Table
of Contents
Part 1: Immigration
Part 2: Ethnic
Cleansing
Part 3: The
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Content
Part
1: Immigration
While
some in the Libertarian Party stress the importance of establishing
the rule of law, I agree with those in the Libertarian Socialist
Caucus (as well as those outside the L.P.) who call for the abolition
of I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). I also join calls to
deport I.C.E..
I
will remind conservatives and libertarians who defend I.C.E. that the
agency did not exist just 15 years ago; and that, being part of the
D.H.S. (Department of Homeland Security), it's questionable whether
I.C.E. has any constitutional authority to exist in the first place.
America
got by fine for 227 years without ICE, just like it got by fine for
70 years before the racist Chinese Exclusion Act set the precedent
for World War I -era exclusions, and a subsequent hundred years of
unfounded restrictions on the natural right to engage in locomotion
(movement), the right to escape tyranny, and the right to escape poor
economic conditions.
Some
say that poor economic conditions is not as a good an excuse for
illegal immigration as escaping tyranny is. However, tyranny often
causes poor
economic conditions, through mismanagement. It wasn't acceptable for
Stalin and Mao to starve people just because it might have been an
accident; for the same reason that negligent manslaughter is a crime
just like murder is.
If
someone laments that N.A.F.T.A. cost America jobs, then explain that
N.A.F.T.A. also caused the repeal of the part of the Mexican
constitution that protected indigenous people's rights to their land,
allowing them to be sold to multinational corporations for
“development”. Remind them that losing your land, and having your
babies taken from you on your way into the country, are bigger deals
than losing a few people's jobs. Remind them that both America and
Mexico suffered as a result of N.A.F.T.A..
Conservatives
are supposed to believe that jobs are supposed to go wherever the
invisible hand of the market dictates; wherever there is a market
demand that is going unfulfilled. They do not believe in free markets
or free trade, unless they believe that “labor and capital must be
perfectly mobile in the long run”. Basically, that working people
ought to be free to cross borders; every bit as free as consumer
goods, machines, corporate assets, and money are. Those who want free
movement of capital, but restricted movement of labor, are not
supporters of the free market, but of capitalism.
Those
who want a border wall, but claim to be conservatives, are using the
government to insulate themselves from having to compete against hard
working people from other countries, and against foreign industry
that is trying to do its best just like us. That idea is totally
antithetical to free-market and limited government values, and has no
business being called conservatism because it conserves neither
finances nor the constraints we have imposed upon our government.
Historically,
white Americans have often used property – and other people's lack
thereof - as a way to exclude non-Aryans and undocumented immigrants
from America, and the poor from private property. Even some modern
conservatives and libertarians believe that people who have no
property (and by property, I mean to include identification
documents) should be prohibited from voting altogether. Being
deprived of the opportunity to own property is not a just cause to
take away someone's right to vote, it's just theft with extra steps.
For
example, poll taxes,
which were made unconstitutional by the 24th
Amendment, but which are now coming back subtly in the form of
requirements that voters pay to purchase identification documents.
They would rather lecture us for an hour about how all sorts of poor
people can easily afford, obtain, and hang onto I.D.s, instead of pay
for needy people to get those I.D.s in the first place; all this to
justify proving who we are not only when we vote, but before every
decision we make, major or minor.
The
difficulties associated with needing an I.D. everywhere you go, are,
of course, compounded for undocumented immigrants. Opponents of
undocumented immigration say that only citizens should vote, but
these people are quite often fleeing despotic countries where they
know their vote won't count. If they're ineligible to vote in their
home countries, then their vote ought to be counted somewhere,
or else there's arguably a human rights deprivation happening. Why
not allow their votes to count in the jurisdictions in which they
have settled, whose affairs actually materially affect them?
If
someone uses private property to justify excluding undocumented
immigrants – like by asking “Do you have a fence around your
house?” or “Would you let just anyone onto your property?” -
then say to them what we say in the Libertarian Party: “Your right
to police immigration ends at your property line.” Tell them that
if they want to police immigration, then they should join I.C.E., or
else they should stop using the government as a tool to do their
dirty work for them, like they claim the Democrats do. Additionally,
ask the anti-immigrant property lover how he can support a border
wall, when plans for it are causing people's property to be taken
away via eminent
domain.
