Comrade Raimondo Seeks a Scapegoat
By Israel Shamir
A man accused of witchcraft at the
Inquisition Court had two ways to defend oneself. One, he could
laugh it off, and declare: there is no such thing as witchcraft.
The problem is, the inquisition won’t approve of such a defence,
and the daring Witchcraft Denier may yet end at the stake, if
not for his black magic, then for his Denial. The second way was
to finger a ‘real sorcerer’ and thus to demonstrate one’s
obedience to the Inquisition.
This easier way out was chosen by an internet
columnist Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com who was
accused of variety of sins by a junior London-based
inquisitor called David Aaronovitch in The Times
(London). He decided to
scapegoat me. I find myself in a familiar predicament: much
as I sympathise with the victim of inquisition, I am not ready
to serve as his fall guy.
In brief, Raimondo says: I am not an
antisemite, but Shamir “of indeterminate ethnicity” is.
This is the path many good but frail guys
tread before him and it made them no good at all. The Columbia
University professor Joseph Massad comes to my mind: he accused
late Prof Israel Shahak of being antisemite. It did not help him
a jota: he was accused of the same dreadful offence by the same
inquisition he tried to placate and almost lost his job. Now
Raimondo goes the same path, and
not the first time. (3) He even took up the line of
"doubtful ethnicity": Jews use this disclaimer to imply that a
pureblood Jew would never stray that far. After repeating this
small slur, Raimondo may begin to check kosher certificates on
his bacon and eggs.
Pity, for a long time, I have kept a warm
spot in my heart for Comrade Raimondo. Much as I do not like the
US right-wingers, this flamboyant Republican-against-the-war
appeared to me a man who fulfils a positive function in the US
body politic. He is not the man I would like “to be in bed
with”, as he claims, for I do not like to be in bed with men.
But he is doing a good job, opposes Zionism and the US expansion
to the Middle East.
He writes, correctly: “The War Party greatly
fears unity among the antiwar forces. If they can succeed in
demonizing antiwar conservatives, and play on the Left's own
caricaturized conception of the Right – a caricature based on
ignorance and loyalty to an outmoded "left-right" paradigm –
they can split opponents of America's imperial ambitions and
even set them against each other.” After this, perfectly correct
line, he explodes in indignation: “what I have to do with the
likes of David Duke, Nick Griffin, and the founder of the
Baader-Meinhoff Gang, is a mystery to me”.
A hint: all these people – as well as the
Paleo-Conservatives, Nationalists, Communists and some Christian
and Islamic Fundamentalists - are against the US-led war on the
Third World. Strange, he does not want to see this common
denominator. He has these qualities in common with other people
whom I mentioned – from Duke to Mahler. I disagree with them on
many positions, but approve of their antizionism and
anti-imperialism. Likewise, Winston Churchill was not overtly
fond of Communism, but supported Stalin in his struggle against
Hitler’s Germany. Another more up-to-date example: fervent
Zionist and warmonger Aaronovitch supports the ‘antizionist Jews
for Peace’ in their attacks on Gilad Atzmon and myself.
The world-view difference between me and
Raimondo (and Buchanan, and others) is a normal Left vs. Right
difference. Raimondo’s main accusation that “Aaronovitch is
formerly a Communist Party youth leader” is in my eyes the sole
redeeming feature of the named Aaronovitch. Raimondo calls him
‘a Stalinist’, I reply with “alas, he is not”. But I agree
wholeheartedly with Raimondo that “Aaronovitch is a worm with
slime trail”. If the “left-right paradigm is outmoded” as
Raimondo claims, we should look beyond differences, to the
mutual convergence of interests.
Raimondo proclaims that “he is not against
Jews”. Well, this is not the Jewish view of him. Google
“Raimondo Jews”, and you will find that an important Jewish
publication describes him as “American
neo-fascist”, while the Chief of Staff of the Jewish Action
Alliance writes: “what makes Justin Raimondo an especially
dangerous anti-Semite is that he is too much of a coward to come
out as an anti-Semite directly; instead, he uses the ruse of
being anti-Israel.”
Raimondo tries to sell us his PC version of
the events:
“support for that war within the
administration had nothing to do with putting Jews in an
"exalted position," but everything to do with putting the
nation-state of Israel in such a position.” “Most American Jews
opposed the Iraq war, and they continue to oppose it. Israel is
not "the Jews" – it is a nation, with interests unique to itself
and policies that are all too often directly counterpoised to
the interests and beliefs of Jews worldwide.”
Very, very convincing. What, I pray, makes
“the nation-state of Israel” so influential in the US? Why this
small and far-away “nation-state” gets 90% support in the
Congress and Senate and receives over 50% of all American
foreign aid? Raimondo offers no answer of his own. For obvious
reasons he can’t agree neither with Chomsky’s thesis that
support of Israel is a real American Imperial interest nor with
our view. Thus it remains a mystery in Raimondian universe.
In our view ("Shamir's thesis"), the main
reason of Israel’s prominence in the US is the Jewish prominence
in the US discourse. Israel indeed is not ‘the Jews’, but a part
and parcel of the Jewish setup. If Raimondo were slapped by
Aaronovitch, he would probably claim that he was slapped by
Aaronovitch’s hand “which has nothing to do with Comrade
Aaronovitch”. In my view, if Aaronovitch’s hand slaps Raimondo,
probably his body and head are not too far behind.
I wonder what makes Comrade Raimondo a
leading expert on “the interests and beliefs of Jews worldwide”?
Jews say they support Israel (with miniscule exclusions) but he
knows better. He says that “the American antiwar movement
consists of a large number of Jews”. Very true, and that is why
the US antiwar movement was very hesitant of ever tying the war
in Iraq with the cause of Palestine. They preferred to blame the
war on ‘oil interests’.
Raimondo says that “most American Jews
opposed the Iraq war”. Even if it were true (and it is not) what
difference would it make? He notes that “60 percent of Americans
say we ought to start withdrawing from Iraq” but “the War Party
is still in the driver's seat”. Isn’t it the same story?
Opposition of ordinary Americans of Jewish descent to the War
does not influence the policy of ‘the Jews’ (i.e. of Jewish
elites) like the opposition of the ordinary Americans makes no
impact of Bush’s policies.
In order to present me as “an addled brain of
a nutbar”, Raimondo distorts my words. I write: “AIPAC and ADL
should be registered as foreign-interests lobbyist if not banned
altogether”. He writes: “Shamir's idea that the U.S. government
should ban Jewish organizations is grotesque, not only by
libertarian standards but by any measure of human decency.” I am
not aware of the measure of ‘human decency’ which forbids
banning of these two monsters for they run a (surely illegal)
private political police force in the US. This is certainly not
‘grotesque’ for the country which routinely bans even
philanthropic Islamic bodies. And who but Raimondo wrote in
2001: “when such groups [as AIPAC] put the interests of a
country other than the US at the very top of their agenda, when
nary a sliver of daylight can be found between their stance and
that of a foreign power – then Americans have a right to call
them on it”. Did he change his view since 2001?
He writes: “Shamir caters to his deranged
constituency of Jew-haters”. Far from it: our community of
shamireaders has many professors and priests, people of Left
and Right, of Jewish and Gentile origin, and is probably one of
the most diverse and exciting groups in cyberspace. We are still
ready to listen and swap views with all anti-War people, even
with Raimondo.
|
