Right Ho, Lobby
By Israel Shamir
The inhabitants of a stately house are
embroiled in endless squabbling; the maids are getting
snippy, the engagement ring has been returned and the cook
has sent in his resignation. Into the midst of battle
strides the confident and clever valet Jeeves (played by
Stephen Fry in the BBC series), who successfully brings
peace to the warring household by presenting them with a
common enemy, the empty-headed Wooster. United in their
animosity, the lovers renew their vows, and the servants
line up behind their masters. This elegant ruse, once
described in Right Ho, Jeeves, a pleasantry by P.G.
Wodehouse, has just been employed with great success by the
impalpable force sometimes called the Zionist Lobby.
In a letter
addressed to the Times’ Editor, yesterday’s
adversaries are today united, falling into line as though
directed by the persuasive manners of an unseen Jeeves. Our
Wodehouse players once squared off over important
principles, yet suddenly they find themselves uncomfortable
bedfellows.
Let us review our cast: [See the full
list]
·
Nobel Peace laureate
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, enemy of apartheid, a friend of
Palestine. Last week, the Jewish community caused the
Minnesota University of St Thomas to
ban him.
·
The flamboyant Zionist, “Mr
Lobby”, Bernard-Henri Lévy, the hairy heir to a slave
owners’ fortune. He usually bashes Palestinians in his
frequent TV appearances. When his Negrophobe friend Alain
Finkelkraut was sued for too-explicit racist talk, Levy
defended him. [Maria Poumier added: Bernard Henri
Lévy tries to be known as a friend of Blacks. He inspired
the “SOS Racisme” movement during Mitterrand’s presidency,
in order to canalize the anger of young sons of immigrants;
(the president of SOS Racisme is Harlem Desir, an
unbelievable but real name of a son of Arab and Caribbean);
now BHL leads the campaign against genocide in Darfour,
supposedly for humanitarian reasons, but also because he
does not want China to make business with Sudan, and he
speaks very loud about it. Two weeks ago, he launched a big
concert against the DNA tests that Sarkozy wanted to use in
immigration matters - to prevent African fathers to bring
too many children in France; (at last, the deputies voted
for tests only to recognize the real link between children
and mothers). BHL organized the banishment of Dieudonné,
black comic, as an anti-Semite, though he was very popular;
before Dieudonne made any antizionist joke in his one man
shows, BHL had succeeded in ordering the French ministry of
culture not to fund the film Dieudonne wanted to make about
slavery; the film, called Le code noir, was written by a
very respected professor and philosopher, Louis Sala Molins.
Raymond Aron wrote in 1981 about BHL’s first mediatic book
“L’idéologie française”: “Many Jews in France are feeling
again threatened by anti-Semitism; as shocked people, they
increase by their reactions the danger –somehow fictional-
they face. This book says that danger is everywhere for
Jews, because French ideology oblige them to fight at any
time against an enemy that is hidden in the unconsciousness
of millions of French people. The French who are not Jewish
may conclude, after that book, that Jews are even more
different from other French that what they supposed, if such
an author, so much celebrated by the Jewish organizations,
seems to be unable to understand a lot of expressions of
French thought, being just able to reject them. BHL delivers
“the truth” in order to make the French nation know its past
and get rid of it; in fact, he is spreading salt on all the
uncicatrized wounds. Being hysterical, BHL increases the
hysteria of a sector of de Jewish community that already
tends to insane acts.” L’Express, feb. 7, 1981.]
·
Mairead Maguire, the brave
Irish fighter for Palestine, who befriended our
prisoner-of-conscience Mordecai Vanunu.
·
Russian arch-Zionist Elena
Bonner, the passionately anti-Muslim, anti-Communist,
neo-liberal Reaganite. She fought against the “Evil Empire”
for the rights of Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel and to
take the homes of the Palestinian refugees.
·
The great Nobel playwright
Harold Pinter, who spoke so passionately against the Iraqi
war.
·
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
man who gave you the Afghani war with its millions of
refugees – and boasted of it.