Some
claim that America needs I.C.E. to stop people from “stealing our
country” or “stealing our land”. But it's the people at I.C.E.
who are the thieves, because
they're stealing all our money to kick people off of land which the
government stole from the native people in the first place.
If
someone claims that America won the land fair and square in a fight,
then tell them you'll fight them
for it. Conquest is not only theft, but also genocide. Tell them that
ignoring treaties with native tribes is not how you protect the rule
of law, it's how you look untrustworthy while you try to say with a
straight face that they can be sure the Constitution protects their
rights because you wrote it down on a piece of paper.
Also,
the American military has entered a hell of a lot more countries
illegally (and unconstitutionally, without congressional
authorization and a formal declaration of war) than any group of
immigrants has. So the American military are “the real
illegal immigrants”. That is why I join calls to not only abolish
I.C.E., but to deport it
as well.
It
is unfortunate that so few people in this country realize that
entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor the first
time you do it. It's not a felony until the third offense.
Additionally, entering the United States without permission can
certainly
be done without harming anyone or damaging property; it can be as
simple as entering without permission or overstaying a visa.
Illegal
immigration is an infraction, so technically it is illegal and
against the law. But it is usually victimless, and therefore usually
not a crime. That's because crimes have real victims. In the jury
nullification and pro se defense
movements, we say “no victim, no crime”. The legal principle
corpus delicti (meaning
“the body of the crime”), and precedents on evidence established
in Terry v.
Ohio,
dictate that there
must be real, physical evidence that someone has been harmed or
wronged, or their justly acquired property damaged or missing, if it
is to be said that an actual crime has occurred.
Additionally,
a real person must be harmed, not just “the public”. The public
is a social construct, its membership is controlled and regulated and
somewhat exclusive, and it is not a real physical person which can
fall victim to bodily harm or loss of justly acquired property.
Arguably, none of the
public's property is just.
Some
refute the claim that undocumented immigration is victimless, by
saying that undocumented immigrants do victimize people,
because “the taxpayer” is the victim (because he is made to pay
for the immigrant). But this situation is the fault of the I.R.S. and
Congress, not the fault of immigrants in general, nor any particular
immigrant.
Furthermore,
undocumented immigrants are not the drain on America that they are
depicted to be. Working undocumented immigrants might even be net
contributors to the Social Security system, because they might be
using a false Social Security Number, or someone else's, while
they're unable to receive any benefits (unless and until they become
citizens, if at all). So not all undocumented immigrants are a drain
on the taxpayers. Especially considering that white, Republican
states are the primary recipients of government assistance, and
considering how willing some Republicans were to accept $12 billion
in farm aid (most of which they know damn well will go to large
agro-industrial producers).
Opponents
of immigration say, “Just come in legally, and you won't experience
the problems associated with being an illegal immigrant.” It sounds
like a simple solution, sure. But wouldn't an even simpler
solution be to give amnesty to the non-violent immigrants who are
already here, so they don't have to resort to living lives of secrecy
in the shadows as second-class citizens? Then, they would be full,
legal citizens, and they wouldn't have to experience the problems
associated with not being free to come out of the shadows.
In
May 2007, during the debates for the Democratic presidential
nomination, former Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich said that no
person is illegal; “they're undocumented”. He's right; no person
is “illegal”, nor an “alien”. To call someone illegal is to
call the person illegal, not the “crime”. Calling someone
illegal is hating the sinner, not the “sin”. Calling someone an
alien is treating them like they're from another planet. Thus,
calling someone an “illegal alien” others people twice in
one phrase; it literally alienates them.
Anyone
who is not frightened by this kind of language is ignorant of
history. I would not enjoy living in a culture in which people
“police” other people's language so as to conform to “political
correctness”, but I also detest the usage of certain words which I
feel dehumanize people, and I detest speech which is intended to
cause a riot or call for harm against people.
We
must not forget that the Nazis used words like “parasite”,
“virus”, and “disease” to describe the Jews; and we must
notice when people like President Trump and Alex Jones spew terms
like “illegal alien”; and words like “scum”, “worms”, and
“maggots”.
And
just because someone's in a gang, doesn't mean you have to call them
a “dog” or say they're lower than human beings. I don't know a
single dog who's ever joined a gang. To call MS-13 “dogs” is
almost an insult to dogs. Also, MS-13 was formed in Los Angeles,
which is located in the United States, so immigration controls are
not going to stop the spread of MS-13.
