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


FOR One Man, One Vote



Rarely does a commentary penetrate with the focused power of the writing of Israel Shamir. This is a problem for those who wish to keep the issues in a maze of fog and explains much of brouhaha surrounding his words in ostensive pro-Palestinian circles.


Heat & Light

by Joh Domingo


It is common knowledge that we stand under the blazing sun for hours; it will perhaps one day cause cancer if we lack sufficient melanin, but otherwise, there are no immediate significant negative effects. Just one square meter of the sun burns with the brightness of 232,500 candles. One Sq. M of sunlight onto a solar panel instantly generates about 5 amps of power or 18,000 amps/hour. We are exposed to millions of amps of sunlight a day, yet, we can survive a lifetime in the sun, because the suns rays are diffused and are relatively easily blocked by clothing, umbrellas etc.


On the other hand, those same 5 amps that are instantly produced by sunlight onto 1 Sq. Meter of solar panel can be used to cut diamonds; if correctly focused into a laser beam. We would hardly notice the impact of 5 Amps coursing through our body, but the same power, properly focused, could slice us up like schnitzel.


That is the power of FOCUS.


It is commonplace nowadays, for opinion about social issues to proliferate, often producing more fog than light. Still, illumination about various issues is provided by many commentators. Rarely does commentary penetrate with the focused power of the writing of Israel Shamir. This is a problem for those who wish to keep the issues in a maze of fog and explains much of brouhaha surrounding his words in ostensive pro-Palestinian circles.


Israel Shamir is precise about the nature of the creature afflicting the Palestinians - philo-Semitism. It is Jewish Nationalism, and Jewish celebration of a matyrological culture that holds: that one cannot be, what you are victim of, no matter what you do. Since they cherish the notion that Jews are perpetual victims, it follows that everyone else are considered perpetual victimizers. Those that miraculously are not, are placed in a special category reserved for the very… very few. The rest, who pose no immediate threat, are quarantined, to protect against agitators that would bring out their true murderous natures. 


This is an extremely alienating concept for those excluded by such particularistic notions. It is the Achilles heel of Zionism. A focus on this weakness will produce disturbance in the solidarity ranged against the Palestinians. Producing division in the forces against you has to be the number one priority in any struggle. 


Those that propagate the theory that the Palestinian struggle is part of a broader struggle against fascism and Racism, diffuse any specific pressure that can be brought to bear on the enemy. It is the opposite of common sense; a broader struggle diffuses the impact of the specific struggle. It is precisely because the broader struggle regulates ideology, that the specific struggle loses support, if they are in violation of the dogma of the broader struggle. Also, the broader struggle has a broader range of opponents that are automatically inherited by the specific struggle, even if the specific strugglers are unaware of it.


Left wing anti-Fascists have limited appeal. Generally, they have managed to alienate a broad segment of western society with their dogmatic adherence to ideology. They enjoy practically no demonstrable public support there, whereas in the developing world, left wing activists more closely align themselves with the traditionalist culture in their society. Even Union members in the west are more often right wing nowadays.


Let us recap:


Towards the latter part of 2002, a denunciation of the ‘anti-Semitic’ imagery in Shamir’s writing was published by Arab/American Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish on the internet. Their reasoning was along the lines that such imagery undermined the Palestinian struggle because it was essentially a struggle against bigotry and Racism; and that bigotry and prejudice underpinned anti-Semitism. The logic therefore follows, according to them; that if one were opposed to Zionist Racist oppression in Palestine, one had to be opposing bigotry and prejudice everywhere.


It would be nice if we could alleviate the Palestinian crisis, and at the same time cure Racism everywhere, but neither is going to happen, if we employ this logic. Instead, we are going to steadily alienate every conceivable source of support, on the grounds that it violates principles we supposedly stand for. Already Saudi support is unwanted. Baathist became an embarrassment a long time ago, and we can only hope Osama Bin Laden has not infiltrated our pristine movement. Islamic Fundamentalist are definitely persona non-gratis even though Hamas, an Islamist Palestinian Party, occupies center stage in the Palestinian struggle against Zionism. 


