Thursday, January 19, 2012

Movies and the US' historical support for Zionism

I clearly remember a piece on, probably more than ten years ago which gave background information about the US' relation to Israel. It pointed to a poll that showed that in 1947 or 1948, people in the United States favored people as opposed to Arabs by a margin of about two to one. 28% to 13% if memory serves. I have not seen a link to that since but one day it likely will re-emerge and I'll have a place, here, to put it so I'll be able to find it subsequently.

I often read that the United States did not favor Israel until 1967. This is not true and it was not perceived in the region to be true at the time. The United States may have taken the role of Israel's primary patron from Britain and France around that period, but come on, if the USSR had been supposedly relatively neutral, but Israel's primary patrons had been Poland and East Germany, the people of the region would very understandably have been far better disposed to the US than to the USSR.

But what brings this up is two interesting comments over at RaceforIran, one by Fiorangela, one by Richard Steven Hack.

Fioangela's (January 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm):
The skewed values that are seeded in Anglo-American culture were planted there by emotional media — religious liturgies, entertainment, quasi-religious fiction and fictionalized and valorized history. Norman Finkelstein observed in a videod conference titled The Coming Break-up of American Zionism, that what most people understand about Israel they learned from the movie “Exodus.” Then he hummed the iconic theme song.
Hack's (January 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm):
And I was initially conditioned toward Israel decades ago by the movie, “Cast a Giant Shadow”, with Kirk Douglas. That movie promoted the myth that the poor Jews were being attacked by an overwhelming Arab force, abandoned by everyone internationally (except John Wayne!), and that they had no weapons, no armor, no planes, no nothing but the will to survive. And all Arabs were cowardly, stupid subhumans…

Then, of course, eventually I read Wikipedia… Which revealed all of that was so much total ruminant evacuation… The Jews had more men, better trained men, better arms, and had been using terrorism against the Brits and Arabs for decades in order to force the native Palestinians off their own lands so they could form a colonialist, imperialist, terrorist, rogue Zionist state without any justification whatsoever other than that they were “God’s Chosen People”.

And we’re supposed to think the mullahs are crazy…
Today most people in the United States have in their heads preposterously fictional ideas of what Israel and Zionism represent. The pro-US commenters in this blog may well generally be more guilty of that than most. It is interesting to read from people in the United States exactly how these false ideas were born.


Lidia said...

I suppose to 1947 Jews in USA were mostly granted the status of "whiteness", like Slaves, Greeks, Italians and such. Arabs, esp. Muslim (and I bet that 99% of USA population was not and still are not aware of Arab Christians) were and still mostly are NOT "white".

Regarding USSR I should admit that I could not justify its initial support for Israel. It was not only unjust, it was also a stupid mistake by Stalin, who hoped for friendly state in the ME, then practically a batch of UK and French colonies. My only consolation is that it really was NOT a typical USSR behavior. From the beginning USSR supported colonized peoples against  their colonial masters. It was only logical, of course. 

Pirouz_2 said...

After a long abscence (I was on a trip ), I am back. And I want to clarify some questions in my head.
Media (News papers, radio and TV stations, Hollywood etc.) in the West are capitalistic ventures with the aim of profit. Furthermore, I believe that many owners of Media also have other investments (in finance and industry).
I will ask this question in RFI too, but here I ask this to the company on this blog:
What factors do you think made Media behave the way it has?
Profit of the capital and by necessity a need for Western hegemony? A love for jews? Being controlled by jews? Feelings of guilt for what happened to jews in WWII (I am not talking about how the educated people in US feel, but rather the motivation for the owners/controllers of the media)?
In general do you believe that the creation of Israel benefited the world jewery? Would jews be less happy (ie. less well off and wielding less social power) if they had stayed as citizens of Western Europe, US and Canada rather than being Israeli citizens?
By the way, I find it rather interesting (so perhaps you would find it interesting too) that -generally speaking- Jews (at least in the Western world) consider themselves to be 'caucasian'. And of course unless you agree with Shlomo Sand (as I am inclined to agree with him) that European jews are not from the same ethnic group as the middle eastern jews (and that Jewish poppulation in Europe did not immigrate to there from the middle east, but were rather Europeans who converted into Judaism), then there is nothing as absurd as considering jews as 'caucasian'. If we go by the 'story' of Jews having emmigrated to all other parts of the world from the middle east then jews are as caucasian as Arabs are and in fact a heck of a lot less caucasian than Indians and Pakistanies are. 