Anti-Communist and a hater of Russia to boot, he provoked
the Soviet intervention of 1980 and guided Osama bin Laden.
·
Our brave actress, Vanessa
Redgrave, who fought and suffered from many Lobby attacks.
·
A leading French Zionist
Andre Glucksmann, member of anti-Communist liberal left, who
supported both the Chechen separatists and the war.
·
The dedicated enemy of
Pinochet, Ariel Dorfman.
·
Pinochet’s greatest
admirer, Vladimir Bukovsky.
What is the power that has knitted
together this patchwork quilt, this motley collection of the
good, the bad and the ugly? Could it be this anonymous NGO
that came into being just yesterday called RAW in WAR?
Its proclaimed intention is to “recognise women who are
defending human rights in zones of war and conflict,”
surely a worthy aim; to deny your signature to such a
commendable undertaking would be to court public damnation.
Yet one might expect Rachel Corrie, the brave
American woman from Seattle who was murdered by the
Israelis, to be one of the first to be recognized as such.
Rachel Corrie died defending a Palestinian home from
destruction. She bravely placed herself in front of a
stranger’s home, believing in her heart that the man at the
levers of the Caterpillar bulldozer would not, could
not crush the life out of her for the sake of making
one more Palestinian family homeless. But the beast did not
stop, he drove on and smashed her body. The Israeli courts
exculpated him, and the US Jewish Lobby has successfully
banned a play based on her story, adding “the antisemite
got what she deserved”.
So, was Rachel Corrie the first to be
recognised by this august grouping? Not on your nellie. This
NGO has been created to commemorate the late Russian
journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She was killed a year ago by
persons unknown, and ever since that day the Zionist neocon
machine has been attempting to implicate the
all-too-independent Russian authorities in the murder. Her
name, together with the name of Polonium-poisoned
ex-spy Litvinenko, has become a battle-cry for neo-liberal
anti-Putin forces. They even drafted Litvinenko’s widow to
add her signature to the list, just in case you forgot one
of the crimes laid at Russia’s door. Of course they included
Daniel Pearl’s widow to add the obligatory anti-Muslim bias,
and Warsaw Ghetto fighter Marek Edelman for the mandatory
anti-Nazi angle.
How is it that the totally unknown
Bulgarian researcher Mariana Katzarova (the official
chairperson of RAW in WAR) could connect to so many
lords and ladies, archbishops and barons, Nobel laureates,
writers and VIPs to create this tour-de-force of a list? Is
she more powerful than Berezovsky and Nevzlin put together?
These two exiled multi-millionaire oligarchs have been
keeping the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya stories alive for a
year now, and they never generated anywhere near this kind
of furore. The media events dedicated to the memory of
Politkovskaya were organised by the New World Order
destabilisation shock troops, a.k.a. the National Endowment
for Democracy, or NED, a US government-funded organisation
“set up to legally continue the CIA’s prohibited activities
of support to selected political parties abroad” according
to Wikipedia. The new NGO’s list continues and expands
upon these anti-Russian pressure tactics, in order to
breathe new life into old news. The aim is to put pressure
on a Russian president who adamantly refuses to give a green
light to the planned Israeli and American bombing of Iran,
who supplies Syria with its air defence systems, who stopped
the oligarchs at their asset-stripping of Russia.
I do not intend to besmirch memory of a
murdered journalist, and it is not necessary to do so. Logic
will suffice: Anna Politkovskaya never presented a danger to
the Putin regime, being quite unknown to general public; the
idea of Putin demanding her death sounds a bit melodramatic.
The investigation of her murder is still going on, but it
seems likely that she ran afoul of some persons in the
Chechnya insurgency or counter-insurgency. The Chechnya War
was still a hot story a year ago, and today some ten
Chechens and a rogue security forces colonel sit in a Moscow
jail implicated in the murder. The Russian Attorney General
recently declared that the murder mystery is almost
unravelled. Politkovskaya’s son has expressed his full
confidence in police efforts.
