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
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
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
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=
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
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:
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