United against (Na)zionism

rabbis-in-protest-march

«Orthodox Jewry has not the slightest intention of subjugating any section of the population of the Holy Land. We merely demand that the gates of Palestine be opened to all those Jews who have no home and enable them to live here Jewish lives in accordance with the commandments of the L-rd. However in order to avoid the continuation of the untenable position as set out in the last paragraph of section 4 we suggest that the keys of Jewish immigration be placed into the hands of the Government of this country.
We furthermore wish to express our definite opposition to a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.»
– Chief Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, statement to the U.N. Special Comittee on Palestine, July 16, 1947, taken from the United Nations Trusteeship Library.

 

Genocide and deportation all over again:

«From beginning to end, it involved acting as if the Palestinian people not only must not exist, but had never existed.

The conquerors were those who had themselves suffered the greatest genocide in history. Of this genocide the Zionists have made an absolute evil (italics in original). But transforming the greatest genocide in history into an absolute evil is a religious and mystical vision, not a historical vision. It doesn’t stop the evil; on the contrary, it spreads the evil, makes it fall once again on other innocents, demands reparation that makes these others suffer part of what the Jews suffered (expulsion, restriction to ghettos, disappearance as a people). With “colder” means than genocide, one ends up with the same result.

The United States and Europe owed reparation to the Jews. And they made a people, about whom the least that could be said is that they had no hand in and were singularly innocent of any holocaust and hadn’t even heard of it, pay this reparation. It’s there that the grotesque begins, as well as the violence. (…)

And later, they will act as if the expelled Palestinians came from outside, they will speak of the first war of resistance that the Palestinians led all alone. Since they haven’t recognized Israel’s right, they will be made into descendants of Hitler. But Israel reserves the right to deny their existence in fact. Here begins a fiction that had to stretch further and further, and to weigh on all those who defended the Palestinian cause. This fiction, this wager of Israel’s, was to make all those who would contest the de facto conditions and actions of the Zionist state appear as anti-Semites.

From the start, Israel has never concealed its goal: to empty the Palestinian territory. And better, to act as if the Palestinian territory were empty, always destined for the Zionists. It was clearly a matter of colonization, but not in the nineteenth-century European sense: the local inhabitants would not be exploited, they would be made to leave. (…)

It’s a genocide, but one in which physical extermination remains subordinated to geographical evacuation: being only Arabs in general, the surviving Palestinians must go merge with other Arabs. (…)

The complicity of the United States with Israel does not arise solely from the Zionist lobby. Elias Sanbar (Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes) has shown clearly how the United States rediscovered in Israel an aspect of its own history: the extermination of the Indians which, there as well, was only in part physical. It was a matter of emptying, as if there had never been an Indian except in the ghettos which were made for them as immigrants from inside. In many respects, the Palestinians are the new Indians, the Indians of Israel. (…)

But the Palestinian people will not lose their identity without creating in its place a double terrorism, of the state and of religion, which will profit from its disappearance and render impossible any peaceful settlement with Israel. (…) Israel will not escape merely morally divided and economically disorganized, it will find itself faced with the mirror of its own intolerance.»

Gilles Deleuze, “The Grandeur of Yasser Arafat“, 1984.


Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, activist and spokesman of Neturei Karta, an anti-Zionist grouping, based in New York.

“It is dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic. He is extremely friendly and he understands the difference between the Zionists and the Jews who do not embrace the state of Israel… We don’t look at him as an enemy.”
Weiss, statement to Iran’s official IRIB radio, March 2006, quoted in New York Rabbi Finds Friends in Iran and Enemies at Home – New York Times – January 15, 2007.

“The Zionists use the Holocaust issue to their benefit. We, Jews who perished in the Holocaust, do not use it to advance our interests. We stress that there are hundreds of thousands Jews around the world who identify with our opposition to the Zionist ideology and who feel that Zionism is not Jewish, but a political agenda…What we want is not a withdrawal to the ’67 borders, but to everything included in it, so the country can go back to the Palestinians and we could live with them…”
Weiss, Neturei Karta in Iran: Zionists use Holocaust by Roee Nahmias, YNetNews, March 12, 2006.

«Now maybe I can say that at the discussion of the holocaust, I may be the representative, the voice of the people who died in the holocaust because my grandparents died there. They were killed in Auschwitz. My parents were from Hungary. My father escaped and his parents remained. He wasn’t able to get them out of Hungary and they died in Auschwitz as were other relatives and all the communities that they knew. So to say that they didn’t die, to me you cannot say that. I am the living remnant of the people who died in the holocaust and I am here, I believe sent by God, to humbly say, simply to speak to the people here and say, ‘You should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die!’ There are people throughout the Jewish communities, still alive in their seventies and eighties and every one of them will tell you their stories. It is something which you can not refute, but that being said, it doesn’t mean that the holocaust is a tool to use to oppress other people
Weiss, speech at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, held by the Iranian government in Tehran, December 2006.