He believes that the actual murderers and their patrons will
be found soon. Many Russian observers believe the murder was
ordered by persons desiring both to undermine Russian
society and to frame Putin. I have also expressed this view.
This technique brings to mind the reports that have emerged
from Lebanon, where anti-Syrian activists have been killed
by pro-Israeli gunmen to stir up “sectarian” violence.
The Russian government and people have
all condemned the assassination of Politkovskaya. The police
are tracking down the killers, and the family is satisfied
with the progress of the case. Is there more to this story?
The answer is Yes if you are a neocon: there must be a link
to Putin. Neocons use her dead body to undermine Russia.
Against the wishes of her family, and against the interests
of the Russian people, her name has become the lever to bend
Russia’s will. The letter to the Times dances to
neocon music.
Nobody can fault the signatories of the
letter to the Times for what they wrote. They wrote
very carefully: “We call on the Russian Government to bring
to justice, in full conformity with international standards,
both those who killed Anna Politkovskaya and those who have
ordered her murder.” It is impossible to refuse to sign such
a letter; don’t we all wish to catch the murderers? Yet what
is the purpose of this letter? It effectively demonstrates
that Zionists can mobilise even dedicated anti-Zionists and
anti-war activists against Russia. Strange bedfellows,
indeed. United, not against a war-mongering America, but
against a war-stopping Russia.
All this fancy manoeuvring reminds me of
the Wallenberg case. Raul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat in
the Nazi Germany and Hungary, saved many Jews by providing
them with Swedish passports and visas. In 1945 he was
arrested by the Soviet security in Budapest as a spy, and
died in jail in 1947. But he was not allowed to rest in
peace: the Zionists invented a fairy tale that he survived
and is still kept in a secret jail somewhere in Russia. They
have turned his honorable name into a slander. Over the
years, from the end of WW2 until the collapse of the USSR,
they put together thousands of rallies – from Washington to
Wellington - demanding the “release of Wallenberg”. Many
well-meaning westerners participated in these
demonstrations, and each innocent, manipulated soul helped
chip away at the USSR, ushering in the present unipolar
world of Judeo-American hegemony. Only after 1991 did the
Zionists leave the Wallenberg family in peace, for his 1947
death could no longer be denied.
It’s not that Zionists give a fig about
Swedish diplomats who saved Jews. There is another Swedish
diplomat in Germany who saved Jews: Count Folke Bernadotte.
Bernadotte was sent as the UN representative to Palestine in
1948 exactly for this reason: because he saved so many Jews
and had enormous sympathy toward Jewish refugees. But he was
a witness to the mass expulsion (Nakba), and he demanded
that Israel let the Palestinian refugees return home to
their villages. This good man of conscience was immediately
assassinated by a future Israeli Prime Minister. That’s how
it goes. The name of Wallenberg is given to streets and
squares in many cities around the world; the name of
Bernadotte is forgotten. This is the power of Jewish Lobby:
they can decide whose name will be known and whose name will
be forgotten, who will be blessed and who will be cursed.
But this is no miracle: they have
harnessed the true power behind modern democracies: the
multitasking machinery of mass media and public relations.
Modern Russia (like the USSR of old) does not dance to their
tune primarily because the Russian mass media has been
placed outside their grasp; consequently it has to be
destroyed. They are now using directing a plethora of human
rights organisations and humanitarian causes to this end, as
they used it in the Soviet days. Mme Bonner and others of
her ilk demanded the right of return for Russian Jews, while
denying the same right to Palestinians. Actually, we must
never forget that these two groups are not equivalent: the
Palestinians were expelled from their homes in our lifetime,
while Russian Jews were declared to be long-lost Hebrews.
There were thousands of rallies all over the globe, packed
with well-meaning westerners – maybe you? – demanding this
right for Jews and singing “Let My People Go.” But there
were no rallies demanding the right of return for the
Palestinians. If they were, they remained unreported, and
the participants were blacklisted.