Lidia said...

Hi Pirouz_2

1) Capitalism in USA is imperialism , thus colonialism. So, Zionists were just fellow colonizers for their USA allies.
2) Do not forget that WWII itself was a war for new colonies (from Germany and Japan POV) and in defense of existing colonies (UK, France, USA and so on)
3) In 1947 colonialism was still "respectful" in the West and Western states, including recent victims of Hitler (Netherlands and France, for ex.) were busy reminding their subjects who was the master.
4) Media capitalists in USA were partially Jewish but mostly just "simple" capitalists and imperialist (the same now). I see nothing odd in their support for Zionism, no more than in their support for all colonial wars by the USA.
5) Regarding "whiteness" of Jews - it is just a rubbish as every racist indication is a rubbish. Races are not a natural thing, but a social one. Racists usually grant the stamp of "master race" without ANY logic and sense. 

Fiorangela said...

Iranians were the original "Caucasians" -- Scythians, the core philological, er, language-- and cultural group of Aryans--"the noble ones"-- migrated from the Russian plateau over the Caucuses into the land of the (vanquished) Elamites, Medes and Persians somewhere around 1700-1500 BCE (I might have the years wrong; it's after Namar Sin succeeded his father in the conquest of Sumer for Akkad, because the merged Scythians & Medes collaborated, for a time, with Sin.

btw, the Aryan language group spans a broad arc all the way to Ireland -- which also means "the noble ones" -- across Europe, through Finland, southeast to India and Persia/Iran. That's why they call it IndoEuropean. (also interesting to note that Hitler was not nearly as obsessed with "race" as were the Jews in Europe and especially Palestine -- ARthur Ruppin was a eugenecist intent on building the "new Jew" and using only select "human material" from East Europe, German Ashkenaz (see Etan Bloom, "Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine).

Hebrews, who were named Yehud --> Jews by Persians/Cyrus after Cyrus defeated Nebuchadrezzar for control of Babylon ~536 BCE, originated in Ur, in Mesopotamia.  I don't know if Ur is Arab or Urian!!!  Present day Ashkenaz Jews have a deep antipathy to being associated with their ethnic roots -- go figure:  the tribe that has been tearing up the world for the last 100 years to claim their "ancient homeland" despises their true ancient origins.  David Shasha is a Sephardic Jew ie from the Orient/Babylon, migrated with North African Muslims ("Moors") to Iberian peninsula, then were welcomed by Ottoman Turks to be part of Ottoman empire after expulsion from Spain. He writes passionately of the second-class or worse status ascribed to Sephardic Jews by Ashkenaz Jews (Jews from Europe who conceptualized zionism & are colonizing Palestine).

iirc other Jews expelled from Spain migrated to Netherlands; many found refuge in central Italy. The Ghisolfi family eventually became something like trustees of a branch Genoa's Bank of St George, and managed the Genoese bank's interests in the area around the Black Sea -- Odessa (home of Vladimir Jabotinsky).  Ghisolfis ultimately failed as bankers and more or less merged into the general Jewish population.

Ashkenaz Jews claim to have emerged from groups of Jews that Titus expelled from Jerusalem in ~70CE to locations in Southern Italy -- Apulia, Calabria, Sicily, etc.  (also the part of Italy that is home to Mafia). That line of descent claims to have migrated from Italy to Germany/Rhineland by 700 CE, and further on into Europe. 

Pirouz_2 said...

