My respnse to Neumann's article: The cast against Israel
Note: these are excerpts. The link to Neumann's article is at the bottom of the page
January 26, 2006
The Case Against Israel
The Core of Zionism
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
Neumann: For the Zionists to demand a state, any state, was therefore no small thing for anyone--like the Palestinians--falling within its proposed boundaries. But what the Zionists demanded was a Jewish state. Whether this was racism is not of any immediate concern. For one thing, to say that something is racist is not, for many people, immediately to say that it is unjustified: there are those, for instance, who accept affirmative action as 'reverse' racism yet still defend it. For another, the project might have begun as racist yet outgrown its racism by instituting sufficient protections for non-Jews. Or it might not have outgrown it altogether, but exhibited a form of racism that, though reprehensible, was not particularly virulent. It, therefore, does not seem particularly fruitful to examine whether Zionism was racism.
Neumann: "Whether this was racism is not of any immediate concern".
My Response: And why not?
Neumann: Neumann "For one thing, to say that something is racist is not, for many people, immediately to say that it is unjustified."
My Response: for many people'?
Neumann: "For one thing, to say that something is racist is not, for many people, immediately to say that it is unjustified."
My Response: Can you give me a list of justified racism? Do you even know what you speak of?
Neumann: "It, therefore, does not seem particularly fruitful to examine whether Zionism was racism".
My Response: Ok Professor, if you say so.
Neumann: A Jewish state would, therefore, be a state run by and for Jews. In such a state, Jews would be sovereign. The state would be run in their interests.
My Response: well,yea professor, Colonial Predators do not stamped thousands of miles across to a land to be the gardners and dishwashers!
Neumann: The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to settle. They did not come simply to 'find a homeland', certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to 'make a life in Palestine'. They did not come simply to find a refuge from persecution. They did not come to 'redeem a people'. All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a sovereign Jewish state.
My Response: But why in Palestine? The Ashkenazi European Jews claim to be 'Jews'. Ok, fine. There are billions of Christians and Muslims who also have a connection to the land via their religion. You keep forgetting Professor that before they arrived on Arab land, they had already obtained guarantees from the 'great powers' that they would be on the side of the Jews' against the Arabs. It is not hard to colonize an already colonized people with no defense systems of their own. Let 10,000 Jews attempt to stamped towards China and see what would happen to them. You forget also to tell your readers that among the major powers that gave permission to the Jews to steal Palestine was America during Truman. People need to visit the Truman online library and search for 'Edwin M Wright Interview'. He makes it crystal clear that Palestine was stolen due the abundance of Jewish money. We learn that American Jews came to President Trumanís office and pounding on his table told him 'they would throw him out of town' if he did not agree to take their Jewish money and also their Jewish vote. How many other groups of people on planet earth can you mention who would have the audacity to come arrogantly to the office of the most power man on earth and scare him and intimidate him? The answer is of course none, except for the Jewish groups. We also learn the treachery of these American Ashkenazi Jews when they called heads of state of third world countries and pretending to be Truman - after having practiced his voice - told them that they must vote in favor of the Jewish state or else their promised funds from the American government would be withdrawn. Truman did learn of these Zionist treacheries later, was offended by it, but still picked up the phone within minutes of the Jews declaration of the finalization of the grand theft of Palestine. But you Neumann would never bring that up, would you? Of course not. What good will it serve, right?
Neumann: The purpose of establishing a sovereign Jewish state may or may not have been domination; that doesn't matter. That would certainly be the effect of its establishment.
My Response: You see Professor: The way you write is very consistent. You have a habit of saying: 'it may or may not have been'. Why would the Ashkenazi Jewry's arrival in Palestine be any different from prior colonizers, with one exception: The European Ashkenazi Jew colonizer wanted to rid the land of its inhabitants. 'that doesn't matter'? Well it does matter to the dominated and vanquisheed people, however.
Neumann: It would be incorrect to say that the Zionist project or enterprise was anything less than an attempt to establish a Jewish State.
My Response: But Professor, there are millions of people who live under very punitive governments facing religious or ethnic discrimination all their lives. They too would love to establish a state of their own, away from the land of tribal or religious conflict. What are the chances of any other groups getting away with the grand theft of land belonging to others as Europe's Jewry was able to accomplish? It would require the kind of abundance of Jewish money and cunning that made it to the finish line for the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe. By the way Professor, in your recent articles, you make a desperate attempt to make the conflict in Palestine a 'tribal' conflict. Which tribe is against which tribe? Do you not believe that the Palestinians and all the Jews that used to live in Arab countries are Arabs and therefore they would be on the side of the Palestinians if this were an ethnic conflict? What you aimed to do was confuse the gullible goy into believing that Ashkenazi Jewry = 'Israelite' and you do it with not the slightest of shame, in the face of the glaring evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are as 'Israelite' as an Eskimo or a Zulu.
Neumann: The British showed as little capacity or indeed inclination to curb the ethnic violence as they were to show in India and many other possessions. I know of no case in which cooperation between ethnic communities followed anytime soon on massacres of this scale. Third, even most 'nonexclusive' Zionists were not distinguished by an explicit renunciation of a Jewish state, but rather by a commitment to partition Palestine rather than go for the whole thing. By then, the Palestinians correctly saw that the main tendency of Zionism was to create a Jewish state in Palestine, the intentions of a tiny nonexclusive minority with nebulous plans for some implausibly cooperative two-people government had no point of contact with the political realities.
My Response: No Professor: it was not 'by then' that the Arabs saw the Predatory plans of Europe's Zionist Jewry, they had already heard the drums of a new colonize decades before, unless your aim is to make the Arab looks like a bunch of imbeciles. And what, may I ask, were the 'nonexclusive' Zionists? Are you here to tell us that out of their kindness of their heart that they were willing to share the land that they hade come to steal? As far as the British, didn't the European Jews kill many of them, and in fact hanged them and the British hastily abandoned the land, leaving the Palestinian to their fate under a new European but most merciless occupier?