The
only thing that will stop the spread of MS-13 and other gangs is
good, old-fashioned, by-the-book police work. Those who support
Donald Trump's immigration policy say it is necessary to protect “the
rule of law”; but this is the same president who openly flaunted
the rule of law when he spoke about guns (saying “Take the guns
first, go through due process second.”).
This
is a president with no respect for the civil liberties of anybody,
citizen or not, except himself. Considering the escalation in
Afghanistan, the tariffs backfiring, the separation of children at
the border into internment camps, and Trump's defense of using
eminent domain to steal from one private property owner to give to
another, it is a wonder why anyone can call himself a conservative,
let alone a libertarian, and still support the guy.
It's
just an awfully big coincidence that the victims of that escalation
in Afghanistan, the victims of internment camps at the border, and
most of the intended victims of the tariffs, are all non-whites.
Part
2: Ethnic Cleansing
In late July 2018,
congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY-14) told a
co-host of the podcast “In the Thick” that she agreed with their
assessment that President Trump's zero-tolerance policy on
immigration restriction is “kinda like ethnic cleansing”, saying
“I mean, we're on that spectrum, I would say.” She also said “How
much is this black-box detention necessary?”, adding “we're
caging women and children, we're jumping to criminalize people...”.
I agree with her.
In
January 2018, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against
Germany released a study of 1,350 American adults, which revealed
that 2/3 don't know what Auschwitz is, and 1/3 believe that
substantially less than 6 million Jews were murdered in the
Holocaust. Even more of us seem to forget that an additional 5-14
million more people in Germany were murdered by Nazis, and 20
million more by the Nazis and their Axis Powers allies in Europe
outside of Germany.
If
Americans can't remember
important things about the Holocaust, or believe it happened at the
magnitude it did, then it should be no surprise that many of them
can't see a Holocaust coming before it happens. If you've read the
work of Lillian Faderman then you'll know that reproduction and
giving birth can be considered forms of political activism. Her study
of a Native American mother, and a Jewish mother whose parents were
Nazi refugees, tell stories of giving birth on a reservation during a
hail of C.I.A. gunfire nearby, and giving birth to a Jewish
baby knowing that the Nazis would have rather had the baby die or
never live. Giving birth to a new member of the tribe, knowing that
the tribe is threatened and decimated, is thus an innately political
action.
Not
only are babies being taken away from their mothers at the border,
but children are sometimes separated from their mothers with a lie
that the officials are going to give the children showers. This
is arguably reminiscent of the way the Nazis led Jews to gas chambers
by having them prepare for showers.
Also,
people are being separated on the basis of sex and age group, as they
were in the Nazi concentration camps. They are lodged in cages, or in
other kinds of cramped, uniform housing facilities. Those who get in,
even legally, are
often worked half to death, treated as second class citizens, and
shamed for using their native language and having different
hairstyles. And finally,
they are used as scapegoats for all the country's problems, and
subjected to ethnic and racial slurs, and other forms of dehumanizing
and alienating rhetoric (scum, filth, parasites, viruses, animals,
etc.).
It
was this treatment – treating Jewish and Mexican people as if they
either have diseases, or are
diseases – which led to the de-lousing of members of both groups
with harsh chemicals. If
you read about the El Paso - Juárez Bath Riots, you'll learn that in
the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s – even until long after the Mexican
typhus scare ended - at that border crossing, immigrants were made to
strip nude for inspection, to have their clothes treated in a steam
cycle, and to undergo lice treatment that included being sprayed with
hazardous chemicals, including gasoline, a caustic mineral called
cryolite, and even Zyklon B (the cyanide-based pesticide that was
developed into a chemical weapon in Germany in the 1920s, and then
used to systematically exterminate six million Jews and at least five
million other “undesirables” under the Nazi regime).
That
is the history of Jewish immigrants to America, and that is the
history of Chicano and Latinx immigrants to the United States (and
non-immigrants as well).
While
supporters of Israel cry “never again”, some almost seem to
solely mean that this should never happen again to Jewish
people, only to whomever tries
to enter illegally. The State of Israel might not even exist
if not for unrestricted, undocumented immigration (that is,
immigration of Jews into Israel, from collapsing and hostile
countries).
