Anti-Semite and Majority Report talking head, Michael Brooks, coughed up a video today in the wake of the recent Ilhan Omar dog and pony show.
In it Brooks, utilizing his tone of assumed moral and intellectual superiority common to non-tenure track professors everywhere, (based on the assumption that there is no legitimacy to any contrary points of view) pronounced a standard agit-prop theme among the left wing of the anti-Semitic “left.”
“Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” he declared right after announcing that it was a matter of fact that Israel is an apartheid state, that it is essentially without freedom and smells bad.
Okay we made up that last bit not that it matters because even if you focused only on what he did say would you really be able to distinguish it from a stream of rhetorical vomit?
Of course not because his comments, and the left bigotry it repeats is a-historical shit on a stick.
For example consider that Brooks likes to announce that: “The occupation of the West Bank is the only issue in regards to Israel.” A statement that is essentially as useful as saying Ireland is the only issue in regards to England and Wounded Knee is the only issue in regards to the United States.
We begin with the claim, popular among the “Progressives” and “new new new” left who are at pains to convince both themselves and everyone else that they don’t hate Jews, that Zionism is apartheid, that it was nothing more or less than a colonial con job, that it was all about the Benjamins and ethnic cleansing and that being against it doesn’t make you a bigot.
Except that Brooks repeats a simplistic, bigoted, twisted version of events, in which Zionism happened, there was some trouble with the Germans and then the Palestinians got screwed and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza. As a result, Zionism is reduced to a real estate swindle or in the faux sophisticated patois of bigots, a colonial settler project which is a euphemism for, a real estate swindle.
After all, isn’t that just like the Jews.
Except of course, Zionism was hardly a secret, and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs states participated in the UN sponsored negotiations about the fate of the British Mandate.
And the Arabs lost the vote.
And then started an illegal war which they did not win and then the Palestinians got screwed.
Which was followed by terrorism in the service of genocidal aims, more genocidal wars they did not win and so on in a socio-political version of Groundhog Day, only not as funny.
Leaving all of that out or twisting the sequence of events to make it seem as if none of those other events matter is like talking about the Titanic and forgetting to mention the iceberg or Moby Dick and forgetting to mention the whale.
But the hell with context. Trump doesn’t care about context or facts and neither does Brooks.
Brooks and the rest of his cadre just keeps repeating the same alternate universe version of events and none of it is true as we’ve detailed elsewhere – there’s more than enough contextualizing blame to go around – from Jabo fascists like Shamir, to when Palestinians (in the form of Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini)* go to Berlin to offer to blow the SS, it’s the sort of thing that will make any reasonable person heave and run for the nearest exit.
As will a litany of other contextualizing facts like – America’s two-faced policy of supporting Israel while also supporting not so ex Nazis like Klaus Barbie, and a who’s who of other not so ex Nazis brass, and helping the French transfer not so ex SS troopers to the Foreign Legion all night casino in Vietnam, to teach the delicate art of efficiency and discipline to the otherwise lax Vietnamese while also hiding Nazis from their own justice system who were in turn hiding their own Nazis from everyone else.
For example consider the use of not so ex Nazi scientists to build missiles and land a man on the moon.
Or the use of not so ex Nazis like Adolph Galand, and Kurt Waldheim, the use of not so ex Nazis for Operation Gladio, which led to the US conducting terrorism campaigns in Western Europe where, in theory, The US was committed to protecting, Western Europe.
Or consider the Arab importation of not so ex Nazis to develop gas filled missiles to turn Tel Aviv into a cemetery, the use of Koran humping theocratic thugs, in order to exterminate the authentic Arab left, which helped give rise to the current decades long siege between Arab tribalism and Modernity with side shows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Or consider the Arabs embracing of Soviet imperialism, and the general stupefying, soul crushing acceptance of the Orwellian dialectic and jazz improv of the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq.
Or US support for decadent and depraved oil lords who used American wealth to support genocidal crusades against Jews – and because being against Zionism in this context, and in the context of Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries is precisely and decidedly anti-Semitic, precisely and decidedly because in order to justify one’s antagonism, one has to either be a fascist in favor of well run train systems, or one has to amputate all context from Zionism which means you’re making a distinction without a difference.
As a result, to deny the urgency and essentialism of Zionism in the context of the period that begins with the Dreyfus Affair and ends amid the burned out husk of Europe in 1945, is to engage in a bespoke form of de facto Holocaust Denial.**
If you’re an anti-Zionist based on a retrograde elision of context, you’re in favor of the Jews giving up on being Jews as they are assimilated into the Marxist-Borg collective and/or you’re in favor of the Jews saying, well sure Auschwitz was bad but such small portions we forgive you! And we’re perfectly happy to return to Poland and Russia or move to America and so on.
As an aside to the anti-Semitic argument – they should have just gone back to their Europeans homes – narrative favored by left crooners all over, we turn to noted anti-Zionist Tony Judt who in his useful if turgid tome, Post War, points out that one of the reasons Jews were in Displaced Person Camps in 1945 is because, with a few notable exceptions, the European states all said that if Jews wanted to return to Warsaw or some other garden spot, they would have to show documentation proving citizenship, residency, and all the rest of the bureaucratic detritus required.
Needless to say most if not all of the Jews still alive in Europe after Germany’s epic fit of Wagnerian overkill took a look around and said, yeah the SS guards at Birkenau didn’t return my luggage or my passport so, no thanks.