Hello to you too Lidia;
As usual I enjoy what you write and I agree with what you say. I will go pat by part through your message and write my comments.
1) "So, Zionists were just fellow colonizers for their USA allies."
I agree with this whole heartedly. In fact I think Israel is a colonial project designed and execued by the Western imperialism based on the absolute necessities of capitalism. I believe that Israel and the rise of zionism had nothing to do with jews or what they wanted but had to do with the Western imperialism's ambitions. I believe that the majority of the jews did not go to Israel because they identified themselves with that land or because they wanted to do so but rather because they were pushed to. And the actual players who executed this plan had not much sympathy for the jews. I don't believe that either Rothschilds or W. Churchil gave a hoot about the interests or welfare of the jews.
2)Again I agree.
3)Again I agree (though I must say that colonialism under the names of "humanitarian intervention", "nation building", "building democracies" etc. etc. is still very well respected in the West!!)
4)You know? Every once in a while, some one explains some thing which has heavily weighted on my chest so beautifully that I get very excited. Usually this happens with Arnold. This time around it is you. This part of your comment I think deserves a LOT of applaud. By the way, why don't you ever write anything on RFI?
In general my explanation for any capitalists behaviour (be it from media or a banker or an industrialist) is always by the "rate of return" and not their ethnic/religious background.
5)Again I agree with this part too. You put your finger on the point that I was hoping to insinuate. Race has to do with "social power" and the games related to social power. I think the trend of jews moving from NOT being considered as "white" to the point of being considered as "white" is a really interesting point which parallels how the public image of jews moved from  "progressive anti-imperialists" to a "zionist pro-imperialism" group of people.

Lidia said...

Pirouz_2, thank for your kind words. 

Regarding dilemma of "rate of return" versus "ethnic/religious". Marx mentioned that in ideology business a label very often meant to dupe not only buyer but the seller as well :) After all, even the common morals usually see greed not as the most high human quality. So, capitalists (esp.when they do not happened to be Calvinists) might prefer to see themselves not as greedy swindlers, but by prudent, honest, hardworking, humble and so on benefactors of humanity :) The label of "helping persecuted Jews" does not hurt either.

Regarding 1) you are right. Zionism was not so popular between Europe Jews because of political, religious, cultural and other reasons (money was a reason too). Even during Hitler years, while both Zionists and Nazis did their best to ship the maximum possible number of German Jews to colonize Palestine, the majority still preferred America. The same after WWII. Of course, imperialist states also helped to channel Jews to Palestine, by blocking most of other routs, but they were not only guilty there.

Lidia said...

FDR and Churchill fought WWII exactly for the same reason as rulers of the USA and UK fought WWI - to guard their colonies from German and Japan imperialist rivals. Neither FDR no Churchill did it for Jews/Zionists, even though Churchill was a big fan of Zionists (and, at the same breath, of Mussolini). 

I am not sure what Hoover would do if he was the prez in 1940th, but Wilson had won the elections under slogan "he saved us from the war" and then promptly led USA to the same war. USA imperialism simply could not afford NOT to join the scuffle for the world hegemony and still hope to prosper.

As much as I hate Zionism and "Holocaust industry", Hitler was just as racist and imperialist as Zionists and it is not for nothing that they have quite a working relationship. 

In short, in order to condemn Zionism I am not going to let other imperialist and colonizers off the hook as "wronged" by them. 

Lidia said...

By the way it seems that Cole ended his not so long silence about Syria but used some Dane to peddle the same imperialist "protection" for Syrians as he had done to justify the NATO rape of Libya. I have seen your post, Arnold, and the answer to it, but somehow I guess your answer could not get through :( All arguments for regime change in Syria, including the nonsense about Assad being "fascist" (he could be a lot of things, but fascism is a trait of  'civilized" West, not of the West victims) could be funny were the matter not so grave. Mass-murder and torture (in which Assad is accused) are practiced on much greater scale by his imperialist  accusers (Danes take their part as well, from Afghanistan to Libya). Israel is murdering and torturing Palestinians all the time, including Palestinian citizens of Israel. But, of course, all this is not relevant to Cole and his Danish guest, whose "slip" in calling freedom and fairness "Western values" was a clear enough sign of his colonialist arrogance, but also of his utterly misleading (could we call it simply "lie"?) version of Syria partly sectarian and partly simply pro-imperialist forces fighting against Assad rule (of course, there are other currents, but they do not call for NATO to bomb Syria, so they usually do not merit praise for their "Western values", which really means "subservience to imperialism and Zionism", no matter if they are sectarian murderers). 

