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


FOR One Man, One Vote



Noam Chomsky discusses the fate of Sudetenland, while the Wehrmacht marches on Champs D'Elysees. It is Tehran and Paris that are under threat, not Ariel or Maale Adumim.

The Spider Web
La toile d’araignée
By Israel Shamir

A new discussion over future of Palestine rages on the Web. Our esteemed friend Noam Chomsky replied to Noah Cohen who called his 'soft' position on Palestine "Apologetics for Injustice", and was replied to in turn by Steve Kowit, a well-known American poet from a large Zionist family. In brief, Chomsky proposes to remove Jewish settlements and to bring forth a Palestinian state, while maintaining the Jewish state within its 1967 borders. He calls this "the only realistic solution to the present situation".

We could agree with the words of Steve Kowit, weighing in.
"The two-state solution is neither a state nor a solution. It is a con game".

We could stress that there is no political force or will in Israel to withdraw, to remove the settlements from the West Bank and West Jerusalem or to transfer the lands to the PNA. Moreover, recent developments, including the construction works to the East of Jerusalem, make such an outcome seem utterly fantastic (see, for instance, Letting Israel Self-Destruct by Danny Seidemann in Washington Post Fri, 27 Aug 2004). The proposed redeployment in Gaza is the best proof that removal of settlements is too hard an objective for any Israeli government.

But this argument is irrelevant, for the settlements are not the problem, the spirit is. The prevailing mood in Israel and in the Jewish communities overseas is anything but defeatist; it is Tehran and Paris that are under threat, not Ariel or Maale Adumim. Chomsky discusses the fate of Sudetenland, while the Wehrmacht marches down Champs D'Elysees. Such a discussion presumes that a heavily beaten Israel seeks peace and discusses the way to arrange for peace. But Israel is not defeated; to the contrary, the Jewish state - comprising its adepts abroad - is in fast-forward mode. And the dangers ahead are great - for all of us.

Noam Chomsky tries to deal with the problem of Palestine as if it were West Timor or East Kurdistan. But it is not: the troubles of the Holy Land often have a global character. The unwise step of Caliph al Hakim sent Crusaders to our shores. When Turks tried to rearrange hours of prayer in the Church of Nativity, it ended with the light cavalry attack on Balaclava. Any meddling with its holy sites has a direct influence upon minds of millions.

As long as there is a Jewish state in the Holy Land and in Jerusalem, millions of ex-Christians will be tempted to accept the Judaic narrative of history and society, including the theological significance of the Holocaust and of Jewish ingathering; millions of Jews will fervently follow their leaders, and their super-rich leaders will proceed with their mad Zionist plans. This has dire ideological consequences for all of us, as the Zionist offensive is fully integrated with another great offensive of our days, -- the attempt to impose a consumerist totalitarianism in a Brave New World. We shall call Noam Chomsky as a witness for the Crown.

Noam Chomsky (together with Ed Herman) in his seminal book Manufacturing of Consent well described the propaganda machine creating a uniform vision and compliance 'beyond dreams of a Stalin'. In his Fateful Triangle he described the Zionist angle of this apparatus; the distortion of reality by the US media causing pro-Israeli bias in the collective consciousness of the Americans.

He should be able to notice that the same disease now engulfs the West, East Europe and Russia; that the Zionist angle became a cornerstone of the new totalitarian world order he has depicted. Some 20 or 30 years ago, when these books were written, Chomsky could counterpoise Britain and Europe to the US. Not any more.

Recently, on a front page of the Sunday Times, there was a big headline 'Suicide Bombers in London' accompanied by a photo of a Palestinian youth in a headscarf sitting under a map of Palestine. Probably passers-by and superficial readers were convinced that Palestinians were on the way to bomb them. Careful reading of the article revealed a much less troublesome thing: during their house-to-house searches, London anti-terrorist squads came across a young Palestinian who applied a year ago to the Home Office for the refugee status. He attenuated his request by claiming that back home he was asked to become a suicide bomber. The Home Office did not believe his claim and rejected his request half a year ago. This no-news was presented as the top news on the front page of the national weekly.