In order for Brooks and the other Jew obsessed pinheads (by which we mean, pinheads who are obsessed with Jews) who are “anti-Zionists” to be correct, the truth is that claiming a distinction between Zionism and anti-Semitism is like claiming that MLK’s core message was distinctly and precisely divorced from the cauldron of the Black reality in apartheid Jim Crow America in the middle of the 20th century, and was instead, only a universal call for universal emancipation.
In other words, Brooks and his friends transform Dr. King into a high end sophisticated minstrel wearing blackface, and thus into a fetish for faux woke white hipsters.
And they do the same for Jews.
Zionism is the vaccine for anti-Semitism.
The side effects may include anxiety, heart palpitations, loss of appetite and a pressing need to watch Seinfeld reruns, but it remains the best treatment available to what is otherwise a nearly always fatal disease.
Claiming otherwise is just another in a long line of shabby attempt by bigots to convince everyone that they mean no harm.
If you believe Zionism can be marked off from anti-Semitism and that the essentialism of Israel’s existence can be amputated from the Holocaust, you are holding up a sign that says: Work Shall Set You Free.
See Brook’s Bund Rally here:
*Ironically this casts former Israeli PM, Yitzhak Shamir, as the mirror of Husseini.
For a cursory excavation of Shamir as a fascist, see the following:
Take notice that where Husseini was eager to exterminate the Jews, Shamir’s sin was not so much wanting to expel the British but in wanting to establish a dictatorship and additionally being stupid enough to believe that even if the Germans agreed to allow a mass exodus of European Jews, they would not eventually get around to invading Israel.
Beyond that of course one has the same contextualizing dilemma faced by Shamir’s ideological enemies among the Zionists.
Ben Gurion and his crew also negotiated with the Nazis.*
Lastly of course the difference between Shamir, his political soulmate, Menachem Begin and their Arab opponents, was that when defeated in an election, they (unlike the Arabs) did not have the opposition executed but instead, retired.
Like the Ur gangster, Jabotinsky, Shamir drifted from nationalist-fascist-terrorist to, conservative and reactionary politician.
The deeper (or wider) excavation also takes into account that negotiating with the Nazis in 1941, hardly makes Shamir unique.
After Munich, the British were hardly in a position where they could be thought of as anti-fascists let alone, honorable.
Of course one could go back further to British assistance in helping stage Franco’s coup or for historical shits and giggles excavate having Mussolini on the payroll of MI6, Churchill extolling Il Douche’s virtues as a seawall against the dismal tide of godless Bolshevism, or one could reread Winston’s spin on the charmer in Berlin about whom he said – he may be more Capone than a statesmen but history may yet prove him the man of the hour.
That of course is a partial excavation of the context in which Shamir was a fascist, a gangster and a fool.
Or to put it another way: the left anti-Semites (and their ideological allies on the right) love to point out that Zionists negotiated with Nazis and as a result (the anti-Semites claim) this invalidates Zionism and, Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.
Except of course if one grants the premise than one would also have to invalidate The Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom and The United States.
In other words, Victor Serge and the Midnight of the century in which a circular firing squad implicated everyone.
Then again logical let alone moral consistency and intellectual rigor are hardly Brooks strong suit.
**Ironically this places Michael Brooks and his allies in the same position as noted Beatnik and authority on Postmodernism, Jordan Peterson who, as we’ve detailed elsewhere, doesn’t deny the Holocaust occurred, but robs it of context as one of the central engines of 20th century Western culture, in his efforts to act as a cheerleader for Capitalism and against the Yeti of his imagination “Postmodern-NeoMarxism.”
When one listens to Brooks, and Ash Sarkar, Chapo Trap House, and the other giant pygmies of the bespoke left, one of the dance hall and Bund rally favorites they always perform is that Zionism just happened, and that while bad the Holocaust has neither moral or political context and connection to the (re)creation of Israel, or if it does it only does in the same way that a set of lock picking tools has a connection to a sketchy pawn shop. In other words Zionism is just another Jewish scam.
This is followed by insisting they are not anti-Semites and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.
The rhetorical goal is to appear reasonable, elide all context, amputate facts from the record and then repeat the mantra that the Palestinians have zero responsibility for anything and as a result are both inside History qua History as perpetual victims but exist out of History as a unique case locked in perpetual Historical aspic.
But of course what it really means is that they are perfectly willing to fight to the last dead Jew.
There is also a two-headed psychological component at work in this and to which we will return later with a deeper excavation.
However for our purposes here we can break it down as follows:
Philosophically the left holds that nationalism is antithetical to the dialectic and the Marxist paradigm therefore, Zionism is reactionary and must be defeated.
Even if one grants the premise the dreary facts remain – the NKVD, the KGB, and the gentleman with the leather fetish from Berlin, not to mention everyone from Henry Ford to Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Amin al-Husseini, the Pope and a cast of millions, were determined to kill Jews, or look the other way while someone else did it and claiming you had converted from being a Jew to a Marxist was as much use as a prayer is for treating a burst appendix.
The second issue is that since the left was crushed and betrayed and cannibalized itself and Zionism emerged victorious, if even just provisionally, the anti-Zionist anti-Semites are consumed with jealousy.
This can’t be overstated.
The left is consumed with and by an outsized obsession with Jews, Zionism and Israel decidedly out of any authentic proportion to reality.
In other words, they protest too much me thinks and the reason(s) are the Jews got organized, fought, and won and the left got its ass handed to it on a rusty platter.
And the left is still disorganized, self destructive and essentially useless.
The second psychological factor that applies mostly to anti-Zionist Jews but has echoes among non Jews is anxiety in the face of Post Zionist Israelis.
We can call this the Gal Gadot factor.