Abunimah and Parry’s missive was widely distributed, and the charge was taken up with gusto by elements within the Jewish dissident movement. But they imposed a blanket of silence, and never commented publicly about it again. Now Shamir suggests that Abunimah is at the forefront of a campaign to have the organized Deir Yassin Remembered group stripped of its tax-exempt status in the US, because of his presence on its board of advisors.


About two Months ago, Shamir addressed a Book promotion at the House of Lords that publicized several books by him and others. The meeting was organized under the auspices of Muslim Asian Peer Lord Ahmad. The address was published by Shamir on his website and distributed to his Newsgroup consisting of about 1500 members. Some members subsequently redistributed it to their own newsgroups. It therefore received fairly widespread distribution, as does most of his writing.


Belatedly, an article appeared in the Jewish Chronicle (London) and Rupert Murdoch Times, written by a self-confessed Zionist supremacist, Stephan (“I am a Jew”) Pollard. (The phrase is not de-contextualized; it appears as a fragment on his <a href=>Webblog.</a>)


The publication of this piece precipitated an diatribe avalanche on Jewish centered pro-Palestinian discussion groups as philo-Semites geared themselves up for a campaign to get others to denounce Shamir for his ‘anti-Semitism”. They have long denounced him, but realize that it has had minimal impact, by Jewish standards. Their argument revolves around similar logic of Abunimah and Ibish – anti-Semitism hurts the Palestinian cause (ostensibly because it is a form of bigotry).


Is the fight for justice for Palestinians a fight against bigotry? Possibly, but it is light not a laser; precisely because the term means so little – ‘bigotry’ that is. It means the opinion of others that does not reflect your own opinion. It means intolerance of the opinion of others.


So what is it we don’t like about Zionists? They tend to kill their subjects with impunity, herd them into ever decreasing pens … in general treat them with despicable injustice. But that is not what Shamir is being accused of; he is being accused of refusing to treat White Nationalist AKA ‘Nazi’s’, like pariahs – and it is they who are being accused of the worst imaginable sins.


This view, even if one accepts its premise, presents us with a stark choice: present reality of naziesque behavior against potential future Nazi behavior. It is seldom that any of us react with bigotry against Zionist. We argue and debate, we sometimes even call them names; but we never try to stifle their discourse. They are tolerated, nay, they are mainstream, and it is us who are barely (if at all) tolerated. 


Seen in this light, it is obvious that the least tolerated, are White Nationalist, and that anyone who tolerates them is to be despised along with them. The rhetoric is thick with innuendo about how Shamir actually talks to these people. It is cited as a grave sin that he references some of them in his essays, and that his pieces circulate amongst them. By doing so, Shamir legitimates discourse with ‘them’. But should discourse with them be delegitimated?


It is pretty clear just who is the bigot here; and it is hard to describe Shamir’s behavior as bigotry. Words and concepts seem to have been turned on its head and their meaning debased – tolerance is now defined as bigotry, and bigotry is averred to be a fight against fascism.


But even these anti-fascist warriors have a remarkable amount of tolerance themselves, when it suits them – they link to and quote Zionist fascist at will, in support of their actions. By any definition, Stephen (“I am a Jew”) Pollard is an anti-Black, anti-White, anti-Arab hatemonger and self-described warmonger. But he is quoted at length and his words are publicized by these ‘anti-fascists’.


Likewise, the argument that anti-Semitism hurts the Palestinian cause stands on shaky ground. The ‘anti-Fascist’ logic goes: We cannot become like Zionist, and anti-Semites discredit the Palestinian cause. The implication is that Nazi’s are similar to Zionist, and would hate the Palestinians if they were in the Zionist shoes. But it is conjecture and assumes much; presuming that every White Nationalist is a Hitler. It is pure prejudice and hatred of those with a different outlook. One would have to presume that these ‘anti-Fascist’ would advocate the elimination of every Palestinian that chooses to live a traditional life, based on this display of hatred of those with different values.


