For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



Response to Nigel Perry

By Israel Shamir


Mr Perry has worries. He is not worried about Palestinian refugees or about dried up rivers of Palestine. He is worried that a newspaper I quoted had a link with Holocaust deniers. “We are only one click away from common or garden variety Holocaust denial». Well, it is his worry. I am not worried at all by the ‘deniers’ or ‘revisionists’. My opinion on this subject was expressed in the Vampire Killers. But for Perry, as for every employee of the Jewish lobby, holocaust cult is the quintessence of holiness. You can deny Deir Yassin or Immaculate Conception, they would not move a eyelid. Only Holocaust is of interest for them.

Perry pushes it even further, ‘Shamir trying to sell apparently stolen Nazi memorabilia to David Irving, who is arguably the most famous Holocaust denier of our times’. In this sentence only names are spelt correct, all the rest is a lie, but let us, for the sake of argument, disregard it. After all, a lie speaks more than truth about its inventor.

What is wrong, in Perry’s mind, with David Irving? For me, a mass murder is a mass murder. Mass murder of Auschwitz is not better neither worse than mass murder of Dresden or Hiroshima. Both are irrelevant to the Palestinian conflict. As for denial, Shimon Peres denied the mass murder of Armenians, and somehow nobody is horrified.

On Wednesday, the 21st of June, a Paris court condemned Bernard Lewis, professor of Middle Eastern History at Princeton University for having denied the Armenian Genocide in an interview with "Le Monde", one of France's most renowned dailies. On Friday, 23 June, "Le Monde" reported about the sentence, as it was ordered to do by the court, on page 11.

It made absolutely no harm to Bernard Lewis. A leading figure of Not In My Name, Jewish pro-Palestinian organization, did not deny but justified the mass murder of Palestinian Christians in AD 614 (they were bad to Jews and deserved their death, he wrote), and he remained a best friend of Abu Nimah and Perry. Irving has his ideas on the scope of the mass murder of Jews during WWII. These ideas were recently voiced by the well known columnist of the Nation, Christopher Hitchens, and the mass murderer of Cambodians, Henry Kissinger, attacked him for ‘holocaust denial’.

Norman Finkelstein criticized the idea of the Jewish holocaust having no precedents, and mentioned that proposed signs of the Jewish holocaust’s uniqueness are just specific signs of this holocaust. All holocausts are dissimilar, as unhappy families in the opening of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. I would add, the idea of the Jewish holocaust’s uniqueness is based on a single premise: that of Jewish uniqueness. ‘Denial’ or ‘holocaust’ wasn’t ever a dispute about the events of the WWII. It is about power, about present powerful position of the American Jewish establishment and its Israeli offshoot. It is a frightener: whatever you say, you are not allowed to discuss, nay, mention the question of the Jewish power in the US.

Maxim Rodinson, a noted French Marxist and biographer of the Prophet, defined Israel as ‘a settler state’, a colony. But every settler state has its mother country, the source of external power. French Algerie was manned and supported by France. What is the external power supporting Israel? What is its mother country? It is not the US, it is the network of Jewish communities around the world led by the American Jewish community, the World Jewry. The US was a settler state, whose mother country was England. Later, the tables were turned, and the US became more prominent. Similar development took place in Brazil, that became more prominent than Portugal. Maybe Israel will become more prominent than its ‘mother country’, the overseas Jewish communities, but it did not happen yet.

The Algerian comparison helps to understand things. Imagine you are an Algerian visiting pre-Evian France. In these days French army killed and tortured thousands of Algerians. In France you would meet many French supporters of Algerian Arab people, and probably you will come to a conclusion: it is not France fights us, it is the French settlers in Algerie. But it would be a wrong conclusion: the war was carried out by the might of France. France – not the French settlers in Algerie – was criticized in the UN and demanded to put end to the war. French supporters of Algerian Arab cause knew they fight against France. They thought that there are things more important than consanguinity.