The truth is, she’s not an anomaly as Israel is full of people who look like that and compared to the aesthetic malignant trolls and assorted mutants, who poured out of the ghettos in the late 19th and early 20th century, it’s as if she came from another planet.
Turn to the end of Portnoy’s Complaint when Portnoy recounts his attempted seduction/rape of the kibbutznik and gets tossed (pun intended) like a sack of dirt.
She is described as more less looking like a tractor engine.
The efficacy of that description is its use by mostly American Jews (of both sexes) who when confronted by “Gal Gadot” types feel their dicks go limp and they counter it by screaming about moral failures and political sleaze and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.
Roth’s The Conversion of the Jews here becomes authentic except in a Wiley e Coyote ACME blow up in your face sort of manner, that reveals the anxiety and jealousies of non Israeli Jews who have turned Israel into a fetish – both desired and repulsive.
Needless to say all other criticism is legitimate – Netanyahu is a gangster, Avigdor Lieberman is a second rate reheated first phase Jabotinsky wannabe goon, and history in Tel Aviv just like in Tokyo, Paris, London, Madrid, and San Francisco, is more like a George Grosz painting than not. Except when it sounds like a Shabtai novel, or Faulkner or a Springsteen song.
Of course as authentic leftist and non-Zionist Jew Walter Benjamin said in one of his more interesting koans:
There is no record of civilization that is not also a record of barbarism.
To which we add that he’s correct regardless of the story going right to left or left to right.
In the gutter with The Guardian.
Today’s Guardian has an article headlined:
“Pro-Israel donors spent over $22m on lobbying and contributions in 2018 ”
This is bolstered by a sub-heading that declares The Guardian has investigated this issue and “discovered” that pro-Israel lobbyists have spent money, are very active and aim to advance their agenda.
One assumes this breathless homage to Woodward and Bernstein will be followed by an equally impressive piece of investigative (faux) journalism that discovers bears shit in the woods, and the Pope is Catholic.
The article goes on to point out that pro-Israel expenditures by all lobby groups is a fraction of the amount spent by everyone else from the small business lobby to the real estate lobby and the likes of the gun industry and behemoths like Boeing.
So, in other words, The Guardian has a headline that reads:
KIKES USE MONEY TO WIELD SINISTER CONTROL OF GOYIM!!!!
Except, they spend far less than everyone else who in turn get far more bang for their buck as witnessed by stubborn and dreary facts like how the US spends twenty times what it spends on Israel to keep US forces in Europe – where they act as one diplomatic wit put it – to keep Russia out, America in, and Germany down.
To which we would add they are also there to subsidize the Germany healthcare system and six week paid vacations.*
Since the entire Ilhan Omar the Jews and money equals sinister power routine rests on the bigoted assertion that the amount of coin equals more influence, it’s worth pointing out that the US has fought more wars in Europe and on behalf of the Arabs than for or on behalf of Israel, spends more in Europe, the Gulf and in Japan and Asia than in or for or with Israel, and that a host of lobbying Gargantuas all out spend AIPAC and J-Street the way Steph Curry and Klay Thompson outshoot everyone else.
It’s rarely if ever close.
And The Guardian knows it but blasts an anti-Semitic headline anyhow and then below the fold has another article entitled:
“Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe, latest figures show
France reports 74% rise in offences against Jews and Germany records 60% surge in violent attacks”
Gee, we wonder if there are any correlations between gutter journalism trafficking in stereotypes about Jews and money and a rise in anti-Semitic attacks?
See The Guardian’s efforts here:
*For a look at the cost breakdown of US/NATO see the following:
In other news: Labour, you have a problem:
We are shocked that The Guardian has posted a nuanced article addressing the growing anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Labour Party, and that the issue includes what should be obvious – the current Likud regime is as distinct from the issue and context of Zionism as Trump is to Walt Whitman and 1776.
For reasons we can’t quite make out the Labour Party has been hijacked by a gang of faux Trotskyists who get a political hard on for blaming Jews for all of their problems. That they are antagonistic towards oligarchs and assorted Tories is one thing but as the article says, trading an orgasm for gonorrhea is hardly anyone’s idea of a fair deal – unless you’re Jeremy Corbyn who seems to have decided that his love letter to political suicide and the empty legacy of anti-Semitism should have as it’s mission statement: With you no matter what.
In another stunning display of anti-Semitism, The Guardian recognizing that the “left” is being called out for its moral stench as Labour and Corbyn and others are recognized as bigots, with a specific animus towards Jews, has moved the goal post.
In an astounding attempt at appearing reasonable they printed a piece of the same anti-Semitic garbage or, to put it another way, they have polished the same turd twice.
We refer to Kenan Malik of The Observer who has gone on point ahead of the braying pack to admit that the “Left” has suffered a series of rhetorical hijackings in which traditional anti-Zionist arguments have been colonized by traditional anti-Semites.
“This kind of anti-Zionism is very different from that which calls for the “destruction of the state of Israel”, usually (a not very veiled) code for the destruction of Jews. The latter is a form of anti-Zionism that refuses to acknowledge the presence of more than 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, whose rights, needs and aspirations are as central as those of Palestinians to any discussion of the region’s future.
There are, in other words, many forms of anti-Zionism, some progressive, some antisemitic. What has shifted is that leftwing ideas of anti-Zionism have become increasingly colonised by antisemitic forms. The reasons are complex, ranging from evolving notions of “anti-imperialism” to the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories.”
All well and good if one ignores the historical moral train wreck that proceeds it.