These
ardent supporters of the Jewish state will even stoop to hushing any
discussion of the story of the boat the St. Louis, which carried
Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to North America and then back to
Europe. F.D.R.'s America rejected
those immigrants, who were undocumented, but who were desperate
enough to come without paperwork because Hitler and the S.S. wanted
them dead. Luckily, Canada accepted some, and European countries
accepted the rest, before the boat returned to Germany.
As
I explained earlier (in discussing socialism), it is ironic that the
supporters of the modern right-wing Israeli state, refuse to give up
their hatred of anarchists and communists, and refuse to admit that
the last century of Jewish settlement of the Levant was characterized
by autonomous, independent labor communes,
which predated the existence of a Jewish state in the area.
The
Jewish nation has gone from a polycentric, libertarian-communalist
diaspora, to one of oligarchical capitalism and racial exclusion.
Considering Israel's latest “Jewish national self-determination”
law, this is more blatant and obvious than ever. Fortunately, I feel
that the tide is turning: for Jewish people,
but against the
occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.
Many
Zionists do not seem to understand that the same immigrant exclusion
laws which are today being used against Hispanic and Muslim
immigrants, could easily be used to exclude Jewish people and victims
of real humanitarian catastrophes. If the only thing that will remind
them of this possibility is the looming threat of takeover of the
Republican Party by the Alt-Right, and by neo-Nazis - like Illinois
U.S. House candidate Arthur Jones - then so be it, they need
reminding.
The
power to discriminate on the basis of national origin in our
immigration policy - and the use of that power as a subterfuge to
distract from the fact that the real policy is exclusion on the basis
of non-whiteness and non-Christianity – are only going to be used
to keep out real refugees. Some of them lack papers, but if we
demand that people identify and label themselves everywhere they go,
and maintain internment camps that we ship people to without a trial,
then how is our immigration substantially any different from the
ethnic cleansing and domestic internment programs enforced by Hitler
and the SchutzStaffel?
Part
3: The Israel-Palestine Conflict
While
many supporters of the State of Israel consider it a hate crime to
suggest that the State of Israel does not have the right to exist,
many of the same people are perfectly willing to assert, and boldly,
that Palestine has no right to exist as a sovereign entity.
Certainly the Jewish people have a right to exist, but their
government only has the right to exist only so long as it does not
make war on its neighbors, and only so long as it does not oppress
foreigners seeking refuge within it.
I
am concerned that a Palestinian state could only ever achieve 40%
support, and thus it might oppress nearly two-thirds of the people
who will be expected to pledge it allegiance. That is why I am not
necessarily ready to support a two-state solution.
The
one-state solution and the two-state solution are not the only
potential solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here are
some alternative arrangements:
1) We could
reinstate the 1967 borders, make Jerusalem an international city,
while establishing three separate Jewish regions and three separate
Arab regions (like the U.N. Partition Plan originally intended).
2) Egypt could take
Gaza, Syria could take the Golan Heights, and Jordan could take the
West Bank. Gaza could become independent.
3) The State of
Israel could be dismantled, while allowing Jewish communities to
remain autonomous within an Arab-run state.
4) Jewish people
could decide that the Holy Land is too hostile for Jews, and decide
to migrate to Europe, America, both, or elsewhere.
5) All
communities in the Holy Land – Jewish, Arab, or otherwise – could
abandon dreams of securing an exclusive nation-state, and instead
return to communal autonomy. Call it the No-State Solution.
Anything
could happen. But in my opinion, no solution should ever
be considered “the final solution”; for the same reason that you
don't put all your eggs in one basket, which is that one bad apple
spoils the whole bunch.
The
occupation of Palestine is illegal; despite the cries of
“What's to occupy? Palestine isn't a country”, which have come
from Joe Lieberman and Ron deSantis in rebutting Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez's views on the issue.
First
off, the occupation illegal because Palestine is
a country, and a nation, even if it is not yet a fully sovereign
state in the eyes of every single country in the world. Also, it is
undoubtedly a place – the Gaza Strip (historical Philistia), the
West Bank of the River Jordan, and the Golan Heights – and it is a
people.
With
or without fully sovereignty, the Palestinian state does
exist, because the Palestinian National Authority does exert some
level of control over certain areas in the West Bank. However, it's
only where the Israeli government permits
it
to exercise some modicum of control. To call the P.N.A.
“semi-autonomous” would be a huge compliment to both it and
Israel. But even if it is not
a
fully sovereign state, that's because it's not being allowed to
govern by the Israelis.