American Jews, supporters of the Palestinian cause, will do well if they will consider it. The war in Palestine is carried out by the offshoot of the American Jewry, and it will be won or lost in the US. The real power of the Jews is not just money, it is our strong influence over historical narrative achieved by holding (and sometimes misusing) important positions in the academy, media, study of arts. It is a delicate subject, and an American Jewish thinker Isaac Asimov turned to sci-fi in order to express his feelings. In his Foundation, he speaks of ‘guardians of the historical narrative’. Still, this subject has to be discussed, not necessarily on a Palestinian mail list, but here too.

The permitted discourse on Palestine is a mainstream Jewish discourse, between hard Jews of Kahane type and the soft Peace Now. It always takes for granted necessity of sustaining Jewishness of Israel. This precondition excludes real solution of our problems.

Nigel Perry is an enforcer of PC, Political Correctness. He proudly mentions many years of involvement with Palestinian cause. Well, such guys are one of the reasons why the Palestinian cause looks the way it does. He writes: ‘Shamir suggested that the only thing that would assist the cause of Palestinian liberation is the denigration and marginalization of the American Jewish community. Needless to say, both this analysis of the supposed problem and solution is intellectually and morally bankrupt’.

Perry lies and misleads. To point out the excessive influence of a group is not ‘to denigrate’. To pass the power of discourse to people at large is not ‘to marginalize’. Yes, the discourse should be changed and its base democratized, in America, Europe and elsewhere. That was the great idea of Edward Said, expressed in his Orientalism.

Present positions of the American Jewish ‘guardians of historical narrative’ are unsustainable, they are also damaging. Democracy in Palestine, for me, was always a symbol of democracy for all. Removal of Jewish extra rights in Palestine is connected with removal of Jewish extra rights in America. People should be equal and have equal access to discourse, in my opinion.

Maybe I am mistaken. But Perry’s argument shows the true interest of Perry. He takes care of his Jewish American employers and enforces their line in the Palestinian circles. I worry about you, the excluded ones, I write for you to help you with the discourse.

Perry wrote: ‘It is worth noting that Shamir's response to the Abunimah/Ibish
letter contains no actual denial of anti-Semitism. "Any irrational aversion to Jews should be certainly eradicated and condemned," is the closest he got. Not "I am not anti-Semitic" or any formulation so simple’.

For me, the A-s word has no definite meaning. If it means biological aversion to the descendents of Jews, I think it is bad. If it means dissatisfaction with the important positions held by the organized Jewry, it is reasonable. These positions are not sustainable anyway. Ethnic and religious minorities can dominate the Imperial discourse, as Greeks did in the Ottoman Empire, but only as long as they identify themselves with the true imperial interest. Otherwise, there will be a painful divorce.

The holocaust discussion appears to me a hidden crypto-religious discourse similar to the ‘filioque’ argument between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches, or a dispute about Caliph succession between Sunni and Shiah Islam. The sides say one thing, but mean something different. It is a crypto-discussion about Jewish power, as the Islamic discussion was an argument between power groups. I would say: drop this oblique talk, let Auschwitz rest in peace, speak about the real problem.

It has nothing to do with ‘guilt’, as French feel no guilt for a million of killed Algerians, nor Americans care about the murdered Vietnamese. ‘The guilt feeling for the Jewish holocaust’ is just a form of submission to the Jewish power. In the same way, confession of sins in the Catholic Church was a form of submission to the Church power.

As long as the participants of the discussion accept guidance of Nigel Perry and other crypto-supporters of Jewish exclusivity, they are bound to lose. The Western world is ripe for the real discussion of the real Jewish power, without fear of anti-Semitic labeling. After all, we are able to discuss the power of aristocracy, despite the aristocrats’ enormous suffering in the terror of 1793. Would ‘the hate laws’ apply to a discourse on the vestiges of the aristocracy influence?