Is it part of a Judaic conspiracy to besmirch Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims? You bet it is. Is it a part of a totalitarian conspiracy to train Brits to love their deep-trailing anti-terrorist squads and to give up their freedoms? You bet it is. This congruence of two conspiracies makes us wonder whether they are two, or just one.

Likewise, there is a conspiracy connected with the recent wave of terrorist acts in Russia (the school, the planes, the Underground explosions) and in Beer Sheba in Israel. In today's (05/09/04) Ha'aretz, the liberal Israeli observer Zeev Shief writes in his article Islamic Terror: from Osetia to Beer Sheba: "There is a link uniting the massacre in a school in Osetia, genocide in Sudan, bombing of a train in Madrid, terror attacks on Istanbul synagogues and explosions on Beer Sheba buses. The link is The Islamic Terror, mainly Arab Islamic Terror, the danger to the world peace'.

While we agree with Shief that there is a 'link' (another term for 'conspiracy'), is it an 'Islamic' or 'Judaic' link? And I do not mean only the possibility of a False Flag operation, which is also quite possible.

There was the precedent of the Achille Lauro operation, deemed a 'Palestinian terrorist crime'. The film and opera Death of Klinghoffer, telling of a Jewish cripple's murder, is vaguely based on the events of 1985 when Palestinian guerrillas took over the ocean liner. But "that was, in fact, an Israeli 'black' propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cut-throat bunch the Palestinians were", admitted Ari Ben-Menashe, a former special intelligence advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, in his book, Profits of War. The operation was ordered by the Israeli secret service and organized by their Palestinian agents inside Palestinian militant organizations .

But we should consider the bigger and more dangerous Judaic conspiracy: undue influence on discourse. A major share of world media is concentrated in Jewish hands, well beyond the wild dreams of the mythic "Elders," and this share is growing daily. In Chile and Argentina, in Kazakhstan and Canada, even in far-away Finland with its tiny Jewish community, the key media belongs to Jews. In Russia, every outrage of independence-seeking Chechens is immediately compared by ubiquitous Judeophilic editors to 'Palestinian atrocities'. In the UK, the media is cornered by a group of extreme Judeophiles. from Conrad Black to Rupert Murdoch, and ethnic Jews from Michael Green to Richard Desmond. Just recently Haim Saban bought another German TV network. As for the US, we have a good list of Jews in the media drawn by our friend Jeff Blankfort, available on the Web.

Socrates and Zuleika

The bulk of mainstream media collaborates in both conspiracies, in the totalitarian conspiracy and in Israel-connected conspiracy. It is difficult to distinguish between the prominence of Jews in the media and universities, and their instrumentality in establishing the new totalitarianism. The ADL and SPLC, two powerful Jewish organisations, are prominent tools for establishing the police state.

The ADL, a Judaic tool of ideological control, runs a network of informers, spies after activists and thinkers and supports every oppressive undertaking of the US Government. Our friend Noel Ignatiev writes of "a recent fundraising letter from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which claims to have 'the most extensive computerized files on militias and hate groups in existence,' including over 11,000 photographs, reports on 14,000 individuals and intelligence on over 3,200 groups. The SPLC boasts of having written to Attorney General Janet Reno in October 1994, before the Oklahoma City bombing, warning her of impending illegal, violent activity by white supremacist groups. It publishes an intelligence report, which goes out regularly to over 6,000 law enforcement agencies".

Ignatiev asks: "Does this snooping and snitching foreshadow the brave new world they seek to build?" Absolutely, professor! The new world does not appear ex nihilo, it grows in the dying body of liberal democracy, and if we want to stop it we should attend to it now.

Iran Under Attack

The case of Iran is a proof of Judaic conspiracy or, if you prefer, of Jewish positions in the discourse. There are no real pragmatic reasons for the Western media to go for the jugular against Iran as it does. Iran is a peaceful, far-away land of gentle women and manly men, of stucco and ceramics at the high portals of their blue mosques, of delicate illuminations and Sufi poetry. I was captivated when I saw young girls of Shiraz placing freshly-cut roses on the tomb of Sa'di, the 13th century creator of Gulistan -- people who venerate their poets can't be wrong, in my book. Iranians do not travel much; they stay home, tend their rose gardens and produce the best films of our time.