Moreover,
Palestine remains a state in the eyes of more than half of the
world's United Nations member countries. Although it's true that
fewer nations recognize Palestinian sovereignty than Israeli
sovereignty, the difference is only 23 countries. While 84% of
countries recognize Israel (161 U.N. member countries out of 192),
72% recognize Palestine (138 countries).
Since
2012, 138 United Nations member countries voted to extend non-member
observer state status to Palestine, amounting to de
facto recognition
of the sovereignty of the Palestinian state. Any further elevation of
Palestine's status in the United Nations will result in irrefutable
nationhood status for that country. It is, for all intents and
purposes, as close to a sovereign state as one can be, without
technically being a full member in the eyes of the U.N..
Additionally,
the settlements are illegal, because the State of Israel
acquired all three Palestinian territories (and also the Sinai
Peninsula, which it soon after gave up) during the Six-Day War in
1967. Israel retained the three territories, and effectively declared
the entirety of East Jerusalem as its territory in the 1980 Basic
Law, by declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of the country (despite
its divided status).
The
specific laws which state that the occupation and settlements are
illegal, are the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that no
country may move its people into a territory which was occupied
during a war. Additional laws to this effect are the 1979 U.N.
Security Council Resolution 446, and subsequent U.N.S.C. Resolutions
from 1980 and 2016.
Additionally,
East Jerusalem is the most populous city in all of the three
Palestinian territories combined, and thus, it is probably the most
suitable place for a capital city. Therefore, a divided city would
arguably still be just as problematic as it was thought to be when
the original U.N. Partition Plan was being considered (which would
have created two sovereign states, and would have designated
Jerusalem an international city, thus hopefully avoiding such a
problem).
It's
not only that Palestine lacking full sovereignty doesn't mean it
can't be occupied; it's also that the notion that Palestinians cannot
be a nation unless they have full sovereignty, plays into the idea
that Jewish people were not a nation before Israeli
independence (and into the idea that they therefore have no right to
exist). The nation
of Palestine exists regardless of whether there is a Palestinian
state; just like how Jewish people have remained a nation despite
going centuries upon centuries without sovereign government.
It's
difficult to help but wonder, if the State of Israel were recognized
by fewer than 138 countries, whether its supporters would use the
same arguments to defend their position. If that were the case, it
would be even more difficult for an Israel supporter to
attempt to de-legitimize Palestine, without also accidentally
de-legitimizing Israel as well.
The
nine men I have listed below are Jewish critics of the
State of Israel and its crimes. While the first two are not observant
Jews, they come from Jewish families. These men criticize the
occupation of Palestine, or the legitimacy of the State of Israel's
authority, or both; and they do it without criticizing Jewish people
or the Jewish religion.
1) Dr. Noam
Chomsky, the linguist, academic, and political dissident who called
the Gaza Strip “an open-air concentration camp”.
2)
Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, and the
author of the book The
Holocaust Industry,
which criticized Israel for what he considers its exploitation of the
memory of the Holocaust to justify the occupation of Palestine.
3) Rabbi Yaakov
Shapiro, whose books and lectures explain Jewish opposition to
political Zionism, while also noting the attempts of secular founders
of Zionism (Theodor Herzl and Ze'ev Jabotinsky) to effectively
destroy Jewish cultural identity by attempting to mold Ashkenazi Jews
into macho, almost Naziesque idealizations of the Jews' Teutonic
oppressors.
4-5) Rabbi
Yisroel Dovid Weiss, the spokesman of Neturei Karta; and Rabbi
Elhanan Beck, who answers the e-mails of the American branch of the
group (www.nkusa.org). Neturei
Karta is a group of Jewish activists who oppose the existence of the
State of Israel on religious grounds, and who also protest the
occupation of Palestine. Neturei Karta is Aramaic for “the
guardians of the city”, referring to Jerusalem.
6-9) Rabbis
Moshe and Yoel Teitelbaum (deceased), and Aaron and Zalman Teitelbaum
(living), prominent Hasidic rabbis belonging to the Teitelbaum
family, which originally hailed from Satmar, Romania. Each of these
rabbis has led congregations of Jewish people who reject the
authority of the State of Israel on religious grounds.
Neturei Karta, and
about 150,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews the world over, believe that the
State of Israel is antithetical to the Jewish religion. This is
because they believe that it subverts the rule of God, the Davidic
Dynasty, and the rabbinic courts. They also say Jewish sovereignty is
premature, because they believe that the Jews are currently in exile,
and Mashiach (the Messiah) has not yet returned and ended that
exile through a miracle.
