Special from The Wild Wild Left
OpEds

By Diane Gee

  The new argument plays something like this:“Why are Jews the only people on the planet wherein American governments think they can tell where we may or may not live?  Excuse me, but Jews have been living in that small corner of the planet for something like 4,000 years. It is a racist view that says Jews can’t be allowed to live on historical Jewish land, and that any future Palestinian State must be “Judenrein”!”

This is almost always followed by the lie that the Palestinians are an “Invented People,” and that Arab peoples are “recent immigrants.”  Which is doubly amusing when they quote the old testament – you know, the book that says they themselves left Egypt, came to the land of milk and honey and stole it from the indigenous people?

This rebranding is but an excuse to continue to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestinians, something Israel is not only doing by codifying apartheid, but in creating “facts on the ground” – trying to increase the population of Jews in Palestine to the point that there is no way that Palestine can ever have final borders and self-determination.  

LIE ONE:  PALESTINIANS ARE NOT A PEOPLE!

.

Umm, yeah, they are, just as much as you are.  Worse yet, they are your relatives.  

Starting with the “historical claim” of one people over another – science proves that all the inhabitants of the middle east are very closely, and recently, related.  Cousins, if you will, who were likely one until the three branches started arguing over which of them their sky-daddy loved best.  The triplet bastard sons of Abraham, now locked in an endless struggle of bloody alpha posturing and clannishness in the worst family feud known to mankind.

More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. And in a recent study of 1371 men from around the world, geneticist Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona in Tucson found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.

A more recent study by Eran Elhaik, an Israeli molecular geneticist, points to quite a different genetic past.

Elhaik says he has proved that Ashkenazi Jews’ roots lie in the Caucasus – a region at the border of Europe and Asia that lies between the Black and Caspian seas – not in the Middle East. They are descendants, he argues, of the Khazars, a Turkic people who lived in one of the largest medieval states in Eurasia and then migrated to Eastern Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries. Ashkenazi genes, Elhaik added, are far more heterogeneous than Ostrer and other proponents of the Rhineland Hypothesis believe. Elhaik did find a Middle Eastern genetic marker in DNA from Jews, but, he says, it could be from Iran, not ancient Judea.

This, of course, has been highly controversial.  The narrative has always been that the Jewish people left, mixed with European gene lines, and then came back, a little “diluted” in the bloodstream.  If the Khazars themselves converted?  It explains the strong European DNA trail in the genetic make up of so many modern Jews.  In fact, Elhaik was told he could only use other data from a peer if he met the standard, “Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.“

It seems even the scientific community itself is trying to keep a bias in place – to match the Zionist narrative.

Whether or not this new data is ever accepted?  The scientific fact that the peoples of greater Palestine/Israel are related is irrefutable by any standards.   They share DNA.

If you were only to take Biblical references, the charter myth of Israel and the Exodus – please explain to me who the Canaanites were? Were they ancient Palestinians?  Did they too have historical rights to the land, or was that lost with the trumpets sounding around Jericho?  The Bible is rife with stories of land theft and conquering, never once seeing the injustice to the people defending their lands.  

Who were the Philistines, if not ancient Palestinians?  

Lets face it – traveling back in History that far – all people were tribal, keeping smaller identities (like the 12 tribes of Israel) – into ofttimes nomadic groups.  This particular group of indigenous people became largely Muslim by the 7th century, though Druze, Christian, Samaritan and Jewish Palestinians still exist.

It is utter fallacy to try and describe the Palestinians as an “invented people.”  They share DNA, culture, history and ancient ties to the land.  

The history of any present State – Ireland, Italy, England, has similar primal roots.  Tribal people that unified to become one. Can you righteously say they are not a people?

NEGATING A PEOPLE’S IDENTITY IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO DEHUMANIZE THEM, AND DE-LEGITIMATIZE THEM. IT IS A LIE, AND IN THIS CASE, A LIE MADE TO EXCUSE GENOCIDE AND APARTHEID.  IT IS THE WORST KIND OF RACISM.

*** 

LIE TWO:  OPPOSITION TO THE SETTLEMENTS IS REVERSE RACISM.

The false narrative is hideous. This is not a case of blocking a nice Jewish family from moving into your subdivision, when they only want to be friends with you.  This is not a case of them joining your neighborhood watch and barbequing together and ride-sharing the kid’s soccer games.   This framing makes it sound like that is what the Palestinians and their supporters are doing.  It is not only patently false, it is a mockery of the brutal and racist land theft settlers are doing.  Friendly neighbors do not point guns at you and bar you from using their roads.  They do not throw rocks at your children while they walk to school.  They do not raze your family home to the ground, destroy your well, and then build on it – keeping you off your land with walls and barbed wire.

“Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean there will be 1 nation with sovereignty, and that is Israel,” Bayit Yehudi minister says.The Jordan Valley Regional Council has a 10-year plan to triple its population to help ensure that its date farms and hilltop communities won’t be handed over to the Palestinians as part of a final-status agreement for a two-state solution.

In complete betrayal of the Peace process, rather than pause the settlements, an unprecedented 14,000 new settlements were approved during the talks.

Israeli settlement watchdog, Peace Now, which issued its report on Tuesday, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “broke all construction records in the settlements” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“This is an unprecedented number representing an average of 50 housing units per day or 1,540 per month,” the left-wing NGO said.

Now the “narrative” goes for the hardline right-wing Zionists, is that it is racist to even call it the West Bank – they would have you call it “Judaea” or “Samaria” – ironically enough, the name Samaria refers to Samarian Palestinians who never embraced the Jewish religion.  I suppose we should go back to calling Lake Superior “Gitchagoomi” and San Francisco “Chutchui” or “Ohlone.”

This is land that was agreed upon as belonging to the Palestinians, and bit by bit seized by Israelis, not settling as neighbor, but creating walled, guarded Jewish-only encampments where the indigenous Palestinians may not set foot. These hard-line settlers are so extremist, they not only attack and sometimes kidnapPalestinian children on their way to school, descrate and attack Mosques, bulldoze olive orchards – but they have attacked Israel’s own soldiers…  they have gotten so out of control even Israel is considering classifying them as terrorists.

It is not only the Muslim population they are targeting, but Christians as well.

Calls are mounting for hardline Jewish settlers to be classified as terrorists after a spate of attacks on Palestinian property in the West Bank and Israel, and threats of violence towards Israeli soldiers.Last week, the justice minister, Tzipi Livni, and the internal security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, both argued that rightwing extremists should be classified as terrorists following attacks on soldiers at the hardline West Bank settlement of Yitzhar.

And on Friday, the Israeli prize laureate author Amos Oz described the hardline Jewish settlers that carry out so-called “price tag” attacks on Palestinians as neo-Nazis.

“Our neo-Nazi groups enjoy the support of numerous nationalist or even racist legislators, as well as rabbis who give them what is in my view pseudo-religious justification,” the 75-year-old said at an event in Tel Aviv.

It is not the first time that politicians and public figures in Israel have called for the branding of rightwing settlers as terrorists, but recent events have coalesced into something of a perfect storm.

A spate of vandalism in Jerusalem and Galilee has seen rightwing groups target Christians ahead of the visit of Pope Francis, including a graffiti attack on the Vatican building where he is due to stay later this month.

Now tell me who is racist here?

The people razing homes owned generationally by Palestinians, or the Jewish settlers who make their Jewish-only neighborhoods on that land, with Jewish-only roads to get there?

Lets go back to definition 2: “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.”

It is the Israeli Government, IDF army and legal system in charge.  Israeli Jews get preferential treatment.  Even in Palestinian Lands, they maintain their supremacy, talking the best land, all the water and keeping an unarmed civilian population living in fear of them.  

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the victims of this system to be guilty of reverse-racism for not wanting to be abused.  Just as US White Supremacists break out this canard to say the Blacks get preferential treatment over them for trying to even the playing field of white privilege? It is absurd.

Israeli Jewish settlers will NEVER submit to a Palestinian Government – they have not in practice already.  They bow (when it suits them) only to the “Jewish State of Israel” that sends soldiers to keep their neighborhoods “Arabrein”!

The difference is obvious. If Palestinians object to Jewish-only neighborhoods in what is to become their State, neighborhoods protected by, and bowing ONLY to Israeli Law – they are called racist?  Tell me where in Israel proper there are similar Palestinian settlements?

THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE

It is not, and never has been about “telling Jews where they may or may not live,” it is about telling Palestinians that they have NO RIGHTS on their own ancestral lands, and telling them “where they may or may not live.”  In other words, if an Israeli Jew wants your land, your claim is forfeit.

The “tiny minority” of “Jews under seige” meme negates the fact that they are the sole non-signatory nuclear power in the region, with the financial backing to the tune of 11 million dollars a DAY by the United States, the sole super-power left in the world.

They are hardly the “underdog” here. They are not “poor, besieged, victims of racism” – though that is the new propaganda push.  

They are a Rogue Nation supported by the US as another Rogue Nation, abusing a minority, erasing and rewriting history, colonizing by force, who have created an apartheid state.

They are the Racists, pure and Simple.  