“Critics of anti-Zionism observe that Zionism simply expresses the right of Jewish people to self-determination. Just as other peoples, from Armenians to Zimbabweans, have the right to self-determination, so do Jews. To deny that is antisemitic because it is to deny Jews the rights accorded to others. However, the issue is more complex. When Scots voted in their independence referendum in 2016, all residents of Scotland who were over 16, and were British, EU or Commonwealth citizens, had the right to vote. The right to self-determination did not extend to all those of Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland.”
While the Scots have over the centuries suffered many catastrophes we are unaware of a European wide systemic, psychotically violent anti-Scot bigotry culminating in an industrial scale genocide – or at least none since England’s idea of high tech was a cross bow and a lance. After all, David Hume may have had some hurdles placed in his path but being Scottish and threatened with death because of it, was not one of them.
While England has much to answer for in regards to its colonization of the Scots and the centuries’ long attempted erasure of Scottish identity, and independence, we are unaware of England setting up precise train schedules in order to empty Edenborough and Glasgow of their indigenous population, transfer them to slave labor camps and to exterminate them by the millions.
While it is certainly true that a descendant of a Scottish immigrant living in America for the past sixty or seventy years, who has more in common with the New York Yankees than not, shouldn’t be able to just move back to Scotland and claim assorted rights (not withstanding the not unimportant fact that if their grandparents – or even one grandparent- had been born in Scotland they could claim citizenship) the suggestion that there is any similarity between the situation of the Scots in the last hundred years and the Jews is not just absurd, it is an obscene attempt to enter through the front door of reasonable liberal left sensitivity, while exiting through the back door of stating that Israel is illegitimate, that the “solution” (what the fuck is it with these people and their fucking solutions for Jews?) is the elimination of Israel as a haven for Jews, established precisely because different ad hoc gangs keep attempting to kill all of them, and that once again everyone should pretend that Hamas is really just misunderstood, the check is in the mail, and they will only put it in a little.
As long as you define a little as reaching from the Jordan River to the sea.
What Malik has done is to repackage the same a-historical toxin in a new suit.
Zionism was the response to the European wide systemic attempt at the extermination of the Jews. The creation of Israel was the culmination of that project and to declare it illegitimate is to amputate it from the Holocaust and is therefore a form of Holocaust denial.
To suggest a moral and historical corollary between the situation in Scotland and the vote for independence in 2016, with the edge of the abyss situation for Jews in 1945, would be funny were it not so obscene.
What it represents is not just the fact that Malik is a malignant troll, but that The Observer and The Guardian, as the voice of the English “left” are pimps running a whore house where they resell the merchandise and claim it’s a virgin, when anyone with a lick of sense knows better.
Read the shit on a stick here:
Below is a link to a fascinating example of the blinding ideological and nearly religious fanaticism rhetoric and “thinking” used whenever anyone tries to engage in a nuanced discussion about Israel.
Pete Buttigieg, whose problem is being too smart (which in contemporary America runs a close second to being smart and gay), offers a rare shades of gray assessment though it also has critical flaws.
On the positive side he deviates from orthodoxy by highlighting that there’s more to reality than a sound-bite on the evening news or amid the echo chamber Poltergeist bedroom of cable infotainment.
When he says people in Israel are adjusted to security concerns and continue to function he’s not wrong but anyone as literate, or seemingly literate as Buttigieg would want to spend some time with Yaakov Shabtai or Oz or Amichai or Koret before offering what appears to be a nuanced analysis but is in truth bordering on the glib.
But what is even more telling is the ideological purity of the criticism. It may have a valid point to raise but that is drowned out by the absolute certainty that there is nothing, absolutely nothing to be said for systemic corruption, tyrannical savagery and whole sale stupidity with a dash of mendacity, on the part of the Arabs – the Palestinians are nothing but innocent victims. History only exists in a binary construction with sinister Jews and noble Nakba hostages to fate.
Or, to put it another way, the left and the Palestinians are once again demanding to know what Pearl Harbor was doing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean when the War started.
Read the madness here:
We considered another stand alone piece in response to the article below but kicking a corpse doesn’t seem worth the effort.
On the other hand it is worth pointing out the zombie method of the morally bankrupt left and in this case its iteration in the haute left corner of the anti-Semitic universe populated by The London Review of Books.
Specifically we refer to polemicist, tortured Jew and all around hack, Adam Schatz who dropped a deuce in the journalistic punch bowl at The London Review about “Israel.”
We place Israel in quotes to highlight a point about the left generally and Schatz specifically – namely that the Israel they discuss is a fiction devoid of anything except what they claim is part of the narrative.
As a comparative example, consider a journalist writing about the UK and writing that:
“In the 1960s and 1970s, Western tourists went to the UK to take part in LSD parties. Police officers and soldiers now go to learn new methods of collective punishment and surveillance.”
Of course a great many Western tourists did travel to the UK at that time for drugs, sex, music, and any number of associated things.
But no one who isn’t a pinhead or a hack with an agenda would seriously suggest that something as complex as the UK can be reduced to a simple binary narrative. After all, the UK during that time was both Kingsley Amis, Trotskyists, Monty Python, Graham Greene, The Who, The Stones, the four apostles from Liverpool and Enoch Powel screaming about rivers of blood.
Oh and it was also the civil war in Ireland.
And that’s without mentioning Bowie, Elton John, and the Angry Young Men.
But of course Shatz is a hack with an agenda so he writes the following:
“In the 1960s and 1970s, Western tourists went to Israel to take part in collective farming on kibbutzim. Police officers and soldiers now go to learn new methods of collective punishment and surveillance.”
Obviously the first sentence is either lazy or a lie or both. Did Western tourists go to Israel in the 60s and 70s to take part in collective farming on kibbutzim?