Pirouz_2 said...

Hello Fiorangela;
I don't want to make short replies and comments regarding your message, so I will get back to you tomorrow, with a detailed reply.

Fiorangela said...

 It is my understanding that Churchill was MORE than a "big fan" of zionists, he was beholden to them -- specifically, the Focus group, for financial support to maintain his bloated estate at Chartwell as well as his son's gambling habits.  Churchill could neither bear to part with these things nor afford them on the income he had from ghost-writing and from his small income from government service. 

Furthermore, Churchill was ego-involved in war -- he NEEDED war as much as Patton did -- "God help me I do love it so." The 2nd war did not need to happen BUT FOR Churchill's and FDR's deliberate provocation of it -- that is Herbert Hoover's thesis, evidence, and conclusion, see "Freedom Betrayed,"
check out the reviews on Amazon; there's a link to a Scribd preview of some pages from the book.

I don't know as much as I need to learn about all of Hitler's motives; I reject the notion that he was an imperialist, and the racism card is far more complex than simple name-calling explains.  Hitler was passionate about returning German CULTURE to the German people -- he believed the prevalence of Jewish -- especially Russian Jewish writers, esp., debased GErman culture.  Many people believe that Hollywood movies -- primarily a Jewish industry in the US -- debase American culture, and as Bibi stated, that is the intention of some programs such as Melrose Place, etc.  There are legs to the claim that Hitler was not so much as racist as a cultural purist. 

re Imperialism --1. I would frame that argument differently -- Great Britain feared the challenge to its empire that industrializing Germany posed. 2. In the run-up to WWI, zionist Jews strongly supported Wilhelm; zionist Jews were major industrialists who supported, supplied, and profited from the war that they supported.  At the settlement of the war, as Edwin Black writes in "Transfer Agreement," zionists "were triumphant."  Zionists, who lost no 'skin' in the war, emerged the greatest victors -- they got Palestine & a clause that required that Jews have protected rights in other European states.  The 'cui bono' question goes to zionists.
re expansionism --   Germany was pressured by its German citizens in territory Versailles decreed should be turned over to Poland. Germany had attempted to negotiate for that part of Poland where over a million German citizens lived and were being oppressed; Poles refused to negotiate, Germany ultimately went to war. Even Finkelstein acknowledges that Hitler had no desire to go to war --recall that the Austrian situation was managed thru a plebiscite. Furthermore, in 1939 and again in 1940, Germans sought peace with Great BRitain but Churchill would not permit negotiations for peace to be productive -- similar to Likud's refusal to allow Palestinian peace process to occur. Churchill did not WANT peace, and Bibi does not want to permit a Palestinian state to exist.
I repeat, I do not know all the facts as clearly as I must and shall task myself to learn, but repeating the notion that has been drilled into our heads for over 60 years, that Hitler was the incarnation of evil, is not a fact, is not evidence, is not an argument, it is a knee-jerk, propaganda-trained automatic response -- ding ding, run and fetch treat.  Good dog. 

Lidia said...

WWII was absolutely unavoidable, as long as there was inter-imperialist rivalry. Put simply, there were "old imperialist" - UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and so on. And there were "new" one - Germany, Japan. USA was a new one, but had more luck in robbing "old" Spain. BY the way, in 1922 Lenin noted that there was going to be a war in Pacific between Japan and USA, because of their imperialist ambitions. Lenin knew a bit about imperialism and wars.