And it is about values: theirs, as opposed to everyone else’s. One of the primary values of Zionism is the dogmatic belief in the supremacy of its own values, and the suppression of anything that opposes it.


I generally like people; all kinds of people, even Zionists and White bigots, and prefer to concentrate only on their positive traits if I can. It is impossible for people to hate you, if you like them. That is a fundamental law of human nature. A political stand should be made against ideologies, and dogmas; not people. Attempts to smear individuals violate the principles that govern human interaction, which regulate personal relationships, by fostering a culture of suspicion and prejudice.


I have never met Israel Shamir in person, and no doubt will, someday soon. I cannot help but feel that an attempt has been made to corrupt my impressions to date. Certainly attempts have been made to get me to at least be reasonably skeptical about his background and an obvious reliance is placed on the use mud that has been flung his way, to this end. But throwing mud patty cakes is a sure way of getting yourself dirty; I am already discounting the accusers, before I even examine the evidence, or lack of it.


The Swedish Connection:


While Israel Shamir’s connection to Sweden has been raised as a revelation of epic proportions, I found it at most to be merely intriguing. Many people live in several different countries, and many Israelis have dual nationalities. I have a good cyber friend who lives in both the US and Italy. This information doesn’t inform the issue in the least, and is entirely irrelevant and personal, whether or not it is true. This includes any discussion about Shamir’s relationships with women and his children. It should be dismissed out of hand as inapropos. 


It is alleged that Shamir changed his name (in Sweden) to Joran Jermas. Indeed Roland Rance, in one of his many screeds against Shamir, suggests that he goes under various other names: Schmerling/Robert David/Vassili Krasevsky as well. But it is the name Jermas that is purported to be verifiable. But it is never verified in any of the screeds against him. Jermas is supposed to be an ‘anti-Semitic’ Swedish writer, with the name-change occurring in 2000; yet there is no verifiable article or piece of writing by him on the net. This is disappointing, for if Shamir is indeed Jermas, the writing would probably be just as good. None of the other names show up in a search either.


What does it all mean? Well nothing really, according to Rance; his opposition stems from the anti-Semitic writings of Shamir, not Jermas. It is Jermas that is sullied by the reference to Shamir, not the other way around. Jermas is a cleanskin in the anti-Semitism stakes. Who knows why Shamir would want to change his name in Sweden, what does it matter if he does? It certainly has little relevance, even if it were true. Some of the finest thinkers published material under a pseudonym, as well as in their own names. It really strikes me as being a storm in a teacup in an obvious attempt to generate heat where none exists.  


By all accounts, verified from the numerous people that have met Shamir, he does indeed live in Jaffa, Israel, and is well known locally. Information about his military service is also easily confirmed from the public record, and we have to assume that MOSSAD would likely have checked him out for Roland Rance & Stephen (“I am a Jew”) Pollard long ago. There are recorded links to his work translating James Joyce into Russian.


The issue seems to be that Shamir ‘came from nowhere’ in 2001. This is a ridiculous manifestation of the prejudice of Anglo society that presumes that if someone does not exist in an English version somewhere, they must not exist. Shamir himself reveals that he did not write in English until 2001. Where were we when he was writing in Russian or many of the other language the obviously multilingual Shamir is proficient in? An ability to learn languages is an indication of intelligence, and is not mysterious as Roland attempts to imply.


In the end, a personal attack is presented as an attempt to express solidarity against Racism and bigotry. Well, I will happily stand with those that oppose Racism, but also reject, with disgust, the philo-Semitic solidarity expressed by crypto Zionist ‘anti-Fascists’. It doesn’t matter how long they believe they have been championing the Palestinian cause, they are mere legends in their own lunchtime, continuing to shine light, in order to cut a diamond. For diamonds – you need lasers.


Joh Domingo

Brisbane Australia