most reactionary forces on the planet.
The alliance between the leaders of that State and the South Africa of the hateful apartheid regime is still to be cleared up; in complicity with the United States they supplied the technology to develop the nuclear weapons directed towards striking at the Cuban troops which, in 1975, were confronting the invasion of racist South Africa, whose disdain and hatred of the African peoples was no different from the Nazi ideology which murdered millions of Jews, Russians, gypsies and other European nationalities in the concentration camps of Europe.
If it hadn’t been for the Iranian revolution – stripped of weapons it swept over the best-equipped ally of the United States on the flank of the Soviet super-power – today it would be the Shah of Iran, supplied with nuclear weapons, and not Israel, who would be the principal bulwark of the Yankee and NATO empire in that region that is so strategic and immensely rich in oil and gas for the sure supply of the most developed countries on the planet.
It is an almost inexhaustible subject.
Fidel Castro Ruz - January 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)