Of course, it does not mean that some imperialist could not have more vested interests in waging such war then others. By Hegel, universal is displayed by specific.

Hitler for me, of course, was NOT "incarnation of evil", but just one from the long and sordid line of Western imperialists and colonizers (Zionists fully belong to this line). I understand that sometimes the hate for Zionism could make someone to look at official foes of Zionism as "good guys". It is not wise, no less because in reality Zionists depends on Hitler (his regime, that is) for a lot of their success. 

The less charitable view is that some people try to whitewash one kind of colonialism by highlighting another one. Sorry, it does not work to me. I would argue that Churchill was a mass-murderer and torturer on the scale of Hitler or even worse, because he was NOT made to pay for his crimes, as Churchill's crimes were mostly against non-whites. But it does not mean that Churchill crimes somehow exonerate Hitler's ones. They both were berries from the same field, as Russian proverb says.

Fiorangela said...

I'm not aware of the Nazi ambition for colonization.  I DO have an intense distaste for zionism. That, plus the reality that it is extremely difficult to read histories of Nazi Germany that do not start out by stating how evil Hitler was, then go on to magnify every grievance with Germany while eliding  references to zionist provocations, makes it hard to get an accurate assessment of what really happened.  My understanding at this moment in time is that Hitler & Nazis sought the return of lands lost by decree of Versailles treaty, but not more.  Is this incorrect? Nazis sought to regain control of their cultural and intellectual -- and media -- centers from Jews who dominated them.  Is this incorrect?

I take it you are Russian, Lidia?  Did Russia under Stalin really have "expansionist" ambitions, or is that just the propaganda Americans were/are fed? 

Colonization is not the MOST pernicious practice -- that's not to say imperialist colonialism is not pernicious.  In my view, the most pernicious attitude, the one that is  deeply embedded in the the doctrine and praxis of western-style judeo-christainity and the American and Israeli psyche for whom this attitude is the mainspring, is that THEY are god's chosen moral leaders, that THEIR way of doing things is the way that things ought to be done by every state in the world.  On Thursday Tom Ashbrook interviewed D. Green, who travelled the Trans-Siberian Railroad from Moscow to Vladivostock (?)  In the cAshbrook kept turning the discussion to the "democratizing protests in Moscow," and how Russia "needed" to "democratize."  The first caller to the program said that he had made the same trip Green did, but on motorcycle.  He said that he visited dozens of small villages along the way, where people who had been cared for under the Communist system were now nearing starvation.  in a "free" "capitalist" "democratic" system. 

Americans are good at rushing in and telling other people how to conduct their affairs, but all to often, they haven't a clue what the target culture's needs, traditions, and spirit is all about.

Lidia said...

I am sorry, but imperialist Germany had not just ambition but plans for colonization. Including a big parts of Russia (Ukraine). Of course, it was not out of evilness of Hitler (or Krupp, for the matter), but out of need for every imperialist capitalist state to have colonies to function. Even little Belgium was a colonial power, and in a quite short time they murdered millions of Africans in Congo. Of course, it was not a concern for defenders of "little Belgium" from nasty Germany. Imperialist states that developed laster then UK, Spain and France were inclined to grab colonies of  them, because the world is finite. So, the old robbers of native lands were full of rightful indignation for newcomer robbers. 

In short, anti-Nazi propaganda of USA, UK and others is bad not because Hitler was not a imperialist, but because USA, UK and others were the same imperialists, but pretended to be "white and fluffy" as we say in Russian (yes, I am a Russian). Churchill had Russian blood on his imperialist hands as well, it was done during the civil war after the Revolution. 

I am against demonizing Hitler not because I like him, but because it is used to shut down the real question - the question of imperialism and colonialism, in which USA, UK and others are guilty. Of course, moder day imperialists are less free to practice open colonialism. They usually  do what Arnold shows so well and much more. They are still imperialists, though.