Now we witness the concerted Judaic drive to bomb Iran. The reasons are various: some want to bomb Iran because its women are forced to wear the hijab, and others because they do not like religious states (if the religion is not a Judaic one), some perceive it as a threat to Israel, and others because Iran has no gay marriages; but the bottom line is always the same: bomb Iran. It is so unified that I am ready to propose a new definition of a true member of Jewry (as opposed to an individual and reluctant Jew) - it's one who wants to bomb Iran. The Jewish American newspaper Forward writes:

"AIPAC is obsessed with Iran," said a Washington executive with a major Jewish organization .

Charles Krauthammer calls for an "urgent pre-emptive attack". He openly admits that this is the dear wish of the Jewish state but, he says, "for Israel, attacking Iran is a far more difficult proposition. It is farther away… But there are 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away -- in Iraq". America exists to take Judaic orders - that much is clear for Krauthammer and for the Washington Post, his preferred tribune.

Alan Dershowitz goes further and writes: Israel has the right, under international law, to protect its civilians from a nuclear holocaust, and that right must include pre-emptive military action…. " Kam Zarrabi drops a witty remark: "Why doesn't he grant other nations the same right? "

Haim Harari, a leading Israeli strategist, a theoretical physicist, former President (1988 to 2001) of the Weizmann Institute of Science recently gave a talk entitled Eye of the Storm. He says:

"Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon. As a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them. I do not know if the American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting situation. In my humble opinion, the number one danger to the world today is Iran and its regime. It definitely has ambitions to rule vast areas and to expand in all directions. It has an ideology, which claims supremacy over Western culture. It is ruthless. It has proven that it can execute elaborate terrorist acts without leaving too many traces (read: there is no proof for this claim.- ISH). It is clearly trying to develop nuclear weapons."

One of the most popular Jewish scribes on the web, American writer Irwin N. Graulich, whose most recent article has been posted on over 100 websites worldwide as well as in numerous publications, writes in his Let Israel Do Iran :

"Iran is a terrorist organization with a flag and an example of virtually everything that could possibly be wrong with a government--totalitarian, autocratic, religious, fundamentalist and a tyranny over its populace".

The media of new totalitarianism, being Jewish-dominated media, follows this line. the case of the Guardian, a newspaper with long and troublesome record stretching back to the Balfour declaration (they supported it). In May 2004, our relentless efforts to bring attention to the Neo-Cons, the right-wing Jewish faction in Washington, as the engine behind the Iraqi war, bore fruit and splashed from Internet to the printed media. Reports appeared showing Perle and Wolfowitz pushing for the war in full accordance with their plans drawn up for Benjamin Netanyahu, and with the doctrine of wicked wizard Leo Strauss.

Immediately, the Guardian sprang into action. On May 25, 2004, the Guardian's main headline rolled the blame onto … Iran. It read: "US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war", positively the best blame-shifting headline since "It was the Serpent's fault" in the Paradise News. The report by Julian Borger quoted unidentified "intelligence officials" who "believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour'. The hawks needed Iranian encouragement as much as wolf has to be enticed to eat sheep. I have no doubt that this "report" originated in the JINSA milieu, but the audacity of the Guardian duty editor who pushed the vague and baseless insinuation on the front page speaks volumes about Judaic power.

Why do the Jews want to bomb Iran? Why have they induced the US and partly Europe with the idea that the Iranian A-bomb is so much worse than an Israeli one? Are they afraid that a nuclear Iran will defend the Palestinians and stop the Israeli outrage? Alas, experience does not show that Iran or any other Arab or Muslim state is ready to fight for Palestine. This is well known in Tel Aviv and in New York.
There is only one eventuality regarding when the Doomsday weapons are liable to be brandished: if and when the Jews destroy al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem to erect their temple.