They delivered speeches deploring the
lack of human rights in the USSR until the great ship went
down, and then they delivered the assets of the Soviet
people to the oligarchs. Apparently Yeltsin kept human
rights well preserved during this great period of
privatisation, for no one spoke of them. Yet when Putin rose
from the ranks to return some of these ill-gotten assets
back to the people, when he regained media from Jewish
control, suddenly human rights violations became headlines.
We would be very naïve to accept the
human rights mantra for its face value. Yes, I am very sorry
for Raul Wallenberg and for Anna Politkovskaya; but I am
equally sorry for Folke Bernadotte and Rachel Corrie; and I
would not sign a petition for the former unless it contains
the names of the latter. Otherwise, this is a trap for
well-intentioned people: they can find themselves speaking
for causes that are not their own, for reasons that they
would find repugnant. As they speak against the infringement
of human rights in Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Gaza, they are
denying these besieged states even a psychological respite.
Lay off, friends: let us first deal with the basic right to
be alive, for this right is severely threatened by the US
Air force. When this right is finally assured, we’ll deal
with the rest.
Still, Jeeves was right: one should
remember the common adversary. The same thought was well
formulated by Carl Schmitt: an enemy is a most important
political asset; and he should be chosen as carefully as a
friend. The truly formidable power of the Jewish Lobby is
its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block
competing attempts to unite. When we try to unite people
against Zionists, the Jews activate their “guilt by
association” weapon, and the weak-hearted begin to make
excuses, saying we cannot stand with you, because you
have been linked to a right-winger, or a Muslim militant, or
a Christian fundamentalist, or a Stalinist, or a Holocaust
denier, or a nationalist, or a racialist, or a terrorist, or
whatever. And our efforts fall apart.
Their tactics prove that they do not care
about human rights or democracy. They demonise Muammar
Qaddafi and David Duke and Roger Garaudy and Russian
Communists, but find no fault in warmongers Bernard
Kouchner, Zbiegnew Brzezinski, and Ariel Sharon. We all know
that Putin served in the KGB, but we do not hear often that
the great liberal hope, the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi
Livni, emerged from the secret service.
When they want to unite people, there is
no “guilt by association.” I might ask these wonderful (no
irony!) people like Mairead Maguire, or Desmond Tutu, or
Harold Pinter, how is it that they are not worried to put
their signature next to that of war criminal and warmonger
Brzezinski, next to Zionist and Negrophobe Levy, next to
arch-thief Havel who privatised half of Prague for his own
benefit? Probably they would not even understand me, because
there is only one authority licensed to demonise and issue
kosher certificates, and that is the Lobby.
Jews create and control the matrix of
demonisation, and so they do not fear it, just as Neo could
see through the Matrix of his world. Wasn’t the Borat movie
plainly racist? You bet it was. However, this Cohen had only
to say that he is a Jew, and all objections were voided. A
Jewish organisation could write without hesitation
“Sacramento's militantly anti-gay Slavic Christians are
suspected of harboring the killer.”
Is it a racist statement? You bet it is. If you doubt, try
to write “Sacramento's militantly anti-goy Jews are
suspected of harboring the killer” and see how far you get.
In the last German elections, Frau Merkel
made quite a few racist statements, stopping short of
demanding the expulsion of all Turks living in Germany, but
promising to stop Turkey’s membership bid in the EU so that
no more Turks might come to Germany. She was allowed to say
that and win, because she fully supported Israel and
America, and therefore she has been certified kosher by the
Lobby. As a result, Germany, a key member of anti-war
coalition in 2003, is suddenly a potential participant in
the coming war against Iran.
Besides its right-wing group of neocons,
the Lobby has its left-wing project. In the 1980s, the
Zionist Lobby-managed left-liberal (anti)communists provided
the left leg for imperialism, for the war against the
nations, for American hegemony. They were active in the last
decade of the USSR's existence, when the Zionists succeeded
in getting together many good and worthy people, from
Jacques Derrida to Italian Communist leadership, and made
them sing in unison, cutting off the left’s natural support
for Soviet Russia. Their contribution to the end of the
socialist experiment in Russia was decisive. After
fulfilling this task, these French and Italian liberal
communist parties simply faded away, no longer needed for
the Zionist cause. Imperialism now firmly stood on its
right, neo-conservative foot.