If you think about
it, the idea that an obvious miracle did not end the exile, is almost
to suggest that it was not a miracle that the Holocaust ended,
and a miracle that anyone survived. But leaving that idea aside, most
Jewish people (besides “messianic Jews”, sometimes called “Jews
for Jesus”) cannot readily name the Jewish Messiah. So even if a
miracle ended the exile, the Jewish Messiah seems to be missing
(unless either Christianity is right, and Jesus is the
Messiah, or there's something else I'm missing).
The point is,
religious and political radicalism are reasons why many Jewish
people view Neturei Karta as “extremists”, as full of hate, and
as wanting to destroy the Jewish people (or at least destroy what
they see as its source of strength, its government). While they are
arguably “extreme”, even “radical”, they are not violent, nor
do they preach violence. Instead, they say they “pray for the
speedy and peaceful dismantlement of the state”, seeing G-d
as a greater source of strength for the Jewish people than the
Israeli government ever could be.
These
disagreements should help explain why many of the nine men I
mentioned above have been described as “anti-Semitic”, and/or as
“self-hating Jews”, by supporters of Israel. Some supporters of
Israel even believe that “all criticism of Israel is rooted in
anti-Semitism”, and some are attempting to push the phrase
“Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism”. These people evidently
believe that the best way to keep Jewish people safe is to silence
them. They must think that if they repeat their slogans over and
over, eventually people will believe them.
I
would be remiss if I neglected to mention a tenth person, philosopher
Hannah Arendt. The author of The Origins of Totalitarianism
and Eichmann in Jerusalem,
she served as an expert witness in the Nuremberg Trials.
Despite the fact that she was Jewish, she was not accused of
being a Jewish anti-Semite (to my knowledge) when she argued against
holding trials of Nazi officers in Jerusalem. She essentially argued
that to try Nazis in Jerusalem would render the trials as circuses or
kangaroo courts, and lead to an environment of hysteria which would
make a fair trial impossible. She appealed to neither legality,
nationality, race, nor religion; but instead, to centuries-old,
well-respected legal precedents, establishing the notion that trials
should be held near where the crime occurred, or in the same
jurisdiction. Hannah Arendt should serve as a great example of
someone who refused to let having to flee the Nazis cloud her
judgment as to how to ensure that they are prosecuted properly, and
to the fullest extent of the law. We may not like it that we have to
give fair trials to people we hate, the obviously guilty, and those
accused of especially heinous crimes. But to deprive them of due
process and a fair trial, is to risk letting them get off on a
technicality, and thus get away with their crimes.
Another
person to note, whom is relevant to this topic, is Helen Thomas, the
late White House reporter. During a 2011 episode of C.N.N.'s Larry
King Live, Joy Behar (filling
in for Larry King) interviewed Thomas, who retired the previous year
after being accused of anti-Semitism. In that interview, Thomas
described herself as “Semitic, but not Jewish”, while describing
Behar as “Jewish, but not Semitic”. In response to Behar asking
whether she was anti-Semtic, Thomas said, “Hell no. I'm a Semite,
of Arab background.” This is accurate; since Behar's ethnic
heritage is European, while Semites come from the Levant and the
Arabian Peninsula, including Helen Thomas's ancestral land of
Lebanon. Ralph Nader, also of Lebanese ancestry, has made similar
statements in explaining his thoughts on the term anti-Semitism.
Several
additional facts are necessary to mention – about American-Israeli
relations, and Iranian relations with both countries – in order to
better explain the wider Israeli-Arab and Israeli- Islamic conflicts,
and in order to contextualize what we hear about Israel and
Palestine.
For
example, he oft-repeated quote from Iran's former president – that
Iranians desire to push Israel into the sea, or something to that
effect – is not a fact, but a wild distortion. First off, because
Palestinians were
literally pushed into the Mediterranean Sea
when the Israelis took control of the Holy Land from the British
(kicking out both British and Palestinian forces in the process).
This event is called the Nakba
(disaster); it
occurred on May 15th,
1948; and its anniversary is celebrated as Nakba
Day.
Secondly,
the other reason that the claim that Iranians want to “push Israel
into the sea” – or is it “wipe Israel off the map”? - is
misleading, that the quote has gone through “the telephone game”.
Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not threaten
to wipe Israel, nor Jews, off the face of the Earth. It is also
noteworthy that Ahmadinejad was not speaking off the cuff; he was
quoting Ayatollah Khamenei. The most direct translation of what
Ahmadinejad said was this: “The regime that is occupying Jerusalem
shall vanish from the page of history.”
While
Western media lead people to believe that this is a call for the
destruction of the State of Israel, nor the Jewish people, it could
just as easily be taken to mean that the Iranians express sorrow for
the 700,000 Palestinians who were displaced as a result of the
Israelis gaining independence. Sure, some Iranian political and
religious leaders have said of terrible things about the State of
Israel, and Jewish people; but the point is that Iran is not
openly hostile towards the State of Israel, although it is portrayed
to be.
Another
interesting fact is that Iran has signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), while the State of Israel has not.
Israel maintains a state of “intentional ambiguity” over the fact
that it has somewhere between 150 and 1000 nuclear weapons (Ralph
Nader and Jimmy Carter put it at 150 and 200, while other estimates
range higher, potentially making Israel the world's #3 or #4 nuclear
power). Most fascinating of all, it is quite possibly a violation of
the 1976 International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control
Act, which says that a country that has not signed the nuclear N.P.T.
is not eligible for U.S. foreign aid.
You
may be wondering: If all this is true, then why do we hear so much
positive information about the State of Israel, and so much negative
information about Arab countries? I believe that this is not only
because of the U.S.'s involvement in World War II (for which, in my
opinion, it receives far
too much credit for
helping Jews and fighting Nazis, when it arguably did plenty of the
opposite as well), but also due to Israeli efforts to intimidate the
United States into continuing to support it.
The
State of Israel is small, in both geography and population, but it is
influential, and it is located at perhaps the
single most strategic
geopolitical land position in the entire world. Prior to modern
accelerated Old World contact with the Americas, Jerusalem was widely
considered to be at the center of the world. The U.S.'s military and
financial aid arguably assists Israel's ability to build and sell
weaponry, and to defend itself while surrounded on all sides by
rivals and enemies.
This
is why many Americans wonder whether Israel is metaphorically
“America's 51st
state”, or if instead it is “the tail wagging the dog”, and
really has as much influence over U.S. foreign policy as it is often
thought to have. I contend that if one looks into the history of
conflicts between American and Israeli agents, then one will find
many examples of Israel spying on the U.S., and Israeli agents
attacking U.S. targets while posing as Arabs, and the U.S. paying
Israel back for those “gifts” by securing U.S. surveillance
contracts to Israeli companies, and by imitating its racist policies
on immigration and transportation security. All one has to do to find
out more about these topics is to seek -ut information on the
Jewish organized crime syndicate Murder Inc., the ship the Altalena,
the Lavon Affair, Jonathan Pollard, and others.
Only
one sovereign nation has successfully attacked a United States
military target since World War II, and that was the U.S.S. Cole
bombing, in whose planning Sudan's government is suspected. However,
a non-military vessel
– the U.S.S. Liberty – was an unarmed communications vessel,
whose crew of 31 U.S. sailors died, after Israeli forces decided to
fire-bomb it, and blame it on the former nation of the United Arab
Republic (which is now the separate nations of Syria and Egypt).
Islamophobes
need to understand that Muslims didn't collectively do 9/11,
and that it wasn't only Muslims who did 9/11. Also, that Iran
wasn't involved, because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi
Arabia. However, the U.S. government has ruled that Iran can still be
held legally accountable to the victims, for no good reason other
than their material support of Hezbollah. But of course, the Saudis
didn't do it alone, and based on what I have read on the topic, they
certainly didn't do it without Western help.
The
Israelis – in addition to the
Russians, the British, the Italians, and the team of people around
then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - had foreknowledge of the
event. You can learn more about possible Israeli involvement
in 9/11 by looking up Sayeret Matkal (the counter-terrorism
division of M.O.S.S.A.D.); and the circumstances surrounding the
death of Daniel M. Lewin. Lewin was an internet technology
billionaire, a former Sayeret Matkal agent, and the alleged
first casualty of 9/11, who was allegedly killed by hijacker Satam
al-Suqami (by what weapon, it is uncertain).