No doubt and others went to explore the wealth of antiquities, the art scene, including the growth of Modern Hebrew literature as everyone from Davi Avi Dan to Amos Oz and Amichai began to bend Hebrew towards the future.
They also went to visit family in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and not on Kibbutzim and they went to the Dead Sea, and they went to get laid and do drugs exactly like tourists pretty much everywhere else.
Or in the case of the utterly absurd Schlemiel-Schlimazel Portnoy they tried to combine their efforts and aimed to both get laid and go to a kibbutz – though in his case with less than desirable results.
But if you’re Adam Schatz or The London Review of Books or any other standard issue anti-Semite, why let dreary facts get in the way of a pathetic rant.
And of course having dispensed with logic, and facts in the first sentence and thrown accuracy and nuance out the window Schatz is free to make the rhetorical jump to Warp speed, and can go from ALL tourists to Israel did X, to now, all police go their to learn yada yada yada.
This of course is the same turd polished twice. This is a more sophisticated form of the toxin employed by gutter snipes like Ash Sarkar, Chapo Trap House, and Michael Brooks.
And here Schatz coughs up the standard head fake by acknowledging the Holocaust but then inverts it with more bold claims based on assertions bolted to thin air.
“For Europe’s greatest internal victims to have refined the repression of another people into a science is now regarded as an advantage rather than an embarrassing secret, or indeed a tragedy.”
Exactly how shall we measure “greatest?” Number of victims? Or shall we invoke noted Abstract Expressionist Joe Stalin’s famous koan that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic?
Consider the construction of Schatz’ claim by way of comparison.
Trump’s former sock puppet, Sean Spicer, got himself in a rhetorical moral cul de sac when he said that Hitler, compared to Syria’s Assad, was less monstrous because he had not used gas on his own people.
Putting aside the obvious factual prat fall, one might remind Schatz that if you’re going to use the Stalin method of counting tragedies then go ahead but don’t expect anyone who isn’t a psychopath or an idiot to take you seriously, and if you’re not then in counting corpses and tallying up Europe’s internal victims, one might want to say a word or two about the Ukrainians, the Irish, or the Poles. Or the Catholics and the Protestants.
As always, feel free to make your own list.
One might for example want to discuss the hundreds of thousands of Greeks deliberately starved to death by the Germans and if the response is more Jews were killed then what one is saying is, tragedies increase in importance by weight of numbers, and then you’re just a graduate of the Jordan Peterson school of screaming that Foucault and Marx are hiding under your bed.
Beyond that though there lies the far more sinister assertion which is more insidious because it is concealed within the rancid illogic like a moral IED.
What Schatz is saying is that Jews have a collective guilt based on a collective responsibility.
History qua History is operated at a higher frequency for Jews and discussions about Jews are to be placed in a ghetto.
One could, for example, counter Schatz’ construction by pointing out that the Holocaust was a tragedy for the world and that while the targeting of Jews was central to its aim, the fact is that the aim required a centralized plan of world domination including the conquest and destruction of the rest of Europe.
Therefore, the tragedy that nearly destroyed the Jews also nearly destroyed what we charitably call, civilization.
And if we grant his premise then logically as the Jews were victims and, per Schatz, should know better, than the inverse must also be true and those who perpetrated the crime should know better or, History only goes in one direction and Schatz, the leftist is revealed ironically, to be an advocate of the biblical idea that he Jews are the chosen people.
But that is too nuanced for Schatz. His aim is to place Jews in a historical ghetto and affix yellow stars to them.
This goes hand in iron glove with the twisted moral syntax that jumps from collective guilt and collective responsibility (a tactic employed by gutter bigots and advanced bigots like Solzhenitsyn who held that all Jews should be punished for the alleged crimes of any one other Jew) to the assertion that the repression of the Palestinians is now a scientific operation conducted by Israel.
This has two rancid immoral components to it.
The first is as outlined the black hole method in which facts vanish as they approach the event horizon of Schatz’ bigotry and self loathing, and his obvious resentment towards other Jews who are not tortured by complexity, and as bad if not worse is the deployment of the stealth rhetorical weapon – the word scientific.
Here Schatz uses scientific to conjure the perverse methodology of the Nazi scientists who performed industrial scale liquidation, experimentation and terror with the emotionless zeal of undertakers at a coffin convention.
Schatz is just smart enough to know that comparing Israel and the Nazis directly will make it harder to sell the product so he buries the comparison amid the rhetorical shrapnel and boobytraps.
None the less it’s still there and it’s still immoral and a perfect example of the rot that lives at the heart of the left.
Of course as per the standard template Schatz is also indirectly asserting, per Brooks et al, that the Palestinians specifically and the Arabs generally, exist both outside of History as perpetual victims but are locked inside History albeit while being devoid of agency.
Thus, again, we note that in this construction since there is no Arab consciousness, or political agency, the Jews either act because they are robotic and unaware of their cruelty, or they act because they are immoral which then condemns Jews, Israel, and Zionism as criminal conspiracies.
This of course is nothing more or less than the same old anti-Semitic garbage in a new suit and a fancy address in London.
In this febrile version of events the Palestinians never allied themselves with the Nazis, the Arabs never participated in the UN vote on Partition of the British Mandate, didn’t lose the vote, and didn’t start an illegal war, (followed by several other illegal wars or if you prefer, one long illegal war) which they never lost and which did not become the proximate cause of the Palestinian diaspora.
And that sequence of events, having been removed from the bill of indictment against the Arabs, is inverted to indict Jews, Israel and Zionism as being devoid of cause and effect and again, defined as nothing more or less than a crime.