Rabbi Moshe Mayer Sterngold, London.


George Galloway


American Radical – The Trials of Norman Finkelstein” (2009).

«I am opposed to any State with an ethnic character, not only to Israel.»
– Norman Finkelstein, “Ha’aretz on The Holocaust Industry”, 2011, Normanfinkelstein.com.


Seminar “New Geopolitics in the Middle East” (La Nueva Geopolítica en Oriente Medio), School of International Relations of the National Institute of Advanced Studies (IAEN) of Ecuador, National Institute of Advanced Studies (IAEN) Auditorium, December 11, 2013.

Jewish_Palestinian-loss-of-land

Advertisements

The reactionary cult of the Enemy


“Defamation” (2009) by Yoav Shamir

This documentary was directed by an Israelite (nationality) about Zionists (nationalists) and Anti-Semites (other nationalists). Nationality is a fact of birth, but nationalism is a mind captivity (which, of course, applies to Nazis, too).

The current Zionism is strongly reactionary: it is a reaction against Nazi actions. A Zionist lives in the past and mummifies that past to scare the present descendants and obligate them to render worship to the cult of the Enemy.

The current Nazism is strongly reactionary: it is a reaction against Zionist actions. A Nazi lives in the past and mummifies that past to scare the present descendants and obligate them to render worship to the cult of the Enemy.

See? No difference.

The Marxist discourse focused on the struggle between dominant versus dominated classes is of the same type.

The discourse of anti-capitalists against capitalism is a direct heir of Hitlerism, since Nazis did associate Jews with capitalism (the Rothschilds), on one pole, and with Communist/Marxist syndicalism (Rosa Luxembourg), on the other pole.

Nowadays, we have to be very careful in order not to fall within reactionary groups.

You might say that this is a reaction against reaction, which, anyway, is the best type of reaction.

Materialists and liberals

Nowadays, there are two common accusations used immoderately: that of materialism and that of liberalism.

However, not sufficient materialism and liberalism exist.

If the dominant system were materialist, our care for matter, flows of matter such as energy, water, air, earth, space, resources, elements, would be much higher than it is. Zero garbage cities should be a reality long time ago: organic waste shouldn’t be wasted; plastic, glass, metal, paper, are all raw matter for transformation, not garbage. The existence of garbage is an indicator of a stupid and inefficient management of flows of matter. We don’t even care… People associate materialism with ego possessiveness, which is quite equivocal, since ego belogs to spirit, so, it’s spiritualism. Today, there is too much spiritualism, not materialism.

In respect to liberalism, the adjective “liberal” used to qualify someone who gave away things without asking return. Presently, liberals are those who only offer something with their mind already on the return. How does a word come to have two completely opposite meanings? Anyway, the first and more ancient meaning seems to me to be the authentic one, because it would be contradictory to be liberal and do not liberate his mind of debt pre-requisites. So, those who are commonly named as liberals, in fact, they are “prisionals” and their system, one of “prisionalism”.

We should put words in order.

Neither visualizers nor verbalizers can meditate

Meditation is in fashion among certain circles. Do they know what meditation really is?

One day, in a particular event, I was passing by when a so called “meditation guide” was conducting a meditation session. He was saying: “Visualize this… visualize that…”. That guy would better call himself a “illusionist” of words and images.

At least, I know what meditation is not: it is not visualization. Like the old saying tells you: if you see the image of Buddha, you should kill it.

You don’t enter in meditation keeping your own (or someone’s else) thought images. It simply aborts real meditation. Meditation is thought without image.

Aren’t those who speak louder of meditation the same ones who get farther away from it and mislead others?

If you go to somewhere to learn how to meditate, you’re asking for being misled… so, you deserve it.

You should also know that meditation doesn’t have anything to do with a conductor, mentor, mastermind, leader, guide, guru or whatever you might call it.

As long as a personality (you or others) remains in charge of a particular conscience, you still weren’t able to meditate. Of course, you might have done other things: visualize, relax, concentrate, dream, sleep…

Meditate is to merge with the medium. Be the medium – “be the water”, as Bruce Lee told about martial arts. Meditation can be considered an essential component of martial arts.

Meditate is to be “in medium”. Not to be in things or in minds or in people or in your self. But among all and nothing at all.

The third and last thing you should know about meditation is that you don’t force the operation. It is not an affair of comitting yourself to it: “oh, let’s meditate for a while, before the dinner”. It’s the opposite: meditation comes whenever is not expected and gets you, any place, any time. You just need to be there (but, simultaneously, the opposite is also true: you don’t need to be there).

I can’t be more explicit than this.