They can claim no reverse racism.

I wish, truly, the 3 bastard clans of Abraham would get over their Daddy issues and live in Peace.  If there is a God/Allah/Yahweh then fuck him for letting it get to this.

Palestinians are not guiltless – the result of being oppressed is wanting to kill your oppressors.  But there are many Jewish/Palestinian groups that are working together for Peace… including BDS.  Innocents must not be grouped in with the guilty in some retaliative extremist reaction.  In short, everyone needs to calm the fuck down.

The big lie and rebranding of “reverse racism” to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians must not stand.  Speak truth to power.

CALLING IT REVERSE RACISM TO OBJECT TO BEING DISPLACED, DISABUSED, BEING TREATED LIKE ALIENS ON YOUR OWN LAND IS HEINOUS.

In the end, Israel cannot lay claim to being the “Only Democracy in the Middle East” while keeping half their population as second class citizens, and stealing what is left of their land…

Op-Ed Contributor / The New York Times
A Plea for Caution From Russia

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Oliver Munday

Related

• U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria (September 12, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

How the media represented this trial. Draw your own conclusions. The above report is typical of all parties involved.

By Barry Grey, wsws.org

The acquittal of George Zimmerman, the killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, is the reactionary culmination of a process that has from the start been a travesty of justice. The basic tragedy is the death of a young man who committed no crime and posed no danger to his assailant.

The naked miscarriage of justice announced Saturday night has triggered protests in cities across the United States. From the political establishment, beginning with President Barack Obama, it has evoked pious and hypocritical admonitions to “respect” the verdict and honor the “rule of law.” Behind such sanctimonious statements from media commentators, lawyers and officially designated “civil rights leaders” is an awareness of the explosive state of social relations in America and the potential for an event such as the acquittal of Martin’s killer to spark upheavals.

Obama posted a brief statement on the White House web site Sunday that declared, “We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.” This was written by a president who has effectively suspended the Bill of Rights in order to carry out the illegal surveillance of the entire US population and untold millions more people around the world, and has ordered the drone assassinations of thousands of people, including American citizens.

The murder of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his killer reflect a deeply dysfunctional society. The prosecution case, undertaken in the first place only under pressure from popular protests denouncing the failure to charge the killer, was conducted in an ineffectual manner, with police who testified for the prosecution barely bothering to conceal their sympathy for Zimmerman.

But more fundamental processes were at work. The Trayvon Martin tragedy is the product of decades of political reaction in America, during which the political and media establishment have relentlessly promoted all manner of backwardness, deliberately seeking to pollute the public consciousness with law-and-order demagogy, militarism, the glorification of guns and the promotion of vigilantism.

One expression of this was the passage of so-called “stand your ground” laws in Florida and other states, which provide legal sanction for disoriented and violent individuals to take the lives of others they deem to be threats to their safety.

This process has been intensified under both the Bush and Obama administrations, which have sought to create a climate of fear under the cover of the so-called “war on terror.” They have promoted a spirit of hardness and lack of empathy for others, and a general devaluation of human life.

This has gone hand in hand with an assault on the living standards and democratic rights of the working class, and a vast growth of social inequality.

Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman—the disturbed would-be cop turned vigilante—is a social type nurtured by the promotion of political reaction.

Racism likely played a role in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. But racism is not an independent factor. It is one of the ideological tools used by the ruling class to divide workers and defend capitalism.

The verdict in the Zimmerman trial has predictably been seized upon by so-called “civil rights” leaders such as Al Sharpton and a host of pseudo-left organizations that base themselves on identity politics to rip the issue of race out of its roots in class exploitation and capitalism. This type of amorphous opposition to racism cannot go beyond presenting the issue in moral terms, and is therefore incapable of fighting discrimination and oppression.

As always, those leaders and organizations that promote it are tied to the Democratic Party. They oppose a unified and independent political movement of the working class and work to channel social discontent behind this party of the American corporate-financial elite.

Democratic politicians, leaders of official civil rights groups and sections of the media are calling for a “national conversation on race.” This is a diversion. What is needed is a “national conversation” on poverty, unemployment and social inequality that assumes the form of a mass working class struggle for socialism.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

By SHEILA KRUMHOLZ and ROBERT WEINBERGER
[Note we reproduce this NYT’s piece here for reasons of compelling public service.—Eds]

Hieronymus
ROOM FOR DEBATE

The I.R.S. is in the hot seat for scrutinizing conservative groups applying for tax exemption. But do all 501(c)(4)’s need a second look?

By Ruth Eisenbud

Gandhi understood the fallacy of creating the religious state of one people at the expense of another.