In this upside down universe version of events, the Arabs never attempted genocidal wars, while simultaneously supporting terror campaigns, never employed their own Gestapo to destroy their own authentic left, never slipped in and out of bed with Soviet and American and European imperialists who were themselves, saying on the one hand they support freedom and a two state solution, and with the other employing not so ex Nazis everywhere from Europe to Vietnam to South America.
No sir, the bunker mentality of the Israeli right is woven into the DNA of Zionism therefore Zionism is at best flawed and at worst immoral.
Nicely played Schatz.
And in the following paragraph, which we quote at length all of the contortions of illogic as Schatz exceeds the g force tolerance of honesty shine through:
“Security is the paramount concern, Israel says, pointing to its enemies (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran) and to the growing volatility on its border with Syria. These are not irrational fears, but, as in the past, they serve to justify expansion, generating further insecurity, which in turn justifies further land grabs. If security on the basis of coexistence were truly its aim, Israel might have taken up land-for-peace offers made by the Arabs, notably the Saudi peace plan in 2002. But Israel has been less interested in security than in land, with or without peace: a position it can afford thanks to its overwhelming military advantage over the Palestinians. The Arab states have ceased to pressure Israel: their fear of Iran outweighs whatever solidarity they feel with the Palestinians.”
Again notice first the head fake – the security concerns are or at least appear to be legitimate but – these fears, while not irrational – are inverted for nefarious purposes.
Of course having dispensed with facts and context Schatz can indict a ham sandwich and ask – what the fuck was Pearl Harbor doing on the morning of December 7th, 1941!?!
One might pause and ask well what are some of the details of the not so irrational fear?
Could it be as we’ve outlined the attempts at genocide or enslavement by the Arabs?
Could it be the use of not so ex Nazis to achieve that aim?
Could it be that until the end of the 20th century, Israel was drastically outnumbered and potentially outgunned at the “close run thing” of the ’73 war and had scared the piss out of people?
Could it be that the US leadership and “friendship” were fickle, complex and periodically being run through the department of caprice and whimsy?
Could it be that they can read books in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and when they read that Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, states that he cannot guarantee the security of the US chain of command, and that some gang of goons at Langley might be slipping bogus intel to the US military, any reasonable person should have the jitters and shakes – because if Clinton is telling the truth, then all the security arrangements and treaty obligations, come with an asterisk that says: Offer void where politically expedient.
Could it be that psychologically it is absurd to expect generational traumas to evaporate based on the scheduling of the editorial policies of the London Review of Books?
Could it be that the “Saudi peace plan” had all the legitimacy one would expect from a decadent and depraved monarchy with attitudes more at home in the 7th century than are suited for the 21st?
Could it be that there’s more truth in a poem by Darwish and a novel by Shabtai than in everything every written by Adam Schatz?
Continuing his black hole approach Schatz moves from a to z while skipping over everything from b to y.
“Expansion” again elides everything else and as a result the fractious, problematic but functioning democracy of Israel vanishes at the event horizon and one goes through a worm hole – from Hezbollah poses an authentic threat to the “Conquest of the West Bank” and of course, Gaza, Gaza, Gaza!!! – with nothing else in-between.
Erased are the wars, the terrorism, the politics, the spies, the economic crisis, and the secrets which cover a magic mountain (sic) of details that as with all other complex historical narratives, limit our understanding to the point where the best we can achieve is informed speculation.
Unless you’re a bigot in which case fuck the details just hurry up with the rope and the tree.
Schatz continues and props up his train wreck narrative with this:
“In the words of the historian Enzo Traverso, Israel has ‘put an end to Jewish modernity. Diaspora Judaism had been the critical conscience of the Western world; Israel survives as one of its mechanisms of domination.’ ”
Again take note of the sweeping generalization. And end to Jewish modernity?*
Really? No more soup for you Seinfeld!
Etgar Koret is traif!
And the largest public event in Israel the annual Gay Pride parade which attracts around 250,000 people, the independent cinema, publishing, education, music, feminism, legalization of marijuana, the right to a divorce, own property, access to the internet, libraries, etc, are either not signs of modernity or are dismissed.
Thus, Donald Trump means that everything else that is a fact of the United States is invalid or elided.
This sort of flim flam is really not any better than the pile of steaming garbage one finds at FOX or Brietbart but it’s wrapped in a nicer perfume.
And as to: Israel survives as one of its mechanisms of domination – vs say France which is only to be defined as a historical success because Macron can quote Rimbaud and Baudelaire and Le Pen does not pose an authentic threat to the limited freedoms the French enjoy.
Finally though Schatz goes on, and on, whistling passed the graveyard and praying for the triumph of the atrophied left, and after coughing up more faux acknowledgements of anti-Semitism as authentic problems, he makes the dismount and sticks the landing with this:
“…anti-Semitism in the US is of no structural significance: it does not prejudice Jewish opportunity, as racism does for black people; Judaism is not invoked by the state, as Islam is, to prevent people from entering the country or to justify the racial profiling and surveillance of American citizens. ”
Well that’s mighty White of you Adam.
Yet another sweeping generalization based no doubt on his access to the inner working of America’s intelligence agencies where they have no recollection of systemic anti-Semitism and therefore can say categorically it’s not going on today – secret evidence used to justify the execution of a US citizen??
What’s that you say – a massive all pervasive state sanctioned surveillance apparatus but never fear, Adam Schatz is here to declare who is and who is not being cared for by Big Brother.
And of course Schatz rides two horses with one ass – Charlottesville and Jews shall not replace us – is acknowledged as awful but he insists it was not a function of the state and therefore is defined instead as a spontaneous organic combustion of anti-Semitism.