USSR was not an imperialist state and we have discussed it here. As a matter of fact, if there were cases of selfless, or at least not materially gainful help, it was help form USSR (and now from Cuba or Venezuela).Of course, being a state among imperialist states was not much helpful for error-less foreign policy, and as I admitted before, the initial support for Zionists after WWII was a great mistake and a crime against USSR principles. 

And the name of the Far East city is Vladivostok. it means something like Owning the east. 

Dermot Moloney said...

"to justify the NATO rape of Libya."

NATO didnt rape libya, it took mitiary action against a government that was launching attacks against its own civilian population.

"All arguments for regime change in Syria, including the nonsense about Assad being "fascist""

Facism is a politic belief and system, one does not need to be from a certain geographical region in order to be a facist.

"Mass-murder and torture (in which Assad is accused)"

When you say accused are you implying that you believe that he may be innocent?

"practiced on much greater scale by his imperialist  accusers (Danes take their part as well, from Afghanistan to Libya"

The actions in libya and afghanistan are quite different, these actions are of overall benefit to those involved ( unlike iraq), assads actions are not of benefit, he could halt this violence by disbanding his dictatorship and by allowing free elections.

"Israel is murdering and torturing Palestinians all the time"

I notice you dont say that israel is "accused" of such a thing.

"But, of course, all this is not relevant to Cole and his Danish guest"

Cole is actually quite critical of israels actions which causes deaths.

Dermot Moloney said...

The us got involved for it was attacked at pearl harbour and also because it had germany declare war on it and the uk got involved when hitler invaded poland

Dermot Moloney said...

Hitlers decisions and actions led to the deaths of around 40 million people, when did churchill do something similar? Also i notice that in all your criticism of those involved you are leaving out one of the major parties.

Dermot Moloney said...

The ussr actually attacked poland along with the nazis, beforehand it also attacked finland. Again if the ussr did the exact same actions as it did but it was a capilist country lidia would be decrying it, but because it was on her "ideological" side its actions gets a free pass and even defence.

Fiorangela said...

Nazi Germany sought peace in 1939 and in 1940.  Churchill would not permit a negotiated settlement. 
Germany ended up fighting a war that was defensive -- if Churchill had backed off, accepted YES for an answer, many of those 40million deaths might not have occurred.
CHURCHILL's decisions are responsible for THOSE 40 million deaths.
Read Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War --
"“[One of the biggest mistakes statesmen made, that put us in the mess were are in, was when " Roosevelt put America in to help Russia as Hitler invaded Russia
in June 1941. We should have let those two bastards annihilate
themselves.” (Hoover to businessman Hill in ~1950)

. . .

[What Hoover didn't tell Hill is that he had been] “at work on a . .
.comprehensive, critical history of American diplomacy between the late
1930s and 1945, with emphasis on the misguided policies of President
Roosevelt. . . .in which the Roosevelt administration’s wartime alliance
with the Soviet Union would be subject to withering scrutiny.”

FDR & Churchill were in deep cahoots to wage war on Germany -- Churchill somehow found a simmering hatred for Hitler after being neutral on him for 3-4 years, 1931-1936; Churchill was extremely fond of "Uncle Joe." 

Had Hitler & Stalin fought each other, rather than US & GB choose sides and, serially, fight BOTH Germany & Russia, US & GB would have been spared their millions of dead; 6 m. Jews may have been spared; 5 or 6 million Germans might have been spared; we might still be able to visit beautiful Dresden and the Abbey at Monte Cassino.

Churchill & FDR made the decisions that caused all that destruction.

Who am I leaving out of the equation? Hitler? Japan? US?

Lidia said...

1) Poland had occupied parts of Ukraine and Belorussia after WWI. When Hitler grabbed Czechoslovakia with UK/France help, Poland got a bit spoil to itself.
2) USSR proposed to help Poland in case of Hitler attack. Poland refused. UK and France for whose help Poland  hoped (by treaty obligation) had not delivered. 
3) So, when Hitler conquered Poland (with acquiescence of  UK/France), USSR got back mostly the same land Poland had grabbed 20 years before. By the way, this way a lot of "Polish" Jews were later saved in the USSR east parts during WWII.