Additionally,
look up “the Dancing Israelis”: Dominick Suter (the C.E.O. of
Urban Moving Systems, Inc.), and his “employees” Oded Ellner,
Omer Marmari, Yaaron Shmuel, and Paul and Sivan Kurzberg. Alan
Dershowitz provided legal defense for those six Israeli men, who were
arrested on 9/11 on suspicion of involvement in the attacks. They
were seen filming and celebrating the collapse of the World Trade
Center, dressed in traditional Arab garb. A woman called the police,
and thought they were Palestinians, but several of the men were found
to have worked for the Israeli M.O.S.S.A.D. When they were arrested,
they had socks full of thousands of dollars, razor blades, and maps
of New York City with highlighted routes. It's entirely possible that
these men – whichever few of those six were dancing on a
rooftop in New Jersey, cheering and filming and celebrating and
dancing - were the men whom Donald Trump thought he saw in
Arab countries celebrating 9/11. Three of the six men appeared
on an Israeli television show, and told the interviewer “Our
purpose was to document the event”, a clear indication of
foreknowledge.
Given the State of
Israel's crimes against its own people (in Gaza and the West Bank,
and also its repression of anti-Zionist Jews), and its possible
attacks on the United States, it would be completely understandable
for a person concerned about the fate of Palestinians to consider
waging a boycott against illegal activities and commerce occurring in
the occupied territories.
I
believe that boycott and divestment should be legal. In fact, I
believe that they are not yet fully legal (because of corporate
subsidies, and other protections), and so, they need to be made fully
legal. However, I worry that sanctions with any nation
can lead to problems with which we may not be fully prepared to deal.
I
believe that we should have diplomacy and trade with all nations. I
believe that that is how war with other nations can and should be
avoided, and I believe that engaging in diplomacy while being a
hypocrite is unacceptable. To accuse your enemy or rival of doing
what you yourself are doing, destroys all of your credibility in
negotiations.
That
is why I worry that sanctions could lead to trade wars, and
accelerate into embargoes, trade bloc wars, cold wars, and even
military conflagrations. I believe that boycott should be the first
resort, then divestment, then withdrawing
foreign aid.
Especially considering that Israel is the #2 recipient of U.S.
foreign aid (after Afghanistan), at nearly $4 billion per year, and
rising by $0.1 B annually.
If
none of those measures achieve the objectives, then sanctions should
be considered, but only if the U.S. is willing to put lives on the
line to defend American property overseas, and to defend the prospect
of continued profits for American firms selling in those overseas
markets. This, of course, risks that inevitable slippery slope to
trade wars and real wars which I described above, and I can't imagine
a situation in which I would approve of such a course of action.
However,
a good way to avoid all this, might be to support boycotts,
divestment, and sanctions which are targeted solely against
economic activity based in those parts of Israeli territory; areas
which rightfully belong to the refugees living in the West Bank,
Gaza, and the Golan Heights. Any B.D. or B.D.S. movement should make
it absolutely clear that legitimate commerce within Israel's pre-1967
borders are not the target of the consumer action; otherwise such an
action will certainly be perceived (and reacted to) as if it were an
act of war.
If
nothing convinces people that U.S. taxpayers should stop footing the
bill for the Israeli government's expenditures (which are fungible,
and funds for one purpose can be transferred to any other purpose)
then perhaps the only thing that will, is the news that Israeli
weapons are being sold to neo-Nazi militants in the Ukraine who have
used them against Jewish people, and jihadists in Syria who are
likely to use them against Jewish targets.
Some
say that, as someone who is neither an Israeli citizen nor a Jew, I
should not be talking about the business of the State of Israel, a
sovereign country. However, I would be glad to quit talking about
what the State of Israel does, when it learns to do what it does
without using my money. As soon as they stop using American
taxpayer money to put people in refugee camps, I'll stop complaining.
Oh
wait, no I won't.
Post-Script:
I would also like to note that the United Nations recognizes genocide as occurring even if systematic killing has not been attempted. Taking people's children away from them can and should be considered genocide, if it is done with the deliberate intent of covering up their identity or annihilating their culture. We should oppose genocide, whether it involves killing or not, regardless of whether it affects Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Israelis, Palestinians, Mexicans, Central Americans,
et cetera.
Written
on July 4th, 20th, 26th, and 27th,
and August 1st through 4th, and 6th,
2018
Edited
and Expanded on August 15th and 17th, 2018
Originally
Published on August 17th, 2018
Post-Script Added on August 18th, 2018