Yet the left is not dead. The letter to
the Times is a first harbinger of the winds of
change: the the Zionists have decided to bring their leftist
play back to life. In France, they even present Levy as a
symbol of “Left’s return”. With such Left, who needs Right?
Human rights idea could be good if these
rights were universal. But the paragons of human rights
usually stop where it is convenient for them. They are for
the minority rights, rights of gays and rights of bankers
and rights of Jews, but they are against rights of the
majority, the right to live and to bring up children and to
sustain one’s family, and the right to go to church or
mosque unmolested. One of the darkest figures of the world
affairs is Bernard Kouchner, the new French Foreign
Minister. A Zionist and a human rights activist, he
supported all past interventions based on human rights – the
bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Somali and Iraq, you name
it. He ruled over NATO-conquered Kosovo, and allowed his pet
Albanian gangs to burn churches and to expel the Serbs. Now
he supports Bush plans to attack Iran and Israel’s plans to
strangulate Gaza.
This is the face of a human rights paragon.
Nor has an alleged socialist Kouchner any
problem with serving under Sarkozy. Sarkozy ran for the
President under the banner of Le Pen. He took Le Pen’s
slogans, Le Pen’s ideas and Le Pen’s voters, with one big
exception: Le Pen was against the Judeo-American Empire.
That is why, while Le Pen was demonised by the Lobby,
Sarkozy was extolled. Now France is going to renege on the
greatest achievement of Charles de Gaulle, on his 1966
liberation of France from the NATO yoke. Sarkozy and
Kouchner are to return French troops under the US command,
and to return American bases into France in the greatest
revert of French foreign policy since Petain-Laval. Sarkozy
– Kouchner link gives the lie of the Left-Right dichotomy:
they may be united in the support of Israel and the US, and
they may be united in its rejection. This question – support
or rejection – is, or should be the “Friend or Foe” signal
on our radars.
This is a question of life and death: if
we have a common Zionist enemy, we shall be at peace; if we
have no common enemy, they will find us other enemies.
Putin’s Russia, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas,
Cuba and Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Burma, all can be turned
into enemies. Until recently, the Arab states were united
with Iran and Hamas in their rejection of Zionist schemes.
Switching gears, the Zionists offered a different animosity:
Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians. And it worked: the Arab
states accepted their idea that Iran is the enemy; and that
Islam of Hamas government is the enemy. . As soon people
forget that Zionism is the main enemy, they are started on
the march to a war.
Equally, democracy is a good idea. But
only the democracy that comes from the word “demos,”
people’s rule - not from the word “demo” like in “demo
version” (in Victor Pelevin’s words). The democracy
standard-bearers gather around George Bush, they are ready
to justify every aggression by the need to establish
democracy; but they reject the right of Palestinians to
elect Hamas, or the right of Venezuelans to elect Chavez, or
the right of Cubans to elect Castro, or the right of
Russians to elect Putin. NED, the National Endowment for
Democracy, that CIA-financed subversive organisation, is in
reality the greatest enemy of democracy because their
democracy is a tool of subjugation to the Judeo-American
paradigm. What’s worse, in Russia and Burma, Cuba and
Venezuela, the leaders become wary of democracy, and this is
an unfortunate development.
Thus the distinction between Zionists and
non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great
divide between war and peace, life and death. Do not cross
this line. Read the “Friend or Foe” signals carefully. Do
not support the enemy’s initiatives even if they appear to
be of wonderful intention. Always remember the bottom line:
what is the purpose behind every petition, each rally - even
a letter. Do not let our adversary to set an agenda with his
righteous indignation, honeyed words and sophistic devices.
If we shall set the agenda, we can usher in peace; if we
shall follow their agenda, we shall face war.