If one is interested to know, USSR proposed to UK/France an alliance against Hitler. They did nothing to get it though. They wanted Hitler to attack USSR and get rid of "communism". So, Stalin  made a non-aggression pact with Hitler. As a result Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia were returned to the USSR. Now those lands  indisputable NOT belong to Poland. Were UK and France really interested in saving Poland and defeating Hitler, they could get it with USSR help. But they had another interests. 

Fiorangela said...

thank you Lidia, and you do not have to be sorry -- I want to learn but, I also have a very sensitive BS detector; facts get thru, propaganda does not.

I understand the points you make-- Hitler the devil imperialist has served as a useful scapegoat for GB and USA the imperialists.

Toynbee's lecture on "Russia and the West" has taught me a great deal about that giant nation.  I also listened to a series of lectures on the history of Russia by Richard Bulliet, but that was some time ago.

Fiorangela said...

Yes, Russia did attack Poland just days after Germany did.
Thousands of Poles fled both armies, WALKED across the frozen countryside, crossed the Caspian Sea and were sheltered by Iranians.  A Forgotten Odyssey

I see that the two filmakers who captured this event for history, have died.  I have a copy of the DVD; I bought it from Aneta Naszynska in ~2008.

Fiorangela said...

Hello Pirouz_2,
Disagreement does not bother me that much; that's what argument is all about, isn't it?  State the facts, show the logic, try to persuade by the weight of this set of facts or that.  Propaganda and mindless parroting of what we think we know because we've heard it so many times is not only annoying but in my opinion very dangerous.

I wouldn 't flat out say I 'deny the holocaust' first of all because it's a dangerous statement to make.  Second, because it does not capture the essence of my concern about the way the holocaust narrative is used and controlled.  There is a long history, particularly among zionsists, of reshaping the narrative to fit an agenda, and to manipulate the emotions of others. We see, today, how zionists are using propaganda to demonize Iran; I believe most of it is a lie.  lies are evil things.  Can we say that this is the very first time zionists have lied to achieve their ends?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think key portions of the old testament exalt lies and lying.  For that reason, among others,   I am not that sympathetic to Jews simply because they are Jews -- isn't
that the essence of antisemitism -- to hold a view about all Jews JUST
because they are Jews?  In my opinion, Jewish history, actions, behavior
should be evaluated and judged by the same standards as every other
social group in the world.  There is no aristocracy of suffering and no
group of people that is more equal than any other.

I must say this argument that zionism is a tool used by the US as a cat's paw for US imperialism is a new one. In one sense I don't think it holds water, or it certainly didn't in the very beginning of the zionist project. In another sense, it is perhaps my NEED to believe that the United States political system became corrupted by zionism, the political movement, through the vector of the interrelationship of the religions of Judaism and Christianity.  I believe that zionists used the United States to achieve its goal of establishing a state for itself -- as historian Ken Harl says about ancient Assyrian kings and wars, Smart leaders get someone else's army to do the fighting for them, and that is what zionists did. I could write another 3 paragraphs here about how US was sucked into WWI in which Germans, French, British, & Americans suffered but zionists profited and "triumphed," but enough for now.

The foundation of what I know about the creation of Israel (a project that is slightly different and later in time than the emergence of zionism) rests on a set of lectures by Dr. Salim Yaqub, available from Teaching Company, title is US and Middle East, 1914-2001.  The crucial event that lies at the heart of the present-day turmoil in the ME is Woodrow Wilson's betrayal of the Fourteen Points promise to the Arab states of the fractured Ottoman Empire that they would have "self-determination."  The Arabs states longed for sovereignty over their own destinies just as much as Jews did. However, through various machinations of zionist leaders and Jewish, British, and American financiers who influenced Wilson at Versailles, Wilson reneged on the promises to the Arabs in favor of fulfillment of the Balfour promise of a "homeland for the Jews in Palestine." 

Later ---
Stay human.

Lidia said...

A bit of explaining of what is fascism (even though I doubt very much that DM could understand it, DM has such peculiar logic, for ex, for him it is OK for NATO to bomb Libya because of ..., but when one point at NATO cosing up to other regimes doing ... or even worse, DM always has answer which shows that ... was not really a reason, but a pretext.)

Fascism is a form of imperialism, when imperialist rulers could not, by different reasons to use so-called democracy for their goals. The victims of such form of imperialists in other countries are suffering the same as victims of democratic imperialists - i.e. they are mass-murdered, tortured, staved and robbed. The only difference is to population of the imperialist states themselves - the opponents of regime are usually disposed with even less ceremony than under democracy. So, in democratic and even "non-racial" USA Mumia Abu Jamal is "only" framed, tortured, denied proper trial and kept in solitary confinement even after being spared death row after 30 years being on.  

Syria is NOT an imperialist state, so its regime could not be "fascist". On the other hands, at least a part of Zionism, being a filial of Western imperialism, i.e. Zhabotinski fraction was openly fascists (Mussolini type). 

Fiorangela said...

very well said, Lidia; all have blood on their hands; Churchill & FDR are perhaps more despicable because they have emerged as heroes, not the villains that they are.
Americans MUST be cryogenically maintained in their state of judeo-christian moral superiority lest reality leak in and the whole project is seen for the dust and rot that it is.

Feeding that cryogenic morality machine will require killing more nation-state's peoples -- Iran is the next prey that will be tossed into the hopper. 

Dermot Moloney said...

"Nazi Germany sought peace in 1939 and in 1940.  Churchill would not permit a negotiated settlement.  
Germany ended up fighting a war that was defensive"
The problem with this argument is that hitler simply wanted peace with the uk for example so that he could focus his resources on the east, this is where most of the killings took place and if german forces were unhindered in the west and the soviet union lacked western aid and support hitler likely would have prevailed. This would have cost many lives for even after the war he would have engaged in other policies which would have caused mass numbers of deaths.

"US & GB would have been spared their millions of dead "

Millions? Are you included British subjects?

"Churchill & FDR made the decisions that caused all that destruction."

Actually it was hitler and his associates whose decisions were responsible for and led to the conflict. In the east it was due to those in charge of japan.

"6 m. Jews may have been spared; "

Most jews would have been in the east, also the nazis while occupying france would have still deported them.

"5 or 6 million Germans might have been spared;  "

But in your hitler vs stalin scenario major fighting would still have occurred.

Dermot Moloney said...

1)It was attempting to gain parts which it loss in the past in part due to russian imperialism.
2) Poland was within its rights to object to many of the soviet demands, they certainly didnt deserve the brutal treatment that they were subjected to3) "So, when Hitler conquered Poland (with acquiescence of  UK/France"The uk and france went to war with hitler over this action.

"USSR got back mostly the same land Poland had grabbed 20 years before."

Which before that was grabbed by russian imperialists.

"So, Stalin  made a non-aggression pact with Hitler. As a result Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia were returned to the USSR."

The soviet union clearly engaged in an act of blatant imperialism and took over many eastern parts of Europe that it wanted.

" they could get it with USSR help. But they had another interests."

They were the ones to declare war on nazi germany first, the soviet union was too busy at the time taking over the nations of others. If the soviet union really wanted an alliance they could have simply rejected the deal they made with hitler and sided with france and the uk, they didnt and only started to fight hitler when they were attacked by him.

Fiorangela said...

maybe all you say is true (it's not, btw, but just suppose . . .)

What do I care?
"All people act in their own self-interest."

If Churchill & FDR had not involved US in a war that Herbert Hoover wrote should have been left to "Germany & USSR to knock themselves out" over, MY Dad would not have been injured, MY DAD would have realized his dreams instead of living out his life in pain.

All politics is VERY local.

Dermot Moloney said...

Im sorry for your dad but you do realise that your opinions are likely overly swayed by emotion and not balanced logic.