The Judaic conspiracy to bomb Iran is sterling proof that this plan is hatched and the countdown begun. Mezvinsky and Shahak (Jewish Fundamentalism, Pluto Press) describe the immense influence of this idea. From being an obscure thought of a few nuts, the plan of the Third Temple has grown into a mass obsession.

If and when this happens, Armageddon will find its way into the news, and it won't stop at the Euphrates. Let me quote Irwin Graulich once more:

"The world is divided into three groups. Those who would like Israel destroyed. Those who support nations (directly or indirectly), that want Israel destroyed. And the United States of America. [After the destruction of Iran], the only serious problem remaining will be, "What the heck to do with Europe and Scandinavia?"

What to do? Mordechai Vanunu brought us irrefutable images of hundreds nuclear bombs in Israel's possession. Such an amount is not needed for the subjugation of the Middle East. It points to a bigger goal.

In this situation, the discussion of Israeli withdrawal is premature, to say the least -- as out of place as the discussion of German withdrawal from Prague in 1941. The "limited option" of rolling back the Jewish state does not exist, unless one considers creation of enclaves in Gaza and elsewhere as the way to the Two- State Solution. But if by some miraculous means, say, by Aladdin's Genie, it could be done, it would not solve the problem. Even a smaller Jewish state with its capital in Jerusalem would serve as a focus for Jewish efforts all over the world. It would still endanger its neighbours. It would still drive crazy millions of ordinary people in the US who were bewitched by the big lie of prophecies fulfilled. It would still empower the apparatus of a new totalitarianism built by media lords, unless it is, as our friend Dr Miriam Reik proposed, just a small demilitarized Jewish statelet on 10% of the Palestinian land, encircled by a wall.

The international support for Israeli withdrawal asserted by Chomsky has very little value, for none of the international bodies and/or states dares to say "boo" to Jews. In the US, Bush and Kerry compete over who loves Jews the most. In Europe, the most recent act of political will expressed by Germany was providing Israel with nuclear-capable submarines, by France - reciting mea culpa for Israel-organised anti-Jewish actions, and by IAEA - turning a blind eye to Dimona and demanding the disarmament of Iran. The PNA has very little authority and its popularity among Palestinians is in rapid decline. Arab states have no will to challenge Israeli dominance. Even the pro-Palestinian activists, instead of forcefully moving forward, argue endlessly what one may say without being targeted as "antisemitic".

Chomsky writes: "Israel would oppose it (forced democratisation) by any possible means: that includes the ultimate weapons, which Israel has available and can use". The world can't acquiesce to the threat of Israel's "ultimate weapons". It is too much of a danger, much more than the weapons of peaceful Iran.

I totally agree with Noam, we should look for a realistic response to the danger. However, realism and pragmatism call us - not to give in to the nuclear blackmail, not to daydream about Israeli withdrawal, but to eliminate the danger inherent in the Jewish state by the most humane means at our disposal. Such means are the transformation of the Jewish state into a state for all its citizens. Jewishness or otherwise of citizens should not have any bearing on their status in Palestine as elsewhere; and the "bi-national idea" does not conform to this rule.

To be sure, Israeli elites would not like this solution: they would prefer to bomb Tehran, demolish al Aqsa and establish Judaic Jerusalem as the seat of the world government. The ordinary people of Israel are ready for peace, but who asks ordinary people's opinion? The real dilemma we face is to give in to these demands or to dismantle the Jewish state and bring forth democracy.

However, democratisation of Palestine can't be achieved until another realistic measure is attended to: the discourse should be taken out of the Judaic hands and their hold on media should be broken. Hundred years ago, Americans broke down the empire of Rockefeller, the mighty Standard Oil. One hundred fifty years ago they put paid to slavery. They can complete this task as well.

Noam Chomsky, a great man with a wonderful record, could play an important role in this transformation. His Jewish background may help to promote the idea and bring it to fruition by peaceful means. Though suffragettes were women, their victory was granted by men in power. Though black slaves rebelled, white abolitionists brought them freedom. Likewise, the liberation of discourse from Judaic clutches may be achieved by men like Noam Chomsky.