Except of course for Trump’s with you no matter what pledge to David Duke, the Klan, and the blatant anti-Semitism of his former Hand, Steve Bannon, and consistent reports of local police officers being members of various right wing terrorist groups, Schatz makes an interesting point.
Never mind then that reports tell us that attacks against Jews across Europe are approaching levels not seen since the 1920s and early 30s.
Because, who gives a fuck about the details.
We could go on but what’s the point.
See the shit on a stick here:
*Schatz does qualify “modernity” to suggest perhaps it’s not quite as definitive a condition as the critic states.
Addendum: While we have mixed feeling about the implied necrophilia inherent in selling the previously private letters of anyone, we take note of the following missive from Leonard Cohen which puts nail to coffin vis Schatz’ insipid declarations about why people travel anywhere, including Israel:
“Highlights from the sale, to run online from 5-13 June, include a letter written in Tel Aviv in September 1960 at the start of their relationship where Cohen says: “It’s hard to write you. The surf is too loud. The beach is too crowded, and you’re too much in my heart to put anything down.” ”
And we note that for all we know, in addition writing, being melancholy and getting laid, the crooner may have also spent time toiling to redeem the land.
See the details here:
*Re: “Negotiations.” The bigots and the left wing bigots like to attempt to invalidate Zionism by saying Zionists “negotiated” with the Nazis.
As we’ve pointed out that hardly makes them unque and if it invalidates Zionism it also invalidates everyone and everything else from Jesse Owens to Winston Churchill.
What is more important is that as an attempted smear it relies on removing context. “Negotiate” and “negotiantions” suggest a discussion between equals. The Zionists did not negotiate with the Nazis – they tried to escape while the world held a gun to their heads.
That is a completely different narrative and the refusal to recognize it is of course just more of the same old bigotry in a new suit.
And, we add with a wry sense of amusement and the vagaries of history that, David Ben-Gurion, thought back during the First World War, it would be a good idea for Jews to enlist in the Ottoman army to fight the British and the French because, he thought the Turks were going to win, and grant the Jews an independent state or at least a quasi-independent protectorate within the empire.
Considering that from a later date, he said, perhaps it was wrong, perhaps it was right.
A statement that could easily be affixed to the desk of any leader anywhere in the world.
For a look at civil society in Jordan:
From today’s The Guardian:
“BBC reveals details of its Panorama programme about Labour and antisemitism
Here is the top of the embargoed news release that the BBC has sent out about its Panorama tonight about Labour and antisemitism.
Eight former Labour officials, including seven from the complaints and disputes department, have spoken to BBC Panorama, to discuss antisemitism in the Labour party. They all worked for the party over the last four years, and all have now left. Four are speaking out despite having signed NDAs with the Labour party. In total Panorama has spoken to more than 20 Labour officials, which includes many of the officials who have been dealing with antisemitism complaints since 2015.
Their testimony reveals:
A complaints and disciplinary system that had to deal with a huge increase in antisemitism complaints since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.
Allegations that there were substantial disagreements within the party about what constituted antisemitism.
Allegations of interference in the complaints process from the leader’s office, including a claim that there was even one occasion when complaints were directly processed by aides in Jeremy Corbyn’s Westminster Office.
Discussion by the general secretary about interference with the national constitution committee (NCC), the independent body within the Labour party that has the final say over expulsions.”
Michael Brooks, using another fool’s empty rhetoric to make the case that the Palestinians, the corrupt PLO, Hamas, the US, the Europeans, and all the usual suspects, have no responsibility for the conditions in which the Palestinians find themselves. And per usual, Brooks makes a case in which context has been amputated from the facts.
None of which changes the fact that the Likud and its allied continue to be thugs and fools.
Addendum: Culture and its politics are full of contradictions. That’s a point lost on bigots like Michael Brooks. Here’s an example:
A brief word here about BDS, left hypocrisy and bigotry.
Critics of BDS correctly point out the double standard employed by its advocates who call for a boycott of Israel et al, but seemingly have no moral objection to using products made by Chinese slaves or others in equally compromised circumstances.*
Noted left bigot Rashida Tlaib recently performed a sly Step and Fetchit on CNN, where when asked by Jake Tapper why she didn’t also call for boycotts of the ruthless dictatorships in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or China, responded by dodging the question and said that, if there were boycotts of those countries she would support them.
When Tapper pointed out that as a member of congress she could propose legislation calling for boycotts of those countries, she repeated that if there were boycotts she would support them.
In other words, her view is, everyone is equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others, and fuck the Jews.
Which brings us to this latest twist in the Brexit Revisited saga.
The very large, well organized Irish American community has put its enormous foot on the brakes and let its representatives on Capital Hill know, in no uncertain terms, that BoJo, and Rees-Mogg Inc. cannot shit on the Good Friday Agreement and start dumping gasoline and matches on Ireland.
Johnson is, fucked.
Brexit is dead.(though one should not rule out the fantasies of Jacob Rees-Mogg leading to a no deal withdrawal, a state of emergency and the imposition of near dictatorial rule fulfilling JRM’s desire to turn the clock back to the 18th century)
Or England can withdraw from the United Kingdom, commit suicide and Ireland and Scotland can be part of the EU.
That the Brexiters are idiots goes without saying.
But while that is a worthy topic our focus here is the analogy between the US Irish response to Brexit and BDS and how it further exposes the hypocrisy and bigotry of the left supporters of BDS.
Among their chief talking points are how Jews generally and specifically in the form of AIPAC “wield too much power” and because Jews are shifty, sketchy, money hungry vermin, they should be punished for involving themselves in politics.
And being better organized than the people who support BDS.
Of course when the Irish American community takes advantage of their civil rights and acts within the law to express an opinion, vote for people and things they believe in, and put pressure on the government to safe guard the old country, you wont hear Ilhan Omar talking about dual loyalty. You wont hear Rashida Tlaib doing her Uncle Remus routine about sacrifice and trying to convince people that the Potato Famine was really just a well intentioned weight loss program.
The BDS supporters would counter that they too have the right to promote a boycott.
That’s true but they seem to have forgotten that governments, or at least the US government at both the federal and state level has laws that prohibit boycotts based on, sex, ethnicity, or religion.
In other words, if Ms. Tlaib wants to stop buying products from Israel, she is free to do so. The government is not.
See some of the details here:
Addendum: There remains one other key point regarding Brooks’ bigotry and his elision of historical context. As part of his anti-Semitic rhetorical arsenal he employs the phrase “ethno state” to describe Israel.
The phrase is derived from the basic tenant of Zionism as a 19th century nationalist movement for Jews and dedicated to the goal of establishing a nation state for Jews.
By leaving out why Jews felt the need to leave Europe en mass, and form their own country, Brooks conveys the idea that there is something inherently racist in Zionism – that it was developed because of a sense of superiority by Jews, who per Brooks, are recast as bigots. This is deliberate on the part of Brooks and his racist friends who want to create the illusion that Zionism as an ideology and Israel as a fact are identical to Apartheid South Africa.
Brooks, like Rashida Tlaib and other bigots, consistently jumps from “Zionism” to Gaza as if there was nothing before or after 1948 and thus, he can toss out “ethno state” as if Zionism is based on a racist ideology.
What goes missing of course is the cauldron of European anti-Semitism, beginning of course with centuries of violence directed by the church, in both its Catholic and Protestant iterations, followed by the rise of industrial scale anti-Semitism in Russia’s adoption of state sponsored terrorism against Jews with Pogroms and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Following on from the resulting refugee crisis in which millions of Jews ran from Russia and Russian occupied Poland, anti-Semitism (a word coined by a German who founded social clubs based on stopping Jewish refugees from reaching the relative safety of the world outside of Russia) became a large scale socio-political movement with specific efforts in Germany and France to scapegoat Jews.
These efforts saw the launching of anti-Semitic newspapers, books, laws, and violence against Jews.
Unable to make use of George Boulenger as a neo-Bonaparte, the monarchists, Catholic fascists, and various anti-Semitic organizations in France next rallied around the Dreyfus affair resulting in a maelstrom of anti-Semitism.
Rightly fearing for their safety, Jews across Europe began to organize and looked to create a country of their own.
Brooks in leaving out any historical context recreates Zionism as a race based ideological movement essentially not very different from various other race based nationalist movements like National Socialism.
As a sop to intellectual respectability he will occasionally toss out Tony Judt who, as a reflection of the psychological trauma of his MS, advocated a one state solution, in which the Palestinians would become citizens of a single bi-national state.
The Alice in Wonderland absurdity of the idea, the deliberate deceit inherent in pretending that the Palestinians are in any significant way, committed to pluralism, free speech, freedom of religion, a free press, independent legal systems, and are willing to fight to disarm Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations speaks not only to an intellectual bankruptcy but a spiritual illness.
“Ethno state” is then attached by Brooks and other bigots, to all of the post 1948 events and as a result, again, we are supposed to pretend the Arabs did not participate in the legally binding UN vote on Partition, and that they did not start an illegal war.
In the end Brooks and the rest of the anti-Semitic cadres can seemingly be dismissed because they are so clearly absurd but it would be a mistake not to take seriously the febrile atmosphere they are creating.
Brooks and his enabler, Sam Seder, are ginning up the mob.
Even a cursory look at the comments posted on their YouTube videos reveals that they are well aware of what’s being said and that they refuse to condemn the violent hate filled language.
Quick to condemn Trump, Fox and Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and others, for ginning up their crowd, they prove that not all criticism of the Progressives by the right are false.
*Same Seder, the host of The Majority Report, where Brooks peddles his bigotry is of course only slightly less odious.
Commenting on Tapper’s logical question to Tlaib about her inconsistency and her biogtry, Seder sarcastically and rhetorically asks, about an exchange between Bernie Sanders and an interviewer – didn’t the interviewer ask about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? After all, says Seder, Tapper made the point that all comments about Israel require additional comments about Arab states.
In fact what Tapper asked was, how do you respond to criticism that says you’re inconsistent and hypocritical because you single out Israel when there are numerous other countries with atrocious records on human rights.
The answer of course is that focusing on Israel while purchasing slave manufactured products and paying taxes in countries that support dictatorships is hypocritical and Tlaib, Brooks et al, are bigots who hate Jews.
And of course it allows bigots too pretend that while Israel shares borders and an interconnected region with a series of ruthless dictatorships, whose consistent hatred of Modernism and things like free speech, make the question posed by Tapper, not just legitimate but, essential.
Despite a few right wing carbuncles, the article below offers both an excellent excavation of the bigotry of the left and a solid if also problematic review of a worthwhile book:
Safe to assume the bigots will either ignore this or spin it by claiming that the attacks were legitimately in response to the “ethno state” and the “colonial settler project.” If so one also assumes Brooks et al will volunteer to eat shrapnel and bullets should such an event occur again. See the details here:
More from The Guardian – though buried well below the fold as they wouldn’t wan to draw attention to the rot at the heart of Labour: