The Unholy Rot: The Aaltar of Zionism
Zionism & the Pro-Israels Lobby Influence in Politics An Examination
A Righteous Awakening: Reclaiming our Humanity from the Altar of Unjust Influence, Freeing our Democratic Institutions.
In the blood-soaked arena of Middle Eastern politics, where empires have risen and fallen, where prophets once walked and wars never cease, a new tragedy unfolds. The land that birthed three great religions now bears witness to a moral catastrophe of biblical proportions. Israel, a nation born from the ashes of one genocide, now stands accused of perpetrating another.
For ten long months, the people of Gaza have endured a hellish onslaught. The very stones cry out for justice as hospitals crumble, children perish, and the world watches in muted horror. The International Court of Justice, that arbiter of nations, has spoken: Israel's actions bear the hallmarks of genocide. Yet in the marble halls of Washington and the corridors of Whitehall, a deafening silence reigns.
Why? Why does the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world" stand mute in the face of such barbarity? The answer, my friends, lies in the corrupting influence of money and power - a tale as old as Judas' thirty pieces of silver.
AIPAC, that labyrinthine maze of influence, winds its corridors through the very heart of American democracy. With every campaign contribution, with every whispered threat of political ruin, it further entangles our representatives in its web of power. Like the mythical Minotaur at the center of Daedalus' creation, it devours the integrity of our political process, leaving behind only the bones of true representation.
This behemoth of lobbying power, this Leviathan of political influence, casts a long shadow over the halls of Congress. Its reach extends into every committee room, every fundraising dinner, every backroom deal. It is the unseen hand guiding policy, the whisper in the ear of power, the silent architect of our nation's moral abdication in the face of injustice.
The words of the prophet Amos ring true today: "They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals." Our elected representatives, those who should stand as bulwarks against tyranny, instead bow before the golden calf of Zionist lobbying.
Across the Atlantic, in the land of Magna Carta and parliamentary democracy, the Labour Friends of Israel play their insidious game. They clothe their agenda in the language of progressivism, but their true purpose is clear: to silence dissent, to crush criticism, to ensure that Israel's crimes go unchallenged. And what of those brave souls who dare to speak truth to power? Look to Congresswoman Cori Bush, a modern-day Jeremiah crying out in the wilderness of American politics. For daring to stand with the oppressed, for having the temerity to question Israel's actions, she faces a tidal wave of opposition. Nine million dollars - a sum that would make even Croesus blush - poured into the coffers of her opponents. Is this democracy, or is it the auction block of principles?
The words of Martin Luther King Jr. haunt us now: "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Where are America's friends of peace and justice? Where are the heirs of Eisenhower, who once stood firm against Israel's aggression in Suez?
Instead, we see warships sailing to the Middle East, fighter jets screaming across desert skies. The drums of war beat ever louder, drowning out the cries of the innocent. Iran and Hezbollah, those convenient bogeymen of Western propaganda, are cast as existential threats. But who truly threatens world peace? Who holds the matches in this tinderbox of global conflict?
My friends, we stand at a crossroads of history. Will we allow the mercenaries of AIPAC and their ilk to dictate our foreign policy? Will we sacrifice our moral authority on the altar of political expediency? Or will we find the courage to stand, as Eisenhower once did, and say: "Enough!"
The choice is ours. As the great philosopher Simone Weil wrote, "To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul." Let us root ourselves in justice, in compassion, in the unshakeable belief that all human lives - Palestinian and Israeli alike - are sacred.
The prophets of old spoke truth to power, risking all to challenge the mighty. Today, that mantle falls to us. We must break the stranglehold of Zionist lobbying on our democratic institutions. We must demand accountability for war crimes, regardless of who commits them. We must reclaim our foreign policy from those who would use it as a tool of oppression.
For if we fail in this sacred task, if we allow the voices of justice to be silenced, then we become complicit in every bomb dropped, in every child orphaned, in every home destroyed. And history - that unforgiving judge - will condemn us for our silence. The time for action is now. Let our voices rise in a mighty chorus, drowning out the whispers of lobbyists and the rattle of war. Let us stand with the oppressed, the marginalized, the victims of this unholy alliance between power and money. For in their liberation lies our own redemption.
As the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley once wrote: "Rise like Lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number / Shake your chains to earth like dew / Which in sleep had fallen on you / Ye are many - they are few."
Rise, citizens of conscience. The hour is late, but not yet too late. The future of democracy, of justice, of our very humanity, hangs in the balance. What will you do?
"The War on Gaza.” - By Joe Sacco
The Zionist Lobby
[1] In Israel it is typically called “the Jewish lobby,” perhaps reflective of the fact that today virtually all the mainstream Jewish organizations in the U.S., both religious and secular – the ADL, Jewish Federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Studies departments, Hillels, etc – advocate for Israel. For a list see http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/lobby/.
Israel, The State that Eats The Fruit Of Impunity
The Middle East has long been a focal point of international relations, with Israel's actions often at the centre of global discourse. The United States, a key ally of Israel, has faced criticism for its continued military support, even amidst allegations of human rights violations. Reports suggest that U.S.-made weapons have been used by Israel in ways that may contravene international law, raising ethical and legal concerns about American complicity in Israel’s regional conflagrations, the genocide that's unfolding in Gaza (Amnesty International, Los Angeles Times).
As of this writing, Israel is 10 months into committing genocide in Gaza. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel is committing probable genocide, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has investigated the war crimes of Israel, issuing arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defense Minister (BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Reuters).
Israel's recent actions have further stoked regional tensions, bringing the Middle East to a critical point. The assassinations of Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas' political bureau, and Fuad Shukr, a senior military adviser to Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, have drawn significant international attention (CNN, Al Jazeera). Iran and Hezbollah have vowed retaliation, with Iran promising a "harsh and painful response" for Haniyeh's killing, and Hezbollah pledging a strong response to Shukr's assassination (ABC News, New York Times). Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that retaliation is "inevitable," emphasizing that the conflict has entered a "new phase" (Al Jazeera, BBC).
In response to the escalating tensions, rather than drawing red lines the United States has deployed naval battle groups to the region and is sending additional fighter jets and personnel to U.S. bases in the Middle East. Rather than pursuing diplomatic de-escalation, the war hawks in Washington have been intensifying their rhetoric against Iran, signaling a potential for further military engagement (Reuters, The Guardian, BBC).
Over the past 76 years, the U.S. has a horrendous record of not standing up and drawing a line against Israel's actions. An exception to this was in 1956, when President Eisenhower intervened in the Suez Crisis, pressuring Israel, the UK, and France to withdraw from Egypt (Jewish Virtual Library, Bill of Rights Institute).
The Pro-Israel Lobby emerged as a powerful entity during this period and has since played a significant role in lobbying both Democratic and Republican parties. These efforts ensure that U.S. policies remain in favor of Israeli interests, often irrespective of the consequences (Vox, KQED, Discourse Magazine). Similarly, in 1956, the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) was formed in the UK. At that time, even the left wing of the Labour Party was largely pro-Israel, but there was a growing narrative that Israel’s over-belligerence was harmful. This narrative did not align with main Zionist lobbying interests, prompting the creation of LFI to garner the right support for Israel in a manner more consistent with Zionist objectives (The Jerusalem Post, Weaponising Anti-Semitism Asa Winstanley).
Recent events also highlight the impact of these lobbying efforts. U.S. Congresswoman Cori Bush, who has been outspoken about Palestinian rights and critical of U.S. foreign policy towards Israel, faced significant opposition from pro-Israel super PACs. These entities have poured substantial resources into campaigns to unseat Bush, utilizing their influence to ensure that criticisms of Israel within the U.S. political landscape are minimized and that pro-Israel policies are maintained (NBC News, CNN. AIPAC Spent $9 Million to Help Oust Cori Bush)
On the throes of post-Oct7 Genocide in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress that was met with a series of orchestrated standing ovations, reminiscent of a well-rehearsed theatrical performance. Despite the enthusiastic reception from many, over 200 legislators chose to skip the speech, each driven by their motives—some guided by conscience, others by public relations considerations. To ensure a favourable portrayal on camera, the lobby strategically filled the audience with guest attendees, aiming to present a more supportive image to the world. As Netanyahu addresses Congress, agony in Gaza endures, ‘Cynical and manipulative’: thousands at DC rally denounce Netanyahu speech
Congressional speech of July 2024 also suggests a turning point. While the reception underscores a disconnect between the actions of the Israeli government and the responses of American lawmakers, political allegiance to Israel often supersedes ethical considerations regarding human rights. as I mentioned before some, some representatives, notably Vice President Kamala Harris, chose not to attend the address, which may indicate a waning influence of the lobby or a strategic decision to pander to their voter base as a public relations act. This absence highlights a growing divide among lawmakers regarding their support for Israel. Additionally, the chamber during Netanyahu's address was filled with guest attendees, creating an illusion of overwhelming support
The Unraveling of the Israel Lobby, post-October 7th
Congressman Spills The Tea on AIPAC
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie reflects on his encounters with the Israel Lobby in a candid interview with Tucker Carlson, who has increasingly articulated concerns regarding the Lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. Notably, Rep. Massie opted to forego Netanyahu's address.
The seismic events of October 7th, 2023, have reverberated through the corridors of global politics, catalyzing a critical examination of the Israel lobby's pervasive influence—one that is now resonating even within conservative circles, of the MAGA wing of the Grand Old Party.
The Cracking Facade:For years, the act of questioning the Israel lobby, particularly entities like AIPAC, has been cloaked in taboo, often branded as anti-Semitic. However, the recent humanitarian crisis has compelled even the most steadfast conservatives to voice their apprehensions and critiques openly. A News.
Conservative Voices Emerge: Prominent figures on the right, once reticent to engage with this topic, are now boldly scrutinizing the extent of U.S. military and financial support for Israel. This marks a significant pivot, signaling a potential fissure in the historically unwavering allegiance to the lobby. Tucker Carlson has emerged as a vocal skeptic, influencing numerous GOP members to reassess their positions. His platform, along with others in independent media, has been pivotal in bringing these formerly fringe discussions into the mainstream. Haaretz
The Red Lines Blur: Discussions once deemed off-limits—such as the intricate power dynamics between the U.S. and Israel and the lobby's sway over U.S. foreign policy—are now being explored in more mainstream political arenas. This shift reflects a burgeoning public readiness to scrutinize the lobby's influence and demand greater transparency. The growing opposition is particularly grassroots, emerging strongly among younger, more progressive Americans, as well as segments of the Jewish community.
In light of escalating public support to address the horror that is unfolding in Gaza, capitulating to the lobby appears increasingly untenable. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has publicly signaled her willingness to engage with activists to discuss an arms embargo on Israel. Which is seen rather as a token gesture, sitting adjacent the oval office, she could have influenced President Biden to force Israel into a ceasefire,
Several mainstream media pieces have begun to scrutinize the Israel lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy:
The Guardian: This article reveals that members of Congress who backed the Gaza war received substantial contributions from pro-Israel groups, highlighting the centrist Democrats who triumphed over progressives as the top beneficiaries. Guardian.
The Guardian: Another report discusses pro-Israel groups, spearheaded by AIPAC, planning to invest millions in U.S. elections, questioning the implications of Israel's actions in Gaza on the political landscape. The Guardian.
The Guardian: This piece details the considerable investments made by a pro-Israel group to unseat a progressive congressman in New York, targeting him for his criticisms of Israeli military actions. The Guardian.
The Washington Post: This article examines the significant financial backing pro-Israel interests have provided to defeat progressive candidates like Cori Bush, who face opposition from the lobby. The Washington Post.
The Guardian: Congress Member Pro-Israel Donations, Military Support
Source: PolitiFact
"The War on Gaza.” - By Joe Sacco
Delving into the Discourse: A Survey of Literature on the Zionist Lobby
To fully grasp the complexities of the Zionist Lobby, one must engage with the significant body of scholarship dedicated to its examination. This intellectual landscape, ranging from historical analyses to contemporary critiques, provides crucial insights into the Lobby's evolution, influence, and impact.
A pioneering and arguably controversial work that ignited widespread debate is "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. This seminal text dared to break the silence surrounding a seemingly taboo subject, prompting a much-needed, albeit often heated, discussion.
Delving into the historical roots of the movement In U.S, "Israel's Armor: A Deep Dive into the Early Israel Lobby" traces the Zionist movement's nascent stages in the United States. The authors illuminate the early endeavors that culminated in the pivotal 1948 recognition of Israel by the U.S., along with the reverberations of the 1967 war.
An indispensable discourse is Asa Winstanley's "Weaponising Anti-Semitism," a searing indictment of the Lobby's influence within the United Kingdom. Winstanley meticulously details the Lobby's alleged role in the ouster of former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, highlighting the human cost of such political maneuvering.
Once more an indispensable resource a very meticulously researched book is Alison Weir's "Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel", This work illuminates the nascent Zionist movement and the pivotal lobbying efforts within the United States, positing that American influence was the sine qua non for establishing the settler colonial project, a venture Weir argues stood in stark dissonance with American values and interests. Complementing her literary opus, Weir curates IfAmericansKnew.org, a digital compendium serving as a prodigious corpus of news, facts, and statistics on American aid to Israel. This platform endeavors to hold elected representatives accountable for their rolein sustaining the Apartheid state, the Gaza genocide. Through this multifaceted approach, Weir presents a compelling case for a critical reexamination of the historical narrative surrounding Israel's creation and the United States' sustained support, serving as a clarion call for intellectual honesty and moral accountability
However, it is Ilan Pappe's "Lobbying for Zionism on both sides of the Atlantic" that stands as perhaps the most comprehensive and timely contribution to this field. Published after the seismic events of October 7th, Pappe's work benefits from a unique vantage point. As an Israeli who renounced his citizenship and now resides as a British-Israeli historian, he possesses an intimate understanding of the Israeli psyche. Pappe not only deconstructs the Lobby's intricate mechanisms but also proffers a potential roadmap for its dismantling.
In the subsequent analysis, our focus will shift primarily to Pappe's work. Its recency, comprehensiveness, and the author's distinct perspective render it an indispensable lens through which to examine the multifaceted realities of the Zionist Lobby.
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that the U.S.-Israel relationship is marked by a level of support that extends beyond both strategic and moral considerations. They assert, “This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” This primary thesis sets the stage for a thorough exploration of how the Israel lobby operates through various channels, including think tanks, advocacy groups, and political action committees, to exert considerable sway over policymakers and public discourse.
The authors illustrate their arguments by detailing the extensive military and economic support the United States provides to Israel, which they contend cannot be justified purely on the grounds of national interest. They further assert that the policies encouraged by the Israel lobby have significant repercussions not only for the United States but also for the broader Middle East climate. Specifically, Mearsheimer and Walt highlight the unintended consequences of these policies, suggesting that they “are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest.” This assertion raises critical questions about the sustainability of the current diplomatic approach and its implications for regional stability.
Throughout the book, the authors systematically analyze the dynamics of U.S. interactions in the Middle East, including its postures toward Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They contend that the lobby's influence limits the U.S. government’s ability to pursue a balanced foreign policy that could potentially lead to more peaceful resolutions in these arenas. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that, rather than fostering genuine peace, the prevailing policies fuel animosity, increase tensions, and ultimately heighten the risks of conflict and terrorism.
One of the book's most compelling aspects is its assertion that the lobby's actions have broader implications for America’s relationships with other global powers and allies. As noted in a review by Diplomatist, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" discusses how the Israel lobby influences U.S. foreign policy in ways that may not align with national interests”, the authors address how these relationships are compromised as a result of policies that disproportionately favor Israeli interests. The authors’ findings pose important questions about the alignment of U.S. foreign policies with national security interests, highlighting how the influence of interest groups can skew American diplomacy at the expense of its strategic goals.
"Israel's Armor: A Deep Dive into the Early Israel Lobby"
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43291048-israel-s-armor
Walter L. Hixson's "Israel's Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict," As part of the Cambridge Studies in US Foreign Relations series,offers readers a detailed look at the origins and early years of the Israel lobby in the United States. Covering the period from World War II to the 1967 Six-Day War, this book sheds light on a crucial but often overlooked aspect of US-Israel relations.
Hixson delves into how the Zionist movement, which advocated for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, gained traction in the US. He explores the strategies used by early Zionist lobbyists to influence American public opinion and policy. The book doesn't shy away from discussing controversial topics, such as the lobby's role in shaping media narratives and its impact on US foreign policy decisions.
One of the interesting aspects Hixson touches on is the parallel between US settler colonialism and Israel's expansion. He draws connections between these two historical processes, offering food for thought on the shared tactics and ideologies.
The book provides a balanced look at various US presidential administrations and their interactions with the Israel lobby. It's fascinating to see how different presidents, from Truman to Johnson, navigated the complex political landscape surrounding US-Israel relations.
Hixson's work is particularly strong in its examination of key events like the 1948 recognition of Israel by the US and the aftermath of the 1967 war. He offers insights into how these pivotal moments were influenced by and, in turn, affected the Israel lobby's activities.
While the book is packed with information, Hixson manages to keep the narrative engaging. He includes anecdotes and personal stories that bring the historical figures to life, making it more than just a dry recounting of facts.
Weaponising Anti-Semetism - by Asa winstanley
”As the former Labour MP and author of A Very British Coup, Chris Mullin, says, this account of how the Israel lobby brought down Jeremy Corbyn is “a story that needs to be told”. Given the current events in Gaza, the story that Asa Winstanley tells in this books 300+ pages is quite simply staggering, illuminating and frightening in equal measure.” Andy Waker
Asa Winstley’s *Weaponising Anti-Semitism presents a provocative and meticulously researched examination of the political landscape surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. Through a detailed narrative, Winstanley dissects the complex interplay of anti-Semitism allegations and political maneuvering that characterized Corbyn’s tenure, arguing that these accusations were systematically exploited by pro-Israel factions to undermine his leadership ambitions.
The book opens with a bold assertion: for five years, Corbyn was branded a bigot leading an anti-Semitic party. Winstanley claims that this portrayal was not merely a reflection of factual occurrences but rather a deliberate and orchestrated effort by the Israel lobby and its allies. He writes, “Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis was manufactured by pro-Israel groups,” suggesting that the sensationalization of these accusations served a larger political agenda aimed at discrediting Corbyn and thwarting his progressive agenda.
Winstanley’s incorporates interviews with individuals who have been purged from the Labour Party amid claims of anti-Semitism. These personal accounts illustrate the human cost of what he describes as a politically motivated campaign. The author asserts that the charges leveled against Corbyn were not just unfounded but intricately linked to a broader network involving “the Labour right and Israeli and British intelligence agencies.” Such claims invite readers to reconsider the motivations behind the accusations and the dynamics of power within the party.
With over 300 pages of content, Weaponising Anti-Semitism is not merely a recounting of events but a call to scrutinize how language and narratives are weaponized in political discourse. Winstanley thoughtfully argues that the framing of anti-Semitism has become a convenient tool for stifling dissent against powerful interests.The prose forces readers to confront uncomfortable questions regarding free speech, political integrity, and the boundaries of anti-Zionism versus anti-Semitism.He emphasizes this by noting that Corbyn’s long-standing support for the Palestine solidarity movement positioned him as a threat to those interests.
Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel
"Against Our Better Judgment" by Alison Weir offers a meticulously researched examination of the covert machinations in a eye-opening exploration into the intricacies of American foreign policy and the clandestine efforts that resulted in the establishment of Israel, revealing a starkly different reality from the commonly accepted narrative. Key narrative in her work that illuminates the movement from its nascent beginning to modern manifestation includes:
Early Zionist influence: Weir traces the origins of Zionist influence in the U.S. back to the late 19th century, highlighting how Zionist organizations began to form and exert political pressure long before Israel's establishment.
Louis Brandeis and the Parushim: The book reveals the significant role played by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in advancing Zionist goals, including his leadership of a secret society called the Parushim that worked to influence U.S. policy.
Covert operations: Weir details how Zionist leaders employed clandestine methods to shape public opinion and government policy, often working against the recommendations of State Department officials.
Media influence: The author describes how Zionists actively pursued control of media narratives to garner support for their cause.
Political maneuvering: The book outlines various political strategies employed by Zionists to gain influence in Congress and presidential administrations.
Historical Revelation: The Balfour Declaration's Hidden Motivations
Weir opens the book with an analysis of the often underreported motivations behind the Balfour Declaration. She draws attention to how “Zionist leaders could add a particularly powerful motivator telling the British government that Zionists in the U.S. would push America to enter the war on the side of the British if the British promised to support a Jewish Home in Palestine afterward.” This reveals the significant strategic maneuvering employed to gain British support in World War I.
Suppressed Efforts for Peace
Weir explores the thwarted attempts at peace with the Ottoman Empire and how “American Zionists may also have played a role in preventing an early peace with the Ottoman Empire.” Felix Frankfurter’s role in persuading former Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau to abandon peace efforts showcases the strategic interventions that were against peaceful resolutions but favored the Zionist agenda.
The King-Crane Commission and Suppression of Truth
The King-Crane Commission's findings were similarly suppressed, with the commission warning that the creation of a Jewish state “could be accomplished only with the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Suppressing the commission’s recommendations allowed the Zionist movement to continue unimpeded and unchallenged.
Dubious Alliances: Zionist-Nazi Collaborations
In one of the more controversial sections, Weir details the collaboration between Zionists and Nazi leaders, exemplified by the Transfer Agreement of 1933. The agreement allowed Jews to transfer their capital to Palestine, and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels even published a series entitled "Visit Palestine," depicting Jewish immigrants in a positive light.
Jews of the Middle East: The Coercion of the then thriving Iraqi Jewish Community
Weir discloses the covert operations aimed at compelling Jewish migration from Islamic countries. She recounts how “Zionist operatives planted bombs in Iraqi synagogues and in the U.S. Information Service library in Iraq,” fostering a narrative of Arab terrorism to justify the migration of Iraqi Jews to Israel.
The Inception of the American Lobby
The origins of the American Zionist political lobby, from it nascant origins in the clandestine Parushim, led by Brandeis, particularly the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), are examined in detail. Leveraging Protestant and evangelical support, the Zionist lobby managed to ingratiate itself within American political and social spheres, profoundly influencing U.S. policy towards Israel.
Morality vs. Hidden Agendas: The Controversial UN Partition Plan
Weir articulates how high-ranking U.S. officials, such as Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, opposed the partition of Palestine. Henderson emphasized that this action, which ignored "self-determination and majority rule," would cause the U.S. to “lose moral standing in the world.”
US Action Following “Political Zionism” and Opposing Voices
Dean Acheson, a prominent US statesman, warned that creating Israel on land already inhabited by Palestinians would “imperil” both American and all Western interests in the region. Despite such warnings, President Truman supported the establishment of a Jewish state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians. Alison Weir details the massive pro-Israel lobbying effort that ranged from well-funded and very public Zionist organizations to an elitist secret society that included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Kermit Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson and a legendary intelligence agent, elucidates the inherent conflict of interests:
The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on National rather than partisan interests.
President Truman, inundated by pressure, stated in his memoirs:
I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I did in this instance.
Jewish Terrorism and Historical Amnesia
Weir describes acts of Jewish terrorism, such as plots to bomb British governmental buildings, and details how Rabbi Korff’s group planned to drop bombs on the British Foreign Office. Such episodes have been largely forgotten or overshadowed in historical narratives.
Final Reflections
"Against Our Better Judgment" provides an invaluable, in-depth examination of the historical and geopolitical forces that shaped U.S. support for Israel. Alison Weir's rigorous scholarship forces the reader to confront the often uncomfortable truths that have long been obscured. Facts if not for the historical record would be considered Antisemitic rhetoric, conspiracy theorizing
Long-term consequences: Weir argues that the success of the Zionist movement has had far-reaching and often detrimental effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond.
Lobbying for Zionism On Both Side of the Atlantic - by Ilan Pappe
Reveals how pro-Israel lobbying groups influence the Middle East policies of Britain, the US and others
In 1896, a Jewish state was a pipe dream. Today the overwhelming majority of Jews identify as Zionists. How did this happen?
Book Review: Lobbying for Zionism by Ilan Pappe
Ilan Pappe, a prominent figure among Israel's "New Historians," presents a comprehensive analysis of Zionist lobbying efforts in his latest work, "Lobbying for Zionism." Pappe, known for his critical examination of Israeli history in books such as "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" (2006), "A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples" (2004) and "The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories" (2017), brings his factual approach to the study of Israeli historiography as opposed to white washing with a Zionist brush. Dubbed a new historican, these New Historians are a loosely defined group of Israeli historians who challenged traditional versions of Israeli history. They critically examined Israel’s role in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, as well as Arab willingness to discuss peace1. Their approach involved revisiting historical events, demystifying narratives, and shedding light on previously overlooked aspects.
The book spans a significant historical period, beginning in 1896 when, as Pappe notes, "a Jewish state was a pipe dream," and extending to the present day. This broad timeline allows for a thorough examination of the evolution and expansion of Zionist influence over more than a century.
Pappe's work is rich in factual content, detailing specific lobbying tactics and their outcomes. He documents how pro-Israel groups have operated in various countries, with a particular focus on Britain and the United States. The author provides evidence of these groups' efforts to shape policy through multiple channels, including:
Exerting pressure on legislative bodies, such as the U.S. Congress
Influencing political parties, exemplified by actions within the British Labour Party
Engaging in media campaigns to shape public opinion
Advocating for increased military aid to Israel
Pushing for recognition of territories occupied by Israel
Working to marginalize Palestinian rights and perspectives
The book meticulously outlines how these lobbying efforts have translated into tangible policy outcomes. Pappe presents data on the increase in military aid to Israel over time, the evolution of diplomatic stances on occupied territories, and the changing rhetoric surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict in Western political discourse.
A significant portion of the work is dedicated to examining the methods used to build what Pappe terms a "dangerous consensus" in favor of Zionist policies. He analyzes the creation and maintenance of think tanks, the funding of academic programs, and the establishment of media watchdog groups as part of a coordinated strategy to influence public and political opinion.
In the final section of the book, Pappe turns his attention to potential ways of dismantling this lobbying infrastructure. He suggests several approaches:
Increasing transparency in political funding and lobbying activities
Promoting alternative narratives and perspectives in media and academia
Strengthening grassroots movements that challenge the dominant pro-Israel narrative
Encouraging open debate on Israel-Palestine issues within political parties and institutions
Supporting international legal mechanisms to address human rights concerns
This book offers the readers a detailed look at the mechanisms of political influence and their long-term effects on international relations and human rights issues in the Middle East.
The book serves as a significant contribution to the ongoing scholarly and public discourse on the Israel-Palestine covering the entire breadth of Zionist history to the current,
Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic | Oneworld
Delving Deeper into the belly of the beast
As we embark on this intellectual odyssey, we shall navigate the treacherous waters of historical revisionism, confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of power and influence, and grapple with the profound moral and ethical questions that lie at the heart of the Zionist enterprise. Through this exploration, we aim not only to illuminate the workings of a powerful lobbying apparatus.
Let us, then, approach this subject with open minds and critical faculties engaged, ready to confront the complexities and contradictions that lie at the heart of one of the most consequential ideological movements of our time. For it is only through such rigorous examination that we can hope to navigate the turbulent waters often cloaked and armored in shame and libel of being Anti-Semitic, hopefully knowing better charts a course towards dismantling the mental biases we may be carrying..
Zionism in the literal and the metaphorical sense was born out of rear end of the colonial era, bears its worsts hallmarks. This potent ideology has shaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and beyond for over a century. To truly comprehend the intricate machinations of this movement, one must delve deep into its origins, its evolution, and its enduring impact on contemporary politics.
It is with this purpose in mind that we will dig deeper into the work of Professor Ilan Pappe, whose treatise "Lobbying For Zionism On Both Sides Of The Atlantic" as we elucidated before offers a penetrating analysis of the Zionist project and its pervasive influence, and Alison Weir’s “Against Our Better Judgment" for its minute details of the historical working and origins of the Political Zionism in the United States.
Through the lens of two compelling interviews with Professor Ilan Pappe and Alison Weirs work online, the picture paints itself.
The first interview, conducted by Aaron Bastani, boldly proclaims: "The Israel Lobby Is Real. Here's EXACTLY How It Works." This provocative statement challenges the oft-repeated notion that discussion of the Israel lobby is inherently anti-Semitic. As Bastani astutely observes:
"If you mention the Israel lobby in the mainstream media then, more often than not, you'll face accusations of antisemitism. There are of course people who talk about the Israel lobby in antisemitic terms, but that doesn't undermine the fact that it exists, and has existed for well over a century."
This nuanced perspective invites us to examine the Israel lobby not as a subject of conspiracy theories, but as a tangible and influential force in international politics, one whose roots stretch back to the very inception of the Zionist movement.
The second interview, conducted by Electronic Intifada, poses the intriguing question: "Why does the Israel lobby still exist?" This inquiry compels us to consider the enduring relevance and power of Zionist advocacy in an ever-changing global landscape. Through Professor Pappe's erudite analysis, we are offered a window into the complex interplay of historical forces, ideological commitments, and geopolitical imperatives that continue to shape the Zionist project in the 21st century.
It is highly suggested that you view the interviews either before reading or after reading this post, to get the information first-hand.
The second Interview at Electronic Intifada: Why does the Israel lobby still exist? with Ilan Pappé
First:“Lobbying For Zionism On Both Sides of The Atlantic” going digging deeper with Ilan Pappe.
Unveiling the Unforeseen: The Christian Genesis of a Jewish National Dream
The narrative of Zionism, often portrayed as a purely Jewish yearning for a homeland, reveals a far more intricate tapestry upon closer examination. The movement's origins, rather than springing solely from the hearts of the marginalized, were deeply interwoven with the fervent convictions of 19th-century Christian evangelicals. This surprising genesis, as Ilan Pappé meticulously reveals, sheds new light on the complex interplay of faith, ideology, and political ambition that shaped the movement's early trajectory.
"It began as a Christian idea not a Jewish idea, it was part of the dogma of the emerging Evangelical Christianity... especially towards the end of the 18th century beginning of the 19th century."
Palestine Through a Millennialist Lens: A Prophetic Vision
Millennialism: is a belief which is held by some religious denominations. According to this belief, a Messianic Age will be established on Earth prior to the Last Judgment and the future permanent state of "eternity".[1]
The seeds of Christian Zionism were sown not in synagogues, but in the pulpits of fervent believers, particularly those swept up in the fervor of Evangelical Christianity. As Pappé observes, "It began as a Christian idea not a Jewish idea, it was part of the dogma of the emerging Evangelical Christianity... especially towards the end of the 18th century beginning of the 19th century."
This burgeoning movement, fueled by a literal interpretation of biblical prophecy, viewed current events through a millennialist lens. Palestine, for them, was not merely a distant land; it was the epicenter of a divinely ordained drama. Figures like the Earl of Shaftesbury, a man of deep Evangelical conviction, saw in the tumultuous events of the time – such as the occupation of Palestine by Muhammad Ali of Egypt between 1830 and 1840 – unmistakable "signs of the end of times."
This eschatological fervor laid the groundwork for a burgeoning British interest in Palestine, culminating in the establishment of a British consulate in Jerusalem. The appointed consul, James Finn, actively encouraged Jewish settlement in the region, an approach that Pappé characterizes as both "Islamophobic" and "quite racist towards the local Palestinians." This perspective stood in stark contrast to other voices within the British establishment, such as the renowned T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), who would later argue that "the best allies Britain could have are Arabs, not Jews."
A Convergence of Interests: Divine Mandate and Imperial Ambition
The nascent Zionist movement, fueled by Christian eschatology, found fertile ground in the fertile soil of British imperial machinations.
This unlikely marriage of religious conviction and political expediency created a potent ideological force, one that would later provide the "international umbrella" that Theodor Herzl, a pivotal figure in the Zionist movement, actively sought.
Pappé highlights the underlying theological conviction that drove these early Christian Zionists:
"For them, Zionism was a religious imperative to try and convince the Jews especially in Britain and the United States to go to Palestine as part of a Divine scheme that in their eyes would ignite a process that would bring us closer to the end of times."
This belief in the return of Jews to Palestine as a necessary precursor to the "end times" became a powerful motivator. rooted in the Christian Restorationist movement, it was, as Pappé notes, "part of the dogma of the emerging Evangelical Christianity," (as a result of the division between Catholics and Protestants, and later on all kind of theological streams developed out of Protestant Christianity) a belief system that "became intertwined with political and colonial ambitions." The resulting ideology not only shaped the early Zionist movement but also laid the groundwork for future British policy in Palestine, a policy that often prioritized Jewish interests over those of the Arab population.
The Zionist Project: A Calculated Initiative
Romantic nationalism (also national romanticism, organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes, depending on the particular manner of practice, the language, race, culture, religion, and customs of the nation in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture. This form of nationalism arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the top down, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence. Such downward-radiating power might ultimately derive from a god or gods (see the divine right of kings and the Mandate of Heaven).
Among the key themes of Romanticism, and its most enduring legacy, the cultural assertions of romantic nationalism have also been central in post-Enlightenment art and political philosophy. From its earliest stirrings, with their focus on the development of national languages and folklore, and the spiritual value of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of Europe and lead to calls for self-determination of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key issues in Romanticism, determining its roles, expressions and meanings. (HiSoUr)
In the latter half of the 19th century, as romantic nationalism surged within the Russian Empire, countless Jews, besieged by the scourge of anti-Semitism, sought refuge in Britain and the United States. Pappe compellingly asserts, “If you look at the Jews who were suffering from anti-Semitism… most of them wanted to go to Britain and the United States.” Theodore Herzl’s proposition to these nations was not merely a humanitarian gesture; it was an imperial strategy: “These Jews would not come to Britain and the United States, but would rather go to Palestine.” This calculated maneuver sought to align British interests, preventing the influx of impoverished Jews, many of whom were suspected socialists. Socialism was viewed with deep suspicion by the imperial establishment, as revolutionary, disruptive of the status quo.
Pappe further elucidates this point, explaining that “British imperialists… saw this not just as a way of preventing poor Jews… but you can use these Jews to extend the British Empire, expand the British Empire over the former territories that belong to the Ottoman Empire.” Thus, the Zionist project was intricately linked to the ambitions of British imperialism, framed as a strategic endeavour to bolster their influence in the region.
Au Contraire: Did Imperialism Need Zionism Questioning the Strategic Importance of Palestine
However, the post-World War I landscape presented formidable challenges for Zionist leaders in securing unwavering British support. Pappe poignantly observes, “In the eyes of British policymakers after the First World War, Palestine was not that strategically important for Britain.” Even before the rise of Zionism, Britain had shown a willingness to cede portions of Palestine to France, illustrating a lack of intrinsic strategic value that complicated the Zionist quest for imperial backing.
Moreover, prominent Jews in Britain and the United States harbored significant concerns regarding the implications of Zionism. Pappe references the dire warnings Jewish voices in Britain and the U.S, articulated by British Parliamentarian Montague and, who cautioned that “Zionism would raise questions of dual loyalty about Jews… it would not be a panacea for anti-Semitism; it actually would increase anti-Semitism.” This prophetic insight reflected a broader unease regarding the potential backlash against Jewish communities.
To get into the fabric of the movement, one must take a closer look at the central figures, who were focal to the movement its its seminal moment.
Herzl's Vision: Lebensraum for Jewish Romantic Nationalism
Theodor Herzl, often hailed as the father of modern political Zionism, emerged as a transformative figure in the late 19th century. Born in Budapest and later residing in Vienna, he was deeply influenced by the currents of German romantic nationalism that swept across Europe. However, it was his own experiences with anti-Semitism, particularly during the tumultuous Dreyfus Affair in France, that catalyzed his vision for a Jewish homeland.
In 1897, Herzl took a decisive step, founding the World Zionist Organization and convening the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. This marked the formal organization of the Zionist movement, its sights set on establishing a "publicly and legally assured home for the Jewish people in Palestine." However, Herzl's pragmatism, his willingness to adapt to political realities, is evident in his openness to alternative locations for this homeland. As Pappé notes,
"He was never totally hooked on Palestine because he would suggest later on in his career that anywhere the British could help a Jewish National Homeland to be built is fine. And when the British were seriously thinking about Uganda, he was not against it…"
While he was enamored with the idea of Jewish Nationalism with a Jewish Homeland, his vision was secular flexible and his vision was not irrevocably bound to Palestine. He recognized the need for a powerful ally, and in the British Empire, he saw a potential benefactor.
However, Herzl's approach to achieving his Zionist goals was not without controversy. He believed that anti-Semitism, rather than being an obstacle, could be leveraged to further the Zionist cause. This startlingly shrewd utilitarian and somewhat cynical perspective is evident in his own words:
"The Anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the Anti-Semitic countries Our Allies."
This quote, found in "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl" (Vol. 1, pp. 83-84), illustrates Herzl's strategic thinking. He posited that antisemitic countries might support Zionism as a solution to their perceived "Jewish problem," effectively aligning their interests with the Zionist movement 1, 2, 3.
A Legacy Forged in Complexity: Herzl and the Dawn of Zionism in Britain
The arrival of Theodor Herzl and his Zionist ideals on British shores in the late 19th century did not ignite a singular, fervent embrace. Instead, it illuminated a landscape of striking complexity within Jewish political thought, revealing a tapestry woven from threads of class, ideology, and religious conviction.
A People Divided: Zionism's Uneven Reception Among British Jewry
British Jews in the mid-19th century faced a difficult dilemma regarding their identity: how could they be really English without ceasing to be Jewish? It was not a uniquely British problem. European Jews trying to reconcile their individualism with the requirements of traditional Judaism were exactly in the same situation.
Sarah Abosch-Jacobson, an American scholar, examines this pivotal issue in We Are Not Only English Jews — We Are Jewish Englishmen: The Making of an Anglo-Jewish Identity, 1840-1880, published by Academic Studies Press.
She focuses on this four-decade period for good reason. “Over the course of these forty years, a mature, increasingly comfortable, native-born Jewish community emerged and developed in London,” she writes in her informative work. (The Making Of An Anglo-Jewish Identity Post authorBy Sheldon Kirshner)
While history often remembers Herzl as the unchallenged architect of Zionism, his ideas were met with a mixed reception within the British Jewish community. The "domestic Anglo-Jewish aristocracy," ensconced in their comfortable lives, displayed a marked impervious to Herzl's vision.
However, among "the working-class Jews of the East End," a different sentiment took root. Here, amidst the throngs of recent immigrants grappling with poverty and social upheaval, These were souls already drawn to the transformative promises of socialism and anarchism. Even this political constituency was at a crossroads, torn between "Zionism and occupation of Palestine" or "socialism."
Interestingly, anti-Zionist sentiment was prevalent among British Jews. This counter-movement, far from being a fringe element, boasted "anti-Zionist Jewish newspapers with very large readerships," dwarfing the influence of pro-Zionist publications like the Jewish Chronicle.
The sources of this opposition were diverse and deeply rooted:
Liberal conservatives recoiled at Zionism's perceived association with "revolutionary ideas," fearing it would disrupt the established social order.
Socialists and communists rejected Zionism as a form of colonialism, fundamentally at odds with their vision of creating "a just Society" for all within Britain itself.
Religious Jews viewed any attempt to establish a Jewish state through human action as "tampering with God's will," a sacrilegious act that defied divine providence.
It is crucial to note that, despite its growing presence, Zionism remained "a minority view" among British Jews until the Holocaust. Post WWIi the unveiled horrors irrevocably shifted the landscape of Jewish consciousness. This historical context highlights the profound ideological transformations that occurred in the mid-20th century, underscoring the complex interplay of class, religion, and political ideology in shaping attitudes towards Zionism in early 20th century Britain.
Herzl's Proposition: A European Project on Palestinian Soil?
In 1897, he orchestrated the first World Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, taking "the early steps to build the organization" that would eventually drive the Zionist agenda, but this not to say the movement had other proponents.
Herzl's approach, however, differed significantly from many of his contemporaries who focused solely on "colonizing Palestine" through the incremental acquisition of land and the establishment of Jewish settlements. He recognized the need for a more sophisticated strategy, one that required an "international umbrella to support this project." Herzl understood that the success of Zionism hinged on securing the backing of powerful global actors.
However, a closer examination of Herzl's vision, as revealed through his conversations with European leaders, reveals a troubling aspect of his ideology. As Ilan Pappé notes, Herzl consistently emphasized that
”Zionism was not for the Western European Jews" but rather for Eastern European Jews.
This distinction, often glossed over in traditional accounts of Zionism, exposes a deliberate strategy to redirect Eastern European Jewish migration away from Western Europe and Britain.
Herzl's vision, as Pappé astutely observes, was essentially to "recreate Europe somewhere else," with Palestine serving as the unfortunate canvas for this project. This approach, despite acknowledging the presence of an existing population in Palestine, prioritized the needs and desires of European Jews above all else. It planted "the idea that if Europe doesn't want you, you can recreate Europe somewhere else," a concept that would become deeply ingrained in Zionist ideology, with far-reaching consequences for the Palestinian people.
A Dissenting Voice: Edwin Samuel Montague and the Moral Reckoning with Zionism
Edwin Samuel Montague, a British prominent member of the Anglo-Jewry and Member of Parliament, whose unwavering opposition to Zionism encapsulates Jewish community at the time. His was not a mere difference of opinion, but a profound moral and political stand, rooted in a deep understanding of both Jewish identity and the potential ramifications of this nascent ideology.
He served as Secretary of State for India in the Liberal government from 1917 to 1922. Montague is best known for the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, which expanded Indian self-governance and led to the Government of India Act 1919. He was a strong critic of the Balfour Declaration, which supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
A "Mischievous Political Creed": Montague's Principled Stand Against Zionism
Montague's critique of Zionism, far from being a mere footnote in history, stands as a powerful indictment of the movement's core tenets. In his now historically significant memorandum, he meticulously dismantles the Zionist project, labeling it a "mischievous political creed" with the potential to sow discord both within and beyond the borders of Palestine.
His argument unfolds with the clarity of a seasoned statesman, addressing the multifaceted implications of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine:
"The Turks and other Mohammadian's or Muslims in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine."
With this stark observation, Montague lays bare the potential for dispossession and alienation inherent in the Zionist vision. He foresaw a future where the existing inhabitants of Palestine would be relegated to the status of outsiders in their own land, while Jews worldwide would face increased suspicion and alienation, their loyalty forever questioned.
Montague then turns his discerning eye to the motivations of those outside the Jewish community who so readily embraced the Zionist cause, particularly within the Protestant world:
"The sympathy which the president of the local government board suggests is widespread and deep rooted in the Protestant world with the idea of restoring the Hebrew people to the land which was to be their inheritance is I fear very often a thinly cloaked desire to get rid of the Jewish ingredient in Protestant populations."
Here, Montague pierces the veil of altruism often used to justify support for Zionism. He astutely recognizes the potential for anti-Semitism to masquerade as philosemitism, a way for European societies to rid themselves of their Jewish populations under the guise of supporting their return to a biblical homeland.
The Genesis of a Movement: American Zionism's Clandestine Odyssey A Tapestry of Influence: Weaving Zionism into America's Fabric In the annals of American history, a narrative often overlooked unfolds—the genesis and evolution of Zionism within the United States. This movement, predating even Theodor Herzl's seminal Basel conference, found fertile ground in a nation where Jewish Americans, far from marginalized, were already threading themselves into the tapestry of power in Washington. To fully comprehend this phenomenon, we must embark on an intellectual odyssey, guided by the meticulous research of Alison Weir.
Finally, Montague confronts the very foundation upon which the entire Zionist edifice rests – the notion of a singular, indivisible Jewish nation:
"I assert that there is no Jewish Nation. The members of my family for instance, who have been in this country for Generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of Desire with any Jewish Family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same Nation."
This powerful assertion, rooted in his own family's experience as British Jews, dismantles the Zionist claim to a unified national identity**. Montague recognized that shared religious heritage does not necessarily equate to shared national aspirations**. He understood that Jews, like members of any other faith, could be loyal citizens of their respective countries without subscribing to a singular national identity based solely on religion.
Early British Zionist History Encapsulated: Astonished Cabinet as Montague wept
Montague's opposition to Zionism was not merely theoretical; it was deeply personal and political. As he poignantly stated to to make a point:
"If Palestine will be the national home of the Jews, all the voters in my constituency will tell me go home."
This statement encapsulates the fears of many assimilated British Jews who saw Zionism as a direct threat to their hard-won place in British society. They feared that the creation of a Jewish state would cast doubt on their loyalty to Britain, forcing them to choose between their religious heritage and their national identity.
The depth of Montague's conviction is poignantly captured in Thomas Wiseman's account of his impassioned plea to the Cabinet:
"There was nothing new in what he had to say, but the vehemence with which he urged his views, the implacability of his opposition, astonished the cabinet. I understand the man almost wept."
This rare display of raw emotion from a seasoned politician speaks volumes about the moral weight Montague placed on this issue. He understood, perhaps more clearly than many of his contemporaries, the potential for Zionism to unleash forces that would have far-reaching and devastating consequences.
Ilan Pappé, reflecting on this tumultuous period, laments the historical amnesia that has allowed a simplified and often triumphant Zionist narrative to take hold:
"The power of the Zionist narrative is that it has a simple version that so many people you know were educated on, and it was never done with high resolution. So people did not look at the inuendos and the details."
This simplification, Pappé argues, has obscured the crucial dissenting voices, like Montague's, that challenged the Zionist project from its inception. It has also masked the internal debates within Jewish communities and the very real concerns about the potential consequences of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.
Pappé advocates for a return to a more nuanced and detailed historical analysis, one that does not shy away from the complexities and contradictions inherent in the Zionist movement:
"The only way of unpacking it is really by having a good detailed history of this, because otherwise you can't do it with soundbites. That's for sure."
This call for a more rigorous historical understanding is essential to fully grasping the multifaceted origins of the Zionist Project the movment. It requires acknowledging the dissenting voices, like Montague's, that were present from the outset, voices that warned of the potential for dispossession, alienation, and enduring conflict.
The Ascendancy of Zionism: A Tale of Two Dichotomies
Professor Pappe outlines the rise the Zionist movement going on to co-opt the expansive umbrella of British imperialism, Zionism was for Eastern European Jews not for western European Jews. This delineation is can be observed when you read into Professor Pappe’s work, its also seen in Alison Weirs work “Against Our Better Judgement”
True Anti-Semitism became rife where notions of romantic nationalism, particularly based on ethno-nationalism took root in Europe. Although in western Europe and the America’s If observed a little closer, antisemitism was in decline and at a all time low.
Metrics of Integration: The Western Jewish Experience
To fully appreciate this dichotomy, one must consider certain illuminating metrics:
Political Representation: The halls of power in Western nations were increasingly open to Jewish participation. The British Parliament and Cabinet saw a notable rise in Jewish members.
American Parallels: This trend was not confined to European shores. Across the Atlantic, the American government mirrored this inclusive trajectory, with Jewish Americans ascending to positions of significant influence.
Societal Integration: Beyond the political sphere, Western Jews were experiencing unprecedented levels of social and economic integration, a stark contrast to the isolationist pressures faced by their Eastern European counterparts.
The Crucible of Identity: Nationalism's Double-Edged Sword
The rise of romantic nationalism, particularly in its ethno-centric manifestations, proved to be a catalyst for divergent Jewish experiences across Europe. While it fueled antisemitism in the East, paradoxically, it coincided with increased Jewish integration in the West.
Detour into American Zionism
The Genesis of a Movement: American Zionism's Clandestine Odyssey
The nascent stages of the movement, predates even Theodore Herzl's seminal Basel conference, found fertile ground in a nation where Jewish Americans, far from marginalized, were already threading themselves into the tapestry of power in Washington.
The Roots of Zionist Influence in America
The Zionist movement in the United States, while initially small in numbers, gained significant traction through the patronage of wealthy supporters and influential figures. This movement's growth was not primarily driven by a desire for Jewish emigration to Palestine due to persecution or discrimination in America. Indeed, other minority groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, and immigrants like the Irish faced more severe societal challenges and no worse than the Italian’s.
Motivating Factors:
Millennial Messianism:
Prevalent among Evangelical Christians
Also present, though to a lesser extent, in Jewish communities
Rooted in religious prophecies and beliefs about the Holy Land
Jewish Romantic Nationalism:
Particularly appealing to wealthy secular Jews seeking meaning
Influenced by contemporary ideologies of genetic determinism and ethnic superiority
Reflected a broader zeitgeist of racial and ethnic identity
Ethno-nationalism:
A major driver within the Jewish community
Emphasized Jewish identity and the concept of a Jewish homeland
Carried potential risks of evolving into more extreme ideologies
Historical Context:
Alison Weir's work provides deeper insights into this movement's development
The movement gained influence despite its relatively small congregation size
Wealthy patrons played a crucial role in amplifying its impact
Ideological Concerns:
The ethno-nationalist aspect of Zionism raised concerns about its potential to:
Turn into fascism
Promote racial or group identity supremacy
Parallels drawn to ideologies in Nazi Germany
Similar tendencies observed at various levels of Israeli state and society
It's important to note that while the movement found support among some wealthy and influential circles, it did not represent the entirety of Jewish American thought or experience.
The notions of Jewish Romantic Nationalism, particular among the wealthy secular Jews looking for meaning where the zeitgeist was shaped by genetic determinism, race and ethnic superiority, was a dire sign of where the moment would eventually end up. This is an ideology that can quickly turn the dangerous, where one could argue an inevitable turn intro fascism, and racial or group identity supremacy, as in in Nazi Germany and in every levels of current day (by 2024) Israeli state and society.
Here we will take a long detour from Pappe into the works of Alison Weir.
The Invisible Leviathan: Political Zionism's American Incarnation
Alison Weir's meticulous research illuminates the clandestine origins of political Zionism in the United States, revealing a movement that, while initially small, wielded outsized influence. In "Against Our Better Judgment," Weir articulates
The Israel Lobby in the U.S. is just the tip of an older and far larger iceberg known as “political Zionism,” an international movement that began in the late 1800s with the goal of creating a Jewish state somewhere in the world.
The Israel Lobby in the U.S. is just the tip of an older and far larger iceberg known as “political Zionism,” an international movement that began in the late 1800s with the goal of creating a Jewish state somewhere in the world. In 1897 this movement, led by a European journalist named Theodor Herzl [4], coalesced in the First Zionist Congress, held in Basle, Switzerland, which established the World Zionist Organization, representing 117 groups the first year; 900 the next.[5]
The movement's early recognition of the Palestinian presence as an obstacle is poignantly captured in Weir's account:
After the Zionist Congress, Vienna’s rabbis sent two of their number to explore Palestine as a possible Jewish state. These rabbis recognized the obstacle that Palestinians presented to the plan, writing home: “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man.”[9] Still, Zionists ultimately pushed forward. Numerous Zionist diary entries, letters, and other documents show that they decided to push out these non-Jews – financially, if possible; violently if necessary.[10]
Notably, this Zionist fervor was not universally embraced by American Jewry. The Central Conference of American Rabbis issued a powerful statement emphasizing Judaism's spiritual, rather than political, nature:
In 1897 the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution that stated, “We affirm that the object of Judaism is not political nor national, but spiritual, and addresses itself to the continuous growth of peace, justice and love in the human race, to a messianic time when all men will recognize that they form ‘one great brotherhood’ for the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.” Naomi Cohen, The Americanization of Zionism, 1897-1948 (Hanover: Brandeis UP, 2003), 43. (Against Our Better Judgement)
Weir further contextualizes the movement's gradual ascendancy:
At that time, however, and for decades after, the large majority of Jewish Americans were not Zionists. In fact, many actively opposed Zionism. In the coming years, however, Zionists were to woo them assiduously with every means at hand and the extent to which Nordau’s hope was eventually realized is indicated by the statement by a prominent author on Jewish history, Naomi Cohen, writing in 2003, “but for the financial support and political pressure of American Jews… Israel might not have been born in 1948.”[12]
The Nascent Stages: Three Decades of Jewish Ambassadors Courting the Ottoman Empire
The movement's early American roots are traced by Weir:
Groups advocating the setting up of a Jewish state had first begun popping up around the United States in the 1880s.[13] Emma Lazarus, the poet whose words would adorn the Statue of Liberty, promoted Zionism throughout this decade.[14] A precursor to the Israeli flag was created in Boston in 1891.[15]
A particularly intriguing aspect of early Zionist influence was the appointment of Jewish ambassadors to Turkey:
In 1887 President Grover Cleveland appointed a Jewish ambassador to Turkey (seat of the Ottoman Empire, which at that time controlled Palestine), because of Palestine’s importance to Zionists. Jewish historian David G. Dalin reports that presidents considered the Turkish embassy important to “the growing number of Zionists within the American Jewish electorate.”[16]
For example, when the president was forced in the course of a raging depression to strike a deal with J.P. Morgan that saved the U.S. Gold Reserves, public opinion turned against him as populists pounded him on the issue.His enemies, both within and without the Democratic party, used this as allegedly further proof that he was conspiring with international banks and Wall Street contrary to the interests of American citizens.
These arguments, which were often antisemitic, cited “bloodsucking Jews” and, in particular, bitterly criticized the role of the House of Rothschild. Antisemites maintained that Cleveland was controlled by the Jewish banking houses of England and that American banking institutions would soon be controlled by Jewish bankers as well. Although his bold move saved the American economy, most historians agree that the issue played a role in the defeat of the Democrats and the election of Republican William McKinley in the 1896 presidential election. (Jewish Press)
Every president, both Republican and Democrat, followed this precedent for the next 30 years. “During this era, the ambassadorship to Turkey came to be considered a quasi-Jewish domain,” writes Dalin. [17]
By the early 1890s organizations promoting Zionism existed in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.[18]
It wasn't after the Basel conference the movement started gaining traction. Weir writes:
Reports from the Zionist World Congress in Basel, which four Americans had attended, gave this movement a major stimulus, galvanizing Zionist activities in American cities that had large Jewish populations.[19]
In 1897-98 Zionists founded numerous additional societies throughout the East and the Midwest. In 1898 they converged in a first annual conference of American Zionists, held in New York on July 4th. There they formed the Federation of American Zionists (FAZ).[20]
By the 1910s the number of Zionists in the U.S. approached 20,000 and included lawyers, professors, and businessmen. Even in its infancy, when it was still relatively weak, and represented only tiny fraction of the American Jewish population, Zionism was becoming a movement to which “Congressmen, particularly in the eastern cities, began to listen.”[21]
The movement continued to expand. By 1914 several additional Zionist groups had formed, including Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization.[22] By 1918 there were 200,000 Zionists in the U.S., and by 1948 this had grown to almost a million. [23]
Turn of the Century: A Sophisticated Media Strategy Amidst Rational Dissent
As the 20th century commenced, we observe a more vigorous mobilization in both civil society and the corridors of power. Weir's work illuminates how this transformation unfolded.
The Zionist movement's media strategy was remarkably sophisticated:
From early on Zionists actively pushed their agenda in the media. One Zionist organizer proudly proclaimed in 1912 "the zealous and incessant propaganda which is carried on by countless societies." The Yiddish press from a very early period espoused the Zionist cause. By 1923 every New York Yiddish newspaper except one was Zionist. Yiddish dailies reached 535,000 families in 1927.[24]
Despite this growing influence, U.S. officials remained skeptical:
In memo after memo, year after year, U.S. diplomatic and military experts pointed out that Zionism was counter to both U.S. interests and principles.
This narrative reveals the complex interplay of political, cultural, and media forces that shaped the early Zionist movement in America, setting the stage for its later, more profound influence on U.S. foreign policy.
Rational Voices
At this juncture, prescient American patriots began to discern the potentially deleterious consequences of the Zionist project, mirroring the concerns of Montague across the Atlantic. Weir writes:
Weir writes:
While more examples will be discussed later, Secretary of State Philander Knox was perhaps the first in the pattern of State Department officials rejecting Zionist advances. In 1912, the Zionist Literary Society approached the Taft administration for an endorsement. Knox turned them down flat, noting that “problems of Zionism involve certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own.”[26]
The movement's true ascendancy to the echelons of American power circles was not realized until it had established deep roots in Ivy League fraternities, grooming potential candidates for positions of influence. Weir notes:
Despite that small setback in 1912, Zionists garnered a far more significant victory in the same year, one that was to have enormous consequences both internationally and in the United States and that was part of a pattern of influence that continues through today.
They found their standard-bearers in Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and gained the ear of Woodrow Wilson. While Brandeis is renowned today as an esteemed jurist, this image is that of a carefully curated persona. Weir, citing contemporary commentary, suggests that the man behind the mask was of a more complex nature.
Brandeis the convert
While Brandeis’ beloved uncle, after whom he was named, had been a Zionist, it appears that Brandeis himself had not become a Zionist until later in life. The main person credited with his conversion to Zionism was a journalist named Jacob De Haas. De Haas had been sent to the U.S. ten years before Brandeis met him by Zionist founder Theodor Herzl to recruit Americans to the cause.
**The Clandestine Parushim: A Covert Crusade for Zionism
‘We must work silently, through education and infection’**
Before delving into the origins of the clandestine Parushim, we shall examine its machinations through the lens of Justices Brandeis and Frankfurter, thereby unveiling the hidden facets of Brandeis's character and conduct. As Weir elucidates:
In 1912 prominent Jewish American attorney Louis Brandeis, who was to go on to become a Supreme Court Justice, became a Zionist.[27] Within two years he became head of the international Zionist Central Office, newly moved to America from Germany.[28]
Brandeis, while renowned as a Supreme Court Justice, remains an enigma to most Americans regarding his pivotal role in World War I and his Palestinian connections. His collaboration with Felix Frankfurter, a future Supreme Court Justice, was particularly consequential.
Weir continues:
Perhaps the aspect of Brandeis that is least known to the general public – and often even to academics – is the extent of his zealotry and the degree to which he used covert methods to achieve his aims.
While today Brandeis is held in extremely high esteem by almost all of us, there was significant opposition at the time to his appointment to the Supreme Court, largely centered on widespread accusations of unethical behavior. A typical example was the view that Brandeis was "a man who has certain high ideals in his imagination, but who is utterly unscrupulous, in method in reaching them."[29]
Brandeis was known as a progressive reformer in many areas of American law and society. He advocated for workers' rights, opposed monopolies, and supported various social reforms. However, his zealous support for Zionism, especially through covert means, presents a stark contrast to his public image as a champion of transparency and ethical conduct. which can be juxtaposed to today liberal Zionism / Liberal Zionist. Weir Continues on Brandeis’s professional ethic, his use of unscrupulous means:
While Brandeis is an unusually well known Supreme Court Justice, most Americans are unaware of the significant role he played in World War I and of his connection to Palestine.
Some of this work was done with Felix Frankfurter, who became a Supreme Court Justice two decades later.
Perhaps the aspect of Brandeis that is least known to the general public – and often even to academics – is the extent of his zealotry and the degree to which he used covert methods to achieve his aims. While today Brandeis is held in extremely high esteem by almost all of us, there was significant opposition at the time to his appointment to the Supreme Court, largely centered on widespread accusations of unethical behavior. A typical example was the view that Brandeis was “a man who has certain high ideals in his imagination, but who is utterly unscrupulous, in method in reaching them.”[29]
While today such criticisms of Brandeis are either ignored or attributed to political differences and/or “anti-Semitism,”[30] there is evidence suggesting that such views may have been more accurate than Brandeis partisans would like.
Weir continues:
Perhaps the aspect of Brandeis that is least known to the general public – and often even to academics – is the extent of his zealotry and the degree to which he used covert methods to achieve his aims.
While today Brandeis is held in extremely high esteem by almost all of us, there was significant opposition at the time to his appointment to the Supreme Court, largely centered on widespread accusations of unethical behavior. A typical example was the view that Brandeis was "a man who has certain high ideals in his imagination, but who is utterly unscrupulous, in method in reaching them."[29]
The contradiction in Liberal Zionism:
This paradox extends to the broader concept of Liberal Zionism. Adherents often advocate for progressive values in domestic politics while supporting or overlooking policies in Israel that may contradict these same values. Professor Pappe has a section on the paradox, where liberal Zionists comes off as a enigma to Palestinians or advocates of Palestinian rights.
This seeming contradiction can be partly explained by the powerful pull of tribal or group loyalties, which can sometimes override otherwise consistent application of principles. It may also reflect a form of cognitive dissonance, where individuals struggle to reconcile conflicting beliefs or values.
Yet I would not dismiss the fact that the full implications of Zionism and the creation of Israel were not necessarily apparent in Brandeis's time. The current situation has evolved over decades.
Weir Continues
In 1982 historian Bruce Allen Murphy, in a book that won a Certificate of Merit from the American Bar Association, reported that Brandeis and Frankfurter had secretly collaborated over many years on numerous covert political activities. Zionism was one of them.[31]
“[I]n one of the most unique arrangements in the Court’s history, Brandeis enlisted Frankfurter, then a professor at Harvard Law School, as his paid political lobbyist and lieutenant,” writes Murphy, in his book The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices. “Working together over a period of 25 years, they placed a network of disciples in positions of influence, and labored diligently for the enactment of their desired programs.”[32]
“This adroit use of the politically skillful Frankfurter as an intermediary enabled Brandeis to keep his considerable political endeavors hidden from the public,” continues Murphy.[33]
Brandeis only mentioned the arrangement to one other person, Murphy writes, “another Zionist lieutenant– Court of Appeals Judge Julian Mack.”[34]
It was apparent to them, their activities were highly unethical
One reason that Brandeis and Frankfurter kept the arrangement secret was that such behavior by a sitting Supreme Court justice is considered highly unethical. As an editorial in the New York Times pointed out following the publication of Murphy’s book, “… the Brandeis-Frankfurter arrangement was wrong. It serves neither history nor ethics to judge it more kindly, as some seem disposed to do… the prolonged, meddlesome Brandeis-Frankfurter arrangement violates ethical standards.”
The Times reiterates a point also made by Murphy: the fact that Brandeis and Frankfurter kept their arrangement secret demonstrated that they knew it was unethical – or at least realized that the public would view it as such: “They were dodging the public’s appropriate measure of fitness.”[35]
The Benefactor in Parushim Groomed both Frankfurter & Brandeis
Frankfurter had joined the Harvard faculty in 1914 at the age of 31, a post gained after a Brandeis-initiated donation from financier Jacob Schiff to Harvard created a position for Frankfurter[38] make a donation to Harvard to create a position for him. Then, Murphy writes, “for the next 25 years, [Frankfurter] shaped the minds of generations of the nation’s most elite law students.”[39]
After Brandeis become head of the American Zionist movement, he “created an advisory council–an inner circle of his closest advisers–and appointed Felix Frankfurter as one of its members.”[40]
Frankfurter the Man to steward FDR into the European Theater
Later, when Frankfurter himself became a Supreme Court Justice, he used similar methods, “placing his own network of disciples in various agencies and working through this network for the realization of his own goals.” These included both Zionist objectives and “Frankfurter’s stewardship of FDR’s programs to bring the U.S. into battle against Hitler.”[36]
Their activities, Murphy notes, were “part of a vast, carefully planned and orchestrated political crusade undertaken first by Brandeis through Frankfurter and then by Frankfurter on his own to accomplish extrajudicial political goals.”[37]
Genesis: Parushim's Ascent from Ivy League Fraternity to the Corridors of Power in Washington
The clandestine origins of Zionist influence in American politics is exemplified in Parushim. This organization, largely unknown to the public and even to many academics, played a pivotal role in advancing Zionist interests both domestically and internationally. Weir elucidates:
Even more surprising to this author – and even less well-known both to the public and to academics – is Brandeis's membership in a secret society that covertly pushed Zionism both in the U.S. and internationally.
This information was first brought to light by Israeli professor Dr. Sarah Schmidt in a 1978 article published in the American Jewish Historical Quarterly, and later expanded upon in her 1995 book. Peter Gross, a Harvard author and former New York Times editor sympathetic to Zionism, corroborated this information in his own publications.
The Parushim, as described by Gross, was "an elitist secret society called the Parushim, the Hebrew word for 'Pharisees' and 'separate,' which grew out of Harvard's Menorah Society." Schmidt's characterization of the group is particularly illuminating:
"The image that emerges of the Parushim is that of a secret underground guerilla force determined to influence the course of events in a quiet, anonymous way."
Brandeis utilized this organization as a covert intellectual cadre, recruiting ambitious young men, often from Harvard, to further the Zionist cause while simultaneously advancing their own careers. The initiation process was shrouded in secrecy and solemnity, as Grose describes:
"As the Harvard men spread out across the land in their professional pursuits, their interests in Zionism were kept alive by secretive exchanges and the trappings of a fraternal order. Each invited initiate underwent a solemn ceremony, swearing the oath 'to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims.'"
The gravity of this commitment was impressed upon new members during their initiation:
"You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life–dearer than that of family, of school, of nation."
The Ivory Tower: Tracing the Roots of Parushim
The Paruhim from its earliest inception had close connection and the ear of Woodrow Wilson who would go on to become he 28th President of the United States, serving from 1913 to 1921. Wilson publicly supported the Balfour Declaration, issued by the British government in November 1917, which favored the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This endorsement was significant as it aligned the United States with the Zionist movement and the British mandate over Palestine, which was sanctioned by the League of Nations.
Wilson's administration supported the League of Nations' mandate system, which placed Palestine under British administration. This system was seen as a means to implement the Balfour Declaration and facilitate Jewish immigration to Palestine, further entrenching U.S. support for Zionist objectives during and after the war.
Weir writes:
While Brandeis was a key leader of the Parushim, an academic named Horace M. Kallen was its founder, creating it in 1913. Kallen was an academic first hired by Woodrow Wilson, who was then president of Princeton, to teach English there.[48] When Kallen founded the Parushim he was a philosophy professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Kallen is generally considered the father of cultural pluralism.
In her book on Kallen, Schmidt includes more information on the society in a chapter entitled, “Kallen’s Secret Army: The Parushim.” She reports, “A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship.” [49]
The rigorous selection process for members is described as follows:
“Kallen invited no one to become a member until the candidate had given specific assurances regarding devotion and resolution to the Zionist cause,” Schmidt writes, “and each initiate had to undergo a rigorous analysis of his qualifications, loyalty, and willingness to take orders from the Order’s Executive Council.”[50] Not surprisingly, it appears that Frankfurter was a member.[51]
Horace Kallen: Architect of the Parushim
The influence of the Parushim extended far beyond its initial membership, as Weir notes:
In his book American Zionism: Mission and Politics, Jeffrey Gurock writes: “Brandeis conducted a vigorous search of his own for ‘college men,’ particularly young graduates of Harvard Law School, whom he co-opted to leadership or special assignments for the regular and emergency Zionist organizations he controlled. Among those recruited were men like Felix Frankfurter, Judge Julian Mack, Walter Lippmann, Bernard Flexner (one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations), Benjamin Cohen (high official under both FDR and Truman), and others who achieved national and international eminence.”
Jeffery Gurock, American Zionism: Missions and Politics (London: Routledge, 1998), 135. Parushim creator Kallen is known as being one of the fathers of “cultural pluralism,” opposing the highly popular “melting pot” view, in which immigrants from all over the world would join together as non-hyphenated Americans. See, for example: Michael Alexander, Jazz Age Jews (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001), 90.
Most Americans and new immigrants – including Jewish Americans – were opposed to Kallen’s creation of cultural pluralism and hyphenated Americans, preferring assimilation and the melting pot. See, for example, Cohen, Americanization of Zionism, 18: “Most [Jews] had found their promised land in America.” One of the primary goals in the U.S. for some Zionists leaders was, in Cohen’s words, “to guard against assimilation.”
(Cohen, Americanization of Zionism, 22) “The popular melting-pot theory was antithetical to the heart of the Zionist message.” (Cohen, Americanization of Zionism, 15)
Kallen's role in shaping American cultural discourse is also noteworthy. His concept of cultural pluralism stood in opposition to the popular "melting pot" theory of American identity. This ideological stance had significant implications for the Zionist movement in America.
Through these clandestine networks and ideological frameworks, the Parushim laid the groundwork for the substantial influence that Zionist interests would come to wield in American politics and culture.
The Ascendancy of Zionist Influence: From Wilson to Roosevelt
The Invisible Hand of Power
As the 20th century unfolded, the carefully cultivated seeds of Zionist influence began to bear fruit within the highest echelons of American governance. The groomed candidates, nurtured by the likes of Brandeis and his cohort, were poised to wield their influence with remarkable efficacy. The period from the Wilson administration to that of President Roosevelt witnessed the steady ascendancy of Zionist influence in American politics.
Weir illuminates this phenomenon with striking examples:
Brandeis also "played a decisive role in planning Wilson's economic program, and particularly in formulating the Federal Reserve."
Source: Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993), 93.
This revelation underscores the profound reach of Zionist advocates into the very machinery of American economic policy. The Federal Reserve, a cornerstone of U.S. financial governance, was shaped in part by the hand of a committed Zionist.
Federal Reserve and Brandeis: An Examination into the liberal Reformer Supreme Court Justice
A Consequential Friendship: President Wilson and Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis By Edward F. Gerber and Zachary Burt: Brandeis's appointment to the Supreme Court was a milestone in Jewish American history, and he went on to be a influential progressive voice on the court.
No doubt today Brandeis is hailed as a progressive reformer, who proposed and drafted many reforms, but what is overlooked is his approval and hand in the deal that brought a clique of private big banking money to create the U.S Federal Reserve Bank, which perverted the American state for select private bankers undue influence.
Brandeis was directly involved in the drafting and creation of several key pieces of legislation during his time, including:
The Federal Reserve Act
The Clayton Antitrust Act
The law establishing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
In the Book: The Mind of a Prophet: A New Look at the Far-Reaching Influence of Louis D. Brandeis, praising him for his reform his views were outlined as:
Brandeis views on the dangers of economic monopolies and "the curse of bigness" are explored, including his influential essay "Other People's Money" and his role in shaping antitrust policies.
Brandeis' judicial philosophy was based on deference to legislatures, opposition to big business and government, and interpreting the Constitution in light of history and evolving societal needs.
Yet the Federal Reserve perverted the public money into “Other People’s Money”, and embodies the curser of “Big Private Banking Business Bigness”, one could say paraphrasing from Jewish Historian Ginsberg a moment of “Fatal Leap”.
The Frankfurter Factor
Felix Frankfurter, another key figure in this intricate web of influence, exemplified the long-term strategy of Zionist advocacy:
Felix Frankfurter's work on behalf of Zionism spanned many years. FDR was to appoint him to the Supreme Court in 1939, and even before this time he used his "access to the president to bring Zionist issues to his attention and urge his intercession on behalf of the Zionist cause.
Source: Christison, Perceptions, 47
Frankfurter's trajectory from academic to Supreme Court Justice was not merely a personal triumph, but a strategic placement of a Zionist advocate in a position of immense judicial power. His earlier activities provide context for this ascent:
"At Brandeis's behest, Frankfurter also became involved with American Zionism. In 1917 Frankfurter accompanied Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to Turkey and Egypt to see what could be done for the settlements in Palestine during the World War. Frankfurter also attended the peace conference in Paris as a representative of the American Zionist movement and as a liaison for Brandeis."
Source: Alexander, Jazz Age Jews, 91
The symbiotic relationship between Zionist benefactors and their chosen representatives is further illustrated by Frankfurter's early career boost:
At the request of Brandeis, financier Jacob Schiff had donated funds to have a position created for Frankfurter at Harvard early in his career.
Source: Alexander, Jazz Age Jews, 83
The Art of Silent Influence
The Parushim, this early incarnation of the Zionist lobby, operated with a level of discretion that bordered on the clandestine. Their modus operandi was succinctly captured in the words of an early recruiter:
"An organization which has the aims we have must be anonymous, must work silently, and through education and infection rather than through force and noise." He wrote that to work openly would be "suicidal" for their objective.
This ethos of quiet infiltration and influence would prove to be a hallmark of Zionist advocacy in America for decades to come.
The Appointment Game: A Comedy of Errors
The extent of Zionist influence in American executive appointments is perhaps best illustrated by an anecdote that borders on the comedic. Weir recounts:
The appointee was Oscar Straus, whose brothers owned Macy's Department Store and whom Theodore Roosevelt later named to his cabinet. Dalin reports a humorous incident that occurred at a dinner years later for Straus and Roosevelt:
"In his remarks, Roosevelt had stated that Straus had been appointed on the basis of merit and ability alone; the fact that he was Jewish had played no part in Roosevelt's decision to appoint him. A few minutes later, in introducing Straus, [another speaker, the Jewish financier and philanthropist Jacob Schiff, who was a bit deaf and had evidently not heard Roosevelt's remarks, recounted how Roosevelt had sought his advice as to who would be the most suitable and eminent Jewish leader to appoint to his cabinet."
This incident, while amusing, underscores the complex interplay between merit, identity, and influence in the corridors of American power. It serves as a microcosm of the larger narrative of Zionist advocacy in the United States - a story of public proclamations of impartiality juxtaposed against behind-the-scenes maneuvering and influence.
President Roosevelt & Shiff: The financial Benefactor in Parushim, Brandeis and Frankfurter
AS with Brandeis and Frankfurter, Shiff had the ear of President Roosevelt and was an advocate in the President for the Central Bank, which was later drafted in as the Federal Reserve.
Business and Economic Interests: As a leading figure in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Schiff was involved in various business ventures and financial transactions. Roosevelt’s administration, particularly his trust-busting policies, impacted Schiff’s business interests. For example, the breakup of the Standard Oil trust and the subsequent formation of the Northern Securities Company affected Schiff’s financial dealings.
Philanthropic Efforts: Despite their differing views on business and economics, Schiff and Roosevelt shared a commitment to social welfare. Schiff was involved in various philanthropic endeavors, including efforts to improve labor conditions and provide assistance to unemployed workers. Roosevelt’s later New Deal initiatives built upon these early efforts.
Historical Context: The relationship between Schiff and Roosevelt must be understood within the context of the early 20th century. The Panic of 1907, triggered in part by Roosevelt’s regulatory actions and market uncertainties, had significant economic and social implications. Schiff’s advocacy for a central bank and his warnings about the potential for a severe economic crisis also reflect the era’s economic concerns.
It’s worthy of note that like Brandeis his financial benefactor, Shiff was liberal and progressive on policies, with confunding and conflicting policy advocacy.
The Double-Edged Sword of Identity Politics: Zionism's Early Tactical Maneuvers
Wielding Accusations: The Birth of a Potent Strategy
Few figures embody the complexities of identity politics and ideological maneuvering quite like Louis Brandeis. His ascent to the Supreme Court serves as a fascinating case study in the early tactics employed by the Zionist lobby, particularly the strategic use of anti-Semitism accusations as both shield and sword.
The Chilling Effect: Silence Through Fear
The Brandeis nomination saga reveals a nuanced interplay of ethnic solidarity, political calculation, and the power of unspoken threats. As Weir observes:
Regarding the possible role of anti-Semitism in the opposition to Brandeis, it seems that his ethnicity may actually have enhanced his chances. Many Jewish leaders, while disliking his Zionism, felt they must support him. Similarly, many non-Jews, fearful of being called anti-Semitic, remained silent.
This phenomenon, which we might term "the chilling effect of anticipated accusation," became a powerful tool in the Zionist arsenal. It effectively silenced potential critics, regardless of the merit of their objections.
The Paralysis of Political Discourse
The extent to which this tactic permeated political discourse is starkly illustrated by contemporary journalist Gus Karger's observation referenced by Weir in her work:
"Many Senators who might base their opposition to him on sound and logical grounds, if he were a Presbyterian, are reluctant to take a stand, lest their opposition be misconstrued."
Source: Urofsky, Brandeis, 440
This quote encapsulates the paralyzing effect that the fear of anti-Semitism accusations had on political discourse. It demonstrates how the mere possibility of such an accusation could stifle legitimate debate and criticism, effectively short-circuiting the democratic process.
The Birth of a Tactical Paradigm
The Brandeis nomination controversy marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of Zionist lobbying tactics in the United States. It established a precedent for using identity as both a shield against criticism and a cudgel against opponents. This approach would go on to become a cornerstone of Zionist advocacy, refined and deployed with increasing sophistication in the decades to come.
The Paradox of Protection
Ironically, this tactic often placed Jewish leaders who were skeptical of Zionism in an untenable position. Forced to choose between their ideological reservations and ethnic solidarity, many felt compelled to support Brandeis despite their misgivings about his Zionist agenda. This internal conflict within the Jewish community highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of identity politics.
The Long Shadow of the Brandeis Affair
The tactics employed during the Brandeis nomination cast a long shadow over American political discourse. They set a precedent for how allegations of bigotry could be weaponized in political debates, a strategy that would be adopted and adapted by various interest groups in the years to come.
The Shadowy Machinations: Precursor Organizations to the Pro-Israel Lobby in America
The Invisible Hand: American Jewish Committee's Clandestine Operations
Founded in 1906, this organization would come to embody the very archetype of a powerful, behind-the-scenes influencer that its early detractors had feared. The AJC's evolution from a non-Zionist entity to a formidable pro-Israel force offers a compelling narrative of how discrete advocacy can shape national policy.
As Weir comments:
Another organization that chose to work secretively was the American Jewish Committee (AJC), though this organization was largely non-Zionist in its early decades. Author Marianne R. Sanua describes its activities in her authorized biography of the organization, Let Us Prove Strong: The American Jewish Committee, 1945-2006.
Jacob H. Schiff, the prominent banker, and the same benefactor in Parushi initiated the AJC by convening a coterie of fifty-seven distinguished Jews from across the United States. As chronicled by Marianne R. Sanua in her authorized biography, "Let Us Prove Strong: The American Jewish Committee, 1945-2006", and cited by Weir in her work:
"On the appointed day, rabbis, businessmen, scientists, judges, ambassadors, scholars, writers, and philanthropists gathered in New York from Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Richmond, and as far away as San Francisco."
This assembly, diverse in profession but unified in purpose, laid the groundwork for an organization that would operate with remarkable discretion. The AJC's modus operandi was characterized by a deliberate avoidance of publicity, preferring instead to work through ostensibly non-sectarian fronts. Weir reveals quoting Sanua:
Although part of the original group withdrew, fearing such an entity would reinforce gentile beliefs in powerful Jewish cabals, the others went forward and in many ways created just such an entity.
While the existence of the AJC, unlike the Parushim, was not kept hidden, many of its activities were. As a leader wrote about its earliest days,
“The new body was not to engage in publicity except as an instrument for achieving objectives.”
This penchant for secrecy extended to the creation of fictitious organizations when necessary, a tactic that obscured the Jewish origin of certain initiatives. Such methods of obfuscation were not merely a defensive posture but a strategic approach to wielding influence without drawing undue attention.
The AJC's activities took on a more aggressive tone in the 1930s and 1940s. Sanua's account paints a picture of an organization engaged in covert operations reminiscent of intelligence agencies:
According to Sanua, the AJC desired “in general to remain as unobtrusive as possible in conducting its work, preferring to use the names and addresses of supposedly nonsectarian organizations instead of its own.”
When necessary,” Sanua writes, the AJC “would create the name of an essentially fictitious organization to hide the fact that American Jews were behind the effort at all.”
In the 1930s and 1940s, Sanua, reports, “its agents went undercover, infiltrated meetings, and compiled a list of 50,000 offenders [alleged anti-Semites or German sympathizers] whose names were shared with the FBI…”
According to Sanua, scores of Americans were sent to jail “because of the efforts of the AJC,” which, out of a total of 50,000 “offenders,” raises the question of exactly who was on this list, and why.
This list, which allegedly led to the incarceration of "scores of Americans," raises profound questions about the extent of the AJC's influence and the criteria by which individuals were deemed "offenders."
The organization's reach extended into the realm of domestic politics, as evidenced by its campaign against Gerald Smith, the presidential candidate of the America First Party. Smith's accusation that the AJC and similar groups employed "Gestapo techniques" to "hound innocent Christian nationalists" highlights the contentious nature of the AJC's tactics.
In 1944 undercover AJC agents attended the first national convention of the America First Party, which had opposed entering European wars. The AJC charged that its presidential candidate, Gerald Smith, was anti-Semitic, a charge that Sanua says he denied, accusing the ADL and others of using the millions of dollars at their disposal to “hound innocent Christian nationalists with their Gestapo techniques.” (Sanua, Let Us Prove Strong, 41)
The AJC successfully pushed for federal investigations into Smith, and in 1946 he was called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Sanua notes that the AJC had “pulled all their strings in Washington to put him there.” (Sanua, Let Us Prove Strong, 41)
These AJC activities continued after the war, Sanua reports, and notes, “Again, secrecy and behind-the scenes work was the key. Most of the written records of these activities remain closed to the public to the present day.”
This veil of secrecy, persisting to the present day, underscores the enduring nature of the AJC's clandestine approach.
The AJC's transformation from a non-Zionist to a pro-Zionist organization marks a critical juncture in its history. This shift culminated in 1947 when the AJC leveraged its high-level government connections to support the UN partition plan for Palestine. Sanua notes:
"In October 1948, the AJC's executive committee resolved to work for 'financial aid from the United States – which it achieved the following year.'"
This pivotal moment illustrates how the AJC's behind-the-scenes influence translated into tangible policy outcomes, shaping the landscape of Middle Eastern geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy.
The story of the AJC serves as a compelling case study in the power of unethical discreet advocacy, which would be later echoed in cases as as the Senator Fulbright affair, which would be later discussed via Professor Pappe’s commentary.
The Paradoxical Legacy of Felix Frankfurter: Justice, Identity, and Selective Advocacy
A Man of Contradictions: Zionist Patron and Judicial Discrimination
Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice from 1939 to 1962, developed a public persona where he was ambivalent about his Jewish identity and avoided discussing Jewish concerns with President Roosevelt when it suited his agenda.
"One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution."
These words, ironically penned by Frankfurter in defense of religious discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses, encapsulate the enigma of his jurisprudence. As the Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) astutely observes:
The Selective Advocate: Zionism vs. Domestic Jewish Concerns, An Examination Into His Character
Frankfurter's approach to Jewish issues was markedly bifurcated. While he worked tirelessly behind the scenes to support Zionist causes and the creation of Israel, he remained conspicuously silent on domestic Jewish concerns. Frankfurter along with their clique, was well entrenched and influential in both Hoover, FDR into Truman administration.
Yet Frankfurter maintained his silence on Jewish affairs during the years of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews (1941-1945). Even when presented with a firsthand account of Nazi atrocities by Polish Underground courier Jan Karski in July 1943, Frankfurter remained silent. Karski had briefed Frankfurter on the Warsaw Ghetto and the Belzec death camp, but Frankfurter famously responded, “Mr. Karski, I am unable to believe you” (Frankfurter, Felix - Encyclopedia).
Rather to using his considerable influence to direct refugees to American shores, he advocated for the facilitation of European Jewry’s migration into Palestine.
This Dichotomy Of His Philosophy In Action
Association of Jewish Studies (AJS), in their scathing yet balanced critical analysis of Felix Frankfurter: **The Jewish Justice Who Lost Track of Justice and His Heritage** write of him:
“Frankfurter worked in the Wilson administration, was the first tenured Jewish professor at Harvard Law School, and was a close advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He worked with Louis Brandeis in the Zionist movement, visited the Yishuv after World War I, and as a sitting justice lobbied President Harry Truman, cabinet members, and the State Department to pressure Britain to increase Jewish immigration to British Palestine and for the United States to support partition to create a Jewish state, and then formally recognize Israel.”
Yet, when faced with appeals from European Jews seeking refuge in the United States during the 1930s, Frankfurter's response was detached and bureaucratic:
"Instead of directly addressing these appeals, he forwarded them to the director of the Federation of Jewish Charities, instructing them to send a simple acknowledgment."(Frankfurter, Felix - Encyclopedia)
Betraying the Very Freedoms He Sought to Embody
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of Frankfurter's legacy is his judicial record on issues affecting religious minorities, including Jews. The Crown Kosher Supermarket case stands as a stark example:
"Not content to merely agree with the majority opinion upholding these laws, Frankfurter wrote a massive eighty-four-page concurrence followed by eighteen pages of appendices to defend his support for a law titled 'Observance of the Lord's Day,' making the Christian Sabbath an 'official' holiday, while irreparably harming many Jews. The Catholic Brennan and the Protestants Potter Stewart and William O. Douglas defended the rights of Jews. Frankfurter was over the top supporting their persecution."
This decision defined his very personal view regarding certain type of Jew. Which influenced by Zionism’s “New Jew”, upon which more light will be shed later on.
This decision, along with his support for Japanese internment and his ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses, paints a picture of a justice who, in his quest for assimilation and acceptance, may have lost sight of the very principles of religious freedom and minority rights that his position on the Supreme Court was meant to protect.
Frankfurter A Legacy Enigma
Felix Frankfurter's life and career serve as a compelling case study in the complex interplay between personal identity, public service, and the pursuit of justice
Paul Finkelman, writing for AJS found the man hard to grasp. on the one hand he was grooming young Jewish Lawyers out of the Ivy league fraternity network his clandestine organization helped to foster. On the other hand he made it a public note, his distaste of the Orthodox Kosher Jewry.
So, what can we make of Frankfurter? Born Jewish, never denying his heritage, and constantly helping young Jewish lawyers, as a justice he seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from the legitimate needs of American Jews. During World War II he supported the persecution of American religious and ethnic minorities, even while the nation was fighting Nazi racism and persecution. The only time he invoked his “Jewishness” from the bench was to justify expelling young schoolchildren who refused to violate their religion, while Nazis were murdering Jews in Europe. How do we explain this?
Moving forward, we will unravel more of the “Enigma” that is Frankfurter.
U.S. Immigration Policies and Jewish Refugees: Policy Crafted by “Administrative Discretion”.
During the Nazi era from 1933-1945, the U.S. State Department under the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations used its administrative discretion to severely limit immigration of refugees from Nazi Europe, even though the country could have admitted an additional 350,000 refugees within the existing quotas.
Writing at the Yale Law school, Laurel Leff critiques in, “Death by Bureaucracy: How the U.S. State Department Used Administrative Discretion to Bar Refugees from Nazi Europe”:
During the Nazi era, the United States could have remained within overall and country-by-country quotas limiting immigration and still have admitted an additional 350,000 refugees from Germany and German-occupied or allied countries. Instead, the State Department, whose consular officers abroad decided whether visas were to be issued, denied them to hundreds of thousands seeking refuge between 1933 and 1945. Largely untethered by judicial or public oversight, consular officials deployed their discretion in a way that produced direct and often deadly consequences for the mostly Jewish refugees.
The State Department’s “relatives rule” in June 1941 denied visas to immigrants with close family still in Nazi territory (Wagner-Rogers Bill | Holocaust Encyclopedia). This policy, combined with public antipathy towards revising American immigration laws, made it even more challenging for Jewish refugees to enter the country.
State Department officials issued shifting and inconsistent guidelines to consular officers abroad on how to interpret and apply the LPC clause, enabling them to restrict immigration.
"death by bureaucracy" A FDR Executive Policy
It was what Stephen S. Wise, the rabbi leading American Jewry's response to the Nazi catastrophe, called "death by bureaucracy" [Leff].
This paints a picture of the State Department exercising discretion, with the President deferring to bureaucratic underlings what could have been exercised by executive order.
Civic Society Action
It was private citizens and refugee aid organizations, including Jewish and Christian groups, provided assistance to those attempting to flee. Between 1938 and 1941, 123,868 self-identified Jewish refugees immigrated to the United States (United States Immigration Policy and Hitler's Holocaust - Teach Democracy).
The Evolution of Jewish Identity in Zionist Thought
Statutory Backdrop: A Case of Profiling
In a move that is generally acknowledged to have been driven by xenophobia and racism, the U.S. Congress in the 1920s changed immigration laws to limit the overall number of immigrants to the United States, particularly those from southern and eastern Europe. Jews were a particular target, as a State Department official made clear in a 1920 letter to the chair of the House committee on immigration summarizing officials’ observations from recent trips overseas:
“The great mass of aliens passing through Rotterdam are Russian Poles or Polish Jews of the usual ghetto type. . . They are filthy un-American and often dangerous in their habits. Every possible care and safeguard should be used to keep out the undesirables”
(Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia).( “Death by Bureaucracy”: How the U.S. State Department Used Administrative Discretion to Bar Refugees from Nazi Europe)
Distinctions Within Jewish Communities
This sentiment reflected broader societal attitudes towards Jewish immigrants, who were often viewed as undesirable due to their cultural practices and economic status. The distinction between "the Ghetto Jew" and "the bourgeois Jew" highlighted the perception that orthodox and working-class Jews were less assimilable into American society than their more affluent counterparts.
The "Ghetto Jew": Often associated with orthodox, working-class immigrants who maintained traditional cultural practices.
The "Bourgeois Jew": Typically more affluent and assimilated into Western society.
Zionist Felix Frankfurter harbored strong objections to this group, perceiving them as too traditional or "kosher" for the new Jewish image that Zionism sought to cultivate.
The Concept of "Muscular Judaism"
In 1898, at the Second Zionist Congress in Basel, Max Nordau introduced the concept of "Muscular Judaism." This ideology advocated for a "new Jew" who would:
Reject the perceived weaknesses of the "old Jew"
Embody mental and physical strength
Be capable of achieving Zionism's ambitious goals
Philosophical Influences
This shift in Jewish identity was partly influenced by a particular interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, specifically his concepts of "Slave Morality" and "Master Morality." Ironically, many traits that Judaism and other major religions consider virtuous align with what Nietzsche described as "Slave Morality."
The "Soft Jew" vs. the "Muscular Jew"
This ideological shift created a new dichotomy:
The "Soft Jew": Associated with traditional, diaspora Judaism
The "Muscular Jew": The ideal of the new Zionist movement, embodying strength and self-reliance
This transformation in Jewish identity was central to early Zionist thought, aiming to create a new type of Jew capable of building and defending a Jewish state.
Official Executive Policy: Obfuscated as State Department Politicking
In United States Immigration Policy and Hitler's Holocaust: *Bill of Right in Action, Teach Democracy puts the FDR administration and his deliberate policies under scrutiny:*
Shortly after she was appointed to the cabinet, Frances Perkins, President Roosevelt's Secretary of Labor, proposed an executive order regarding refugees and immigration. Perkins suggested that the State Department should give priority to immigrants seeking refuge from racial or religious persecution. The State Department objected to this order because it would antagonize relations with Germany and alienate jobless American citizens. FDR never issued the order and State Department officials in Europe continued to reject many visa applications from Jewish refugees.
Critique of Executive Inaction Amid Congressional Support for the Wagner-Rogers Bill
The Wagner-Rogers Bill, introduced in early 1939, aimed to admit 20,000 Jewish refugee children to the United States outside the existing immigration quotas. Despite significant support from various sectors, including child welfare advocates and labor unions, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's lack of public endorsement and executive action ultimately contributed to the bill's failure in Congress. This situation raises critical questions about the role of executive leadership during a time of humanitarian crisis.
Congressional Support vs. Presidential Silence
The bill garnered substantial backing from organizations such as the American Federation of Labor, which argued that admitting children would not exacerbate unemployment levels (Wagner-Rogers Bill | Holocaust Encyclopedia).
Additionally, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt publicly supported the bill, emphasizing the moral obligation to assist children fleeing persecution. She referred to similar rescue efforts in Europe and urged Americans to consider their responsibilities toward these vulnerable children (Wagner-Rogers Bill - Wikipedia).
However, President Roosevelt remained silent on the issue. His inaction is particularly striking given that he had the power to influence public opinion and legislative outcomes significantly. By failing to take a definitive stance on the Wagner-Rogers Bill, Roosevelt allowed anti-immigration sentiment and xenophobia to prevail. Polls at the time indicated that two-thirds of Americans opposed taking in Jewish refugee children, reflecting a broader societal reluctance to accept refugees (What Americans Thought of Jewish Refugees Prior to World War II).
Roosevelt Second Rejection: Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.
However, by November 1942, as evidence of the Holocaust became undeniable, American Jewish leaders once again appealed to Roosevelt. They urged him to advocate for changes in immigration laws that could facilitate the escape of more refugees from Nazi terror. Yet, Roosevelt refused to take action. Instead, he joined British leaders in condemning the Nazi genocide without offering concrete measures to assist those in peril (Teach Democracy).
This second rebuff from Roosevelt underscored a troubling pattern of inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence and pleas for help. The president's unwillingness to prioritize humanitarian concerns over political considerations not only reflected his administration's broader approach but also contributed to a culture of indifference towards Jewish suffering. This indifference was further exemplified by the State Department's consistent objections to proposals aimed at aiding Jewish refugees, which angered figures like Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., who was deeply disturbed by the ongoing atrocities (Teach Democracy).
The report documented the long history of State Department obstructionism in refugee matters. (This report was originally titled, "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.")
The War Refugee Board: A Delayed Response to a Dire Crisis
To shield his State Department from potential scandal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order that directed Congress to implement most of the provisions of the rescue resolution. (Teach Democracy).
This order established the
War Refugee Board (WRB)
with the mandate "to take all measures within its policy to rescue victims of enemy oppression in imminent danger of death" (War Refugee Board).
Mobilization of Rescue Efforts: A little too Late
Following its establishment, the War Refugee Board quickly mobilized to initiate rescue activities. It issued warnings regarding war crimes and coordinated efforts to send food parcels into concentration camps. In the summer of 1944, the WRB launched a significant operation aimed at rescuing Jews from Nazi-occupied territories.
The Legacy of Inaction
The establishment of the War Refugee Board marked a turning point in U.S. policy towards Jewish refugees during World War II, but it also highlighted significant shortcomings in leadership and urgency. Roosevelt's signing of the executive order establishing the WRB can be seen as an attempt to shield his administration from criticism while still not fully committing to a robust rescue operation. This position along with Frankfurter into Truman administration, was pushing for Jewish immigration into Palestine.
To re-quote Association of Jewish Studies:
and as a sitting justice lobbied President Harry Truman, cabinet members, and the State Department to pressure Britain to increase Jewish immigration to British Palestine and for the United States to support partition to create a Jewish state, and then formally recognize Israel. This lobbying was mostly done through one of his many Jewish protégés, David Niles, who worked in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.
Many Congress members and liberal publications recognized this obstructionism at the time and voiced their objections. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York accused the State Department of circumventing Congress during hearings on immigration bills.
“When Congress passed immigration laws... the State Department had no right to reduce quotas ninety-two percent,” Celler stated, adding that “the State Department is slapping Congress in the face” (Teach Democracy).
This sentiment was echoed by other representatives who criticized the executive branch for overstepping its authority in immigration matters, further illustrating the tension between Congressional intent and executive action. ( “Death by Bureaucracy”: How the U.S. State Department Used Administrative Discretion to Bar Refugees from Nazi Europe)
The Final Solution: The Moment the Tides Changed The Zionist Project
To cite and paraphrase Weir on support for Zionism, by 1912 they had around 20,000 follower by 1948 this number had grown to Million in the U.S, that’s around 20% of the Jewish Population. In 1948, the Jewish population in the United States was estimated to be around 5 million. This number represents about 3.7% of the total U.S. population at the time.
This dramatic shift in support cannot be understood without acknowledging the cataclysmic impact of World War II and the Holocaust on Jewish communities worldwide. The horrific persecution and genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime fundamentally altered perspectives on Jewish nationalism and statehood. Weir Observes:
However, until World War II and Nazi atrocities against Jews, the majority of Jewish Americans did not support Zionism. From its beginnings in Germany, Reform Judaism had rejected Jewish nationalism, and in the U.S. the Reform movement embraced universalism. Historian Rafael Medoff writes that an 1885 proclamation specifically “denounced the concept of a Jewish return to the land of Zion.” Rafael Medoff, Militant Zionism in America: The Rise and Impact of the Jabotinsky Movement in the United States, 1926-1948 (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 2006), 26.
It would also be a remiss to forego the mention of the Zionist Collaboration with the Nazi Regime.
The Complexities of the Transfer Agreement
The history of Zionism in this period is further complicated by the controversial Transfer Agreement (Haavara Agreement) between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews. While this agreement facilitated the emigration of some Jews to Palestine, it has been a source of ongoing debate and criticism. As reported in Haaretz:
With the consent of the The Transfer Agreement (Havara Agreement), along with political dissenter’s and undesirables such as the Gypsies the Jews were interned at the Concentration Camp’s for “Transfer”. As the war intensified, and the policy shifted for extermination in camps, (e.g., Auschwitz, Treblinka) where mass killings were conducted as part of the Final Solution. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister,even had a campaign promoting the agreement with a “Visit Palestine” series (Haaretz: Jews Make Accord with Nazi-Germany) (The Transfer Agreement- Edwin Black)
This collaboration, occurring before the full implementation of the "Final Solution," remains a contentious chapter in pre-war Jewish-German relations.
Post WWII : The Zionist Coup taking over Judaism
The Historical Roots of Jewish Anti-Zionism
The resistance to Zionism within certain Jewish circles, particularly among Reform Jews, was not a fleeting sentiment but rather a deeply ingrained ideological stance. This opposition found its most eloquent expression in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, a seminal document in the history of Reform Judaism. The platform unequivocally stated:
"We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state."
This proclamation, which effectively "denounced the concept of a Jewish return to the land of Zion," was rooted in a broader philosophical and theological shift within Reform Judaism. This movement sought to redefine Jewish identity in the modern era, emphasizing universal ethical principles over particularistic national aspirations.
The rejection of Jewish nationalism by Reform Judaism was multifaceted:
Theological: It represented a reinterpretation of messianic prophecies as spiritual rather than literal.
Political: It reflected a desire for full integration into the nations where Jews resided.
Ethical: It embodied a universalist vision of Judaism's mission to the world.
This stance was not limited to Reform Judaism alone. Various Jewish intellectuals and religious leaders across the spectrum, from secular to Orthodox, initially viewed Zionism with skepticism or outright hostility. They saw it as a potential threat to Jewish integration in their home countries and a deviation from traditional understandings of Jewish identity and purpose.
Understanding this historical context is crucial for appreciating the magnitude of the ideological shift that occurred in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust. The transformation from widespread anti-Zionism to the dominance of Zionist thought within many Jewish communities represents one of the most significant ideological realignments in modern Jewish history.
What has emerged out the Zionist movement paints a dire and terrible picture to the Jewish faith, the Jewish community as they were emerging out of the horrors and persecution of the great war, it was as if the community was taken over by a coup. Religion and identity replaced by adherence to a new spiritually empty and morally corrupt Zionist cult, demanding unconditional allegiance to Zionist project, and their vision of “The Jewish State”, a state to represent all Jew’s despite its objectionable founding,its fascist law and order, the very supremacist fascist ideology, who persecuted Jews in concentrations camps across Europe, now morphed into a version with a Jewish veil.
To quote Weir:
Today’s unanimity was only created after years of strenuous and sometimes secretive (see Murphy, Sanua, Schmidt, and Smith) efforts to overcome the objections of anti-Zionist Jewish individuals and organizations, and even now, J.J. Goldberg’s contention, made in his informative book Jewish Power, may hold considerable truth: “…the broader population of American Jews… are almost entirely unaware of the work being done in their name.”
J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996), 7.
Many people feel this is a profoundly unfortunate situation, believing, as Israel professor Yosef Grodzinsky writes: “…the State of Israel and its actions actually put world Jewry at risk.”
The Takeover of Jewish Organizations
The rapid ascendancy of Zionism post-WWII led to significant changes within established Jewish organizations. The case of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) is illustrative. As Weir observes quoting journalists Abba A. Solomon and Norman Solomon note:
According to journalists Abba A. Solomon and Norman Solomon, the AJC “adjusted to the triumph of an ideology – militant Jewish nationalism – that it did not share.” The Solomons quote a January 1948 AJC position paper that described the actions of “militant Zionists,” who were “then ascendant among Jews in Palestine and in the United States.” The AJC warned that this group served “no less monstrosity than the idol of the State as the complete master not only over its own immediate subjects but also over every living Jewish body and soul the world over, beyond any consideration of good or evil.”
According to the Solomons, such concerns “became more furtive after Israel became a nation later in 1948.” By 1950 debate over Zionism was to be permissible only within the Jewish community – it was to be, in the Solomons’ words, “inaudible to gentiles.” Soon, the Solomons contend, even debate among Jews became “marginal, then unmentionable.”
Norman Solomon and Abba A. Solomon, “The Blind Alley of J Street and Liberal American Zionism,”Huffington Post, January 22, 2014,
The classic Lobby Tactics Emerge: Tabboo
As Journalist Solomon by 1950 Zionism and its project Israel became taboo to be criticized apart from a select few. The classic lobby tactic involves making it taboo to critique Zionism and Israel, often by invoking the guilt and shame associated with the Holocaust. This strategy uses both the Holocaust and accusations of antisemitism as a shield against criticism and as a means to deflect attention from contentious actions. Critics argue that this approach has been employed to provide a form of impunity for various controversial policies and actions, including:
The ethnic cleansing that occurred during Israel's founding
Alleged war crimes committed over the years
The ongoing occupation, which has lasted for over 75 years
The implementation of laws and practices that some compare unfavorably to apartheid or worse.
The current situation in Gaza, which some observers characterize as genocidal in nature
"Anatomy of a Genocide" - This report by Francesca Albanese, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, provides a detailed analysis of the conditions in Gaza following extensive military operations by Israel. It concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold for genocide has been met, citing the large number of casualties and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure as evidence of genocidal intent. See, United Nations: "Anatomy of a genocide", Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese (2024)
"The Futility of Genocide Studies After Gaza" - This article explores the challenges and implications of studying genocide in the context of Gaza, discussing the unique aspects of the current situation compared to historical genocides. It emphasizes the need for a critical understanding of the term "genocide" as it applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" - This document outlines the historical and legal arguments surrounding the classification of Israeli actions as genocide. It references the work of prominent scholars who argue that Israel's policies towards Palestinians, including military actions and systemic discrimination, could be interpreted as genocidal.
"Genocide in Gaza: The Ongoing Nakba" - A special volume published by Al-Muntaqa that discusses the current situation in Gaza within the historical context of the Palestinian Nakba. It highlights the scale of destruction and the humanitarian crisis, arguing that the ongoing violence represents a form of genocide against the Palestinian people
As there is a need to recognize the Palestinian Experience as did the Holocaust for the WWII atrocities and Apartheid for the South African African natives under the colonial state. This was outline recently by University Columbia Law , “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept” published in Columbia Law Review, underscoring the importance of establishing Nakba as an independent legal concept Rabea Eghbariah
Perversion of the Holocaust
Since the Holocaust is such an important event not just in Europe, European Jewry, and Jewry at large, but also a major event in the founding of Israel, it's crucial to examine its impact. This historical tragedy has not only shaped the minds of Israelis but has also had a profound psychological impact on the West and the rest of the world when discussing Zionism, Israel, Palestine, and the plight of Palestinians. It's important to mention how the Holocaust has been used, sometimes in a distorted manner, to influence public opinion and shield Israel from criticism.
The Holocaust's legacy has become intertwined with discussions about Israel's policies and actions. This connection has created a complex dynamic where legitimate criticism of Israeli government actions can be mischaracterized as anti-Semitism. The memory of the Holocaust has been invoked to justify certain Israeli policies, particularly those related to security and territorial expansion.
However, this use of Holocaust memory has also been criticized by some scholars and activists who argue that it inappropriately conflates historical persecution with current political realities. They contend that while the Holocaust should never be forgotten or minimized, it should not be used as a blanket justification for actions that may violate international law or human rights.
Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, critiques how the memory of the Holocaust has been utilized, particularly by the American Jewish establishment, for political and financial gain.
Finkelstein argues that the "Holocaust industry" exploits the memory of the Holocaust to serve specific political agendas, particularly to shield Israel from criticism and to justify its policies. He contends that this exploitation distorts the authentic memory of the Holocaust and corrupts Jewish culture.
Exploitation for Political Gain: Finkelstein asserts that the Holocaust has been used to justify the actions of the Israeli state, particularly in its treatment of Palestinians. He states, "My parents often wondered why I would grow so indignant at the falsification and exploitation of the Nazi genocide. The most obvious answer is that it has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and US support for these policies" (Goodreads).
Cultural Corruption: He argues that the commodification of Holocaust memory has led to a distortion of its significance. He writes, "The Holocaust industry has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust" (Wikipedia).
Comparison to Other Historical Events: Finkelstein draws parallels between the Holocaust and other historical injustices, suggesting that the unique status of the Holocaust is often exaggerated to serve contemporary political ends. He notes, "Manifest Destiny anticipated nearly all the ideological and programmatic elements of Hitler's Lebensraum policy" (Goodreads).
Critique of Memorialization: He critiques the way Holocaust memorials and education are often used to promote a narrative that supports Israeli policies, rather than fostering a genuine understanding of the Holocaust's lessons.
This is were we end the detour and go back to Professor Pappe again.
A Legacy Rediscovered: Montague's Prophetic Warnings in the 21st Century
The echoes of Montague's warnings reverberate with chilling clarity in the 21st century. His concerns about the impact of Zionism on Jewish identity and integration, once dismissed by many, have gained renewed urgency in recent years. As Pappé observes, there is a growing movement, particularly among young Jews, to disentangle Jewish identity from the political project of Zionism:
"a lot of young Jews, especially in the United States, began to dissociate themselves more clearly from Zionism," returning to the idea that "Judaism is a religion and not a nation, not nationalism."
This shift reflects a growing awareness of the moral complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a rejection of the notion that support for Israel is synonymous with Jewish identity. It is a testament to the enduring power of Montague's arguments, which have found new resonance in a world grappling with the legacies of colonialism and the ongoing struggle for justice in Palestine.
Pappé argues that Zionism's impact extends far beyond the borders of Israel/Palestine. He contends that the movement has had a profound and often detrimental effect on Jewish communities worldwide:
"Zionism was bad news… it intoxicated the relationship between the Jews and the rest of the community around them."
He points to examples like Morocco, where the Zionist ideology of a singular Jewish nation led some Jews to view themselves as separate from their Moroccan compatriots, creating divisions that had not previously existed. This, in turn, fueled suspicion and resentment, ultimately harming these communities as they navigated the turbulent waters of decolonization. it was evident the the effects of Zionism extended far beyond the conflict Israel/Palestine.
Montague's legacy, once relegated to the margins of history, stands as a powerful reminder of the importance of critical engagement with even the most cherished narratives. His unwavering opposition to Zionism, rooted in a deep understanding of both Jewish identity and the potential for injustice, serves as a timeless call for a more just and equitable world, one where the rights and dignity of all people are respected and upheld.
The Interdependence of Imperialism and Zionism
The intricate relationship between imperialism and Zionism reveals the nuanced motivations behind the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Ilan Pappe elucidates this dynamic, emphasizing that the Zionist movement was not a spontaneous grassroots effort but rather a meticulously calculated initiative by its leaders seeking imperial endorsement.
The Palestinian Perspective
In this intricate geopolitical tableau, the Palestinians found themselves ensnared in a formidable global alliance. Pappe poignantly states, “This shows you what kind of an alliance the Palestinians were facing, who were mostly pastoral people… they were facing a global imperialist alliance that targeted their homeland as something that has to be uprooted and replaced.” This historical context underscores the profound challenges faced by the Palestinian population amidst the imperial ambitions that irrevocably shaped their fate.
The United States: A Shifting Metropole
As the British Empire began to wane, the United States emerged as the new hegemonic power in the region. Pappe argues that the survival of the Zionist project became increasingly contingent upon American imperial interests. He asserts, “Without imperialism, first British, then American, there would be very little chance for the Zionist project to survive.”
The Economic Reality of American Interests
As the contours of global power shifted, the economic rationale for U.S. support of Israel diminished. Pappe articulates this reality, noting, “From an imperialist point of view, even from a capitalist point of view, it is not anymore the asset that it was.” The American military industry now finds lucrative markets across the Arab world, with nations like Saudi Arabia offering “a far better market for the American military industry than Israel does.” This shift underscores the changing priorities of U.S. imperial interests.
A Multi-polar World Order
In an era marked by the rise of multiple global powers, Pappe reflects on the declining singularity of American hegemony: “I think because American imperialism is not as powerful as it was, we are in a multipolar world.” This transition signals a potential reevaluation of alliances and support structures that have historically undergirded the Zionist project.
Signs of the Beginning of the End
Pappe warns of the implications of this shifting landscape, suggesting that “without imperialist backing… we are facing the beginning of the end of Zionism.” In the contemporary context, Israel may be viewed as an anachronism, a remnant of a bygone era of colonialism. As the last settler colonial state established during the twilight of colonial rule, Israel stands at odds with the humanitarian values that resonate in the zeitgeist of the 21st century.
The Established Lobby
This sequence of events sheds light on the early history of the Zionist movement and the meticulous lobbying efforts that led to the eventual, tumultuous birth of the State of Israel. However, as historian Ilan Pappe suggests, the continued existence of the state presents a conundrum. It requires perpetual lobbying to maintain support and legitimacy in the international arena.
Next is a look into the Pro- Israel or Zionist lobby their machination, tactics, the human cost, and how it shaped a foreign a bellicose foreign policy in the greater region.
The Allure and Illusion of a Socialist Utopia: Unmasking the Labor Friends of Israel
The founding of the Labor Friends of Israel in the early 1950s, founded by prominent figures of the British left such as Ian Mikardo and Aneurin Bevan, was predicated on a foundation of two deeply flawed mythologies. These misconceptions, eagerly embraced by well-meaning but ultimately misled supporters, would shape the organization's trajectory and profoundly influence British perceptions of Israel for decades to come.
The first, and perhaps most seductive, of these myths was the notion of Israel as a triumphant embodiment of socialist ideals. The kibbutz system, with its emphasis on communal living, collective ownership, and egalitarian principles, became a potent symbol of this perceived success. However, this romanticized image ignored a crucial reality: the kibbutz movement, while symbolically powerful, encompassed a mere 1% of Israel's population. As Ilan Pappé rightly observes, the Labor Friends of Israel, blinded by their enthusiasm, saw in the kibbutz "the Socialist dream come true," mistakenly equating a small-scale social experiment with the complex realities of an entire nation-state.
The second myth that fueled the Labor Friends of Israel was the belief that Israel, as a beacon of "socialist dream" in the Middle East, also served as a steadfast ally of the West against the looming threat of communism. This aligned with the Labor Party's hawkish Cold War stance. This perspective, carefully cultivated by pre-existing Zionist lobbying efforts that had been working behind the scenes of British politics since the early 1900s, resonated deeply with the Cold War anxieties of the era.
The Zionist lobby's strategy, mirroring the tactics employed by AIPAC in the United States, focused on cultivating relationships with politicians "from their very early days in the job," subtly shaping their worldview and ensuring a steady stream of sympathetic voices within the halls of power. Interestingly, these pro-Israel groups gravitated towards the Labour Party, perceiving it as "more akin to a socialist Democratic country" and therefore more receptive to their message.
This alliance extended beyond the realm of party politics, forging deep connections between British trade unions and their Israeli counterpart, the Histadrut. This solidarity, however, often came at a cost, overlooking the plight of Palestinian citizens of Israel and their struggle for equal rights and recognition.
The phenomenon of prominent British socialists like Harold Wilson lending their unwavering support to Israel in the 1960s stands as a testament to the complex and often perplexing intersection of socialism, Cold War politics, and Zionism. It reveals how the allure of Israel as a socialist utopia, meticulously constructed and propagated by powerful interest groups, could cloud even the most progressive minds, leading them to embrace policies that contradicted their broader commitment to social justice and human rights.
British Socialist Harold Wilson and the Allure of Zionism: A Case Study in Lobbying and Influence
The unwavering support for Israel exhibited by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson offers a compelling case study in the pervasive influence wielded by the Zionist lobby within the corridors of British politics. Wilson's stance is particularly striking when juxtaposed against his scathing critiques of apartheid South Africa, revealing a stark and deeply troubling double standard in his approach to international affairs.
As Ilan Pappé perceptively observes, Wilson "equated the ANC or... whatever was The Liberation movement in South Africa with Zionism," demonstrating a profound blind spot when it came to the issue of Palestinian rights. This unwavering support for Israel persisted even in the face of firsthand accounts from within his own party, such as those shared by Christopher Mayhew, detailing the systematic discrimination and oppression faced by Palestinians in the years leading up to the 1967 war.
Wilson's commitment to Israel ran so deep that he actively participated in the planting of the Britannia Forest on land that had once been home to Palestinian villages, seemingly unmoved by critiques that this act amounted to "an erasure of massacres and ethnic cleansing." This symbolic gesture, laden with historical amnesia, spoke volumes about the enduring power of Zionist narratives to shape perceptions and obscure uncomfortable truths.
Pappé attributes Wilson's steadfast support for Israel to a confluence of factors, including the effective
"grooming" he received from pro-Israeli lobbies from the nascent stages of his political career, the influence of his religious upbringing, which instilled in him a sympathetic view towards the notion of a Jewish return to Palestine, and the lobby's strategic focus on cultivating relationships with individuals they deemed "destined to be powerful."
This targeted approach, while perhaps not as sophisticated or well-funded as the operations of AIPAC in the United States, nevertheless proved remarkably effective within the context of the British political system. Wilson's case serves as a stark reminder of how personal background, religious beliefs, and the relentless pressure exerted by well-connected interest groups can converge to shape a politician's stance on complex international issues, often leading them to adopt positions that seem fundamentally at odds with their broader ideological commitments.
The Rise of the Conservative Friends of Israel: A Shift in the Political Landscape
The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), despite its current dominance within the Conservative Party, boasting an estimated membership of "80% of Tory MPs," had surprisingly humble and belated beginnings in the 1960s. Initially, the group remained "very marginal compared to the Labor Friends of Israel," its influence on policy and public discourse minute in comparison to its Labour counterpart.
Even Margaret Thatcher, a figure often associated with unwavering support for Israel, maintained a surprisingly distant relationship with the CFI during her tenure as Prime Minister, her membership in the group notwithstanding. The CFI's meteoric rise to prominence is a relatively recent phenomenon, gaining significant traction during David Cameron's leadership.
This shift in the political landscape coincided with a period when the realities of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The widespread dissemination of information and imagery documenting the human cost of the occupation made it "much more difficult to persuade people... to totally accept not only an Israeli point of view but an Israeli right-wing point of view."
Despite these challenges, the CFI's influence continued to grow, its rise to power fueled by a sophisticated and well-funded operation. Journalists like Peter Osborne have exposed the group's extensive "infrastructure... built by the conservative friends of Israel with a lot of money," designed to ensure that any lingering liberal values within the Conservative Party would not impede unwavering support for Israel, regardless of its actions.
This development represents a seismic shift in the dynamics of UK-Israel relations. The historically dominant Labour-aligned support for Israel has given way to a new era of Conservative Party dominance, a trend that shows no signs of abating despite the increasing difficulty of reconciling certain Israeli policies with fundamental liberal principles. This raises profound questions about the future direction of British foreign policy in the Middle East and the objectionable influence of pro-Israel lobbies on the political process.
The Rise and Fall of William Fulbright: a Cautionary Tale
In American political history, few figures stand as starkly illustrative of the power wielded by the Israel Lobby as Senator William Fulbright. Ilan Pappe,presents Fulbright's case as a pivotal moment in the evolution of pro-Israel advocacy in the United States, one that set a chilling precedent for future political discourse.
William Fulbright the person:
William Fulbright, a senator from Arkansas, emerged as a towering figure in American politics, driven by a dual commitment to legal integrity and international relations. As Pappe elucidates:
"Fulbright came from Arkansas, and he came with... two impulses in his decision to be a public figure. He was a very, very legal person, he cared about the law and abiding by the law on the one hand, and he was very interested in international relationships, so he was very interested in foreign policy."
This combination of legal acumen and foreign policy expertise positioned Fulbright at the forefront of American diplomacy, particularly in his role as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, it was this very position that would ultimately lead to his political downfall.
The Exposé that Shook the Establishment
Fulbright's investigation into foreign interference in American politics led him to an unexpected discovery. As Pappe recounts:
"He found out that actually the... one foreign state that really interferes against American law in American policies, Israel, and... he exposed one of the major things that really outraged him, that AIPAC was recruiting money in the United States supposedly to help the less fortunate sections of the Israeli Jewish society, and the money was supposed to go to deprived areas in Israel, but then he found that a large part of that money went back to the United States to finance the lobby, which was a total violation of American regulations."
This revelation, published in Newsweek, marked a turning point. It was, in Pappe's words, "one step too much for AIPAC," catalyzing a response that would set a precedent for decades to come.
The Machinery of Political Retribution
The Israel Lobby's response to Fulbright's exposé was swift and decisive. Pappe describes a systematic approach to political destruction:
"The one way of destroying someone's political career was to go to the rival of that person to support him in the next elections and make sure that... the one you're targeting is not being reelected."
The effectiveness of this strategy is starkly illustrated by a quote from Fulbright's own political rival:
"The Zionist Lobby filled my coffers with money, more money than I ever needed in order to defeat Fulbright in the... election."
This method of targeted financial support to political opponents became a blueprint for future actions against those who dared to challenge the lobby's interests.
The Long Shadow of Intimidation
Perhaps more insidious than the direct action against Fulbright was the message it sent to other politicians. Pappe reveals a chilling tactic employed by AIPAC in later years:
"You needed to have a presence on Capitol Hill, and as he put it, 'You need to leave the door open of the AIPAC office in Capitol Hill, and every now and then take Senators to see someone in that office being reprimanded for not following faithfully the instruction of the lobby.'"
This intentional policy of public reprimand served as a powerful deterrent, ensuring that the fate of Fulbright remained fresh in the minds of those who might consider opposing the lobby's interests.
The Broader Implications
The Fulbright case exemplifies a broader issue within American politics - the intersection of foreign influence and domestic policy. As one of the host points out recounts from Pappe’s Book :
"Fulbright did that so angered the lobby is that he investigated its financing and found many criminal connections. And when you said Mafia-like, literally there was mob... criminal financing and schemes that he discovered, and he thought that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, should be registered as a foreign agent."
The fact that AIPAC remains unregistered as a foreign agent, despite clear evidence of its role in advancing the interests of a foreign state, underscores the enduring influence of the Israel Lobby in American politics.
The case of Jeremy Corbyn: a complex tableau of political manoeuvring
In contemporary British politics, few episodes have been as biased and consequential as the vilification campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party. Ilan Pappe, in his seminal work "Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic," offers a penetrating analysis of this affair, situating it within the broader context of the Israel Lobby's influence on Western politics.
The Paradox of Moderation and Persecution
Corbyn's political stance, as our host astutely observes, was far from radical:
"Corbin's actual views have been well within the mainstream of Western consensus. He recognizes Israel and supports the so-called two-state solution, although he called for ending arm sales to Israel."
This moderation, paradoxically, did not shield Corbyn from a ferocious onslaught. Pappe elucidates this seeming contradiction:
"Jeremy Corbyn's views, by the way, correspond to... center left ideas in Israel itself. It's not as if he joined a particularly anti-Zionist movement, but if someone like this gets the leadership of the Labour Party, then the lobby, that sometimes doesn't even work for the sake of Israel, but works for its own power, is failing."
The Lobby's Self-Perpetuating Power
Pappe's analysis reveals a crucial insight: the Lobby's actions are not always directly aligned with Israel's immediate interests. He notes:
"The viciousness was not necessarily directed from... Israel itself... It was really, anybody would think that Israel was there... on the phone all the time with the lobby, would be mistaken. The lobby, it was the Lobby's project."
This observation underscores the Lobby's evolution into a self-sustaining entity, often acting to maintain its own influence rather than in direct service to Israeli policy.
The Mechanics of Character Assassination
The campaign against Corbyn employed tactics reminiscent of those used against Senator Fulbright decades earlier. Pappe describes:
"...this amazing kind of methods used in order to defame someone who devoted his political life against anti-Semitism and racism."
The irony of accusing a lifelong anti-racist of anti-Semitism was not lost on many observers, yet the intensity of the campaign overwhelmed nuanced discussion.
The Double-Edged Sword of Success
While the Lobby succeeded in derailing Corbyn's leadership, Pappe argues that this victory may prove pyrrhic:
"I think it both shows the power of the lobby, but it also shows its weaknesses because it alienated a lot of people... More people moved to alternative media. It didn't prevent progressive elements in the Labour Party to increase their power."
Indeed, Pappe points to tangible political shifts, including the election of independent MPs with strong pro-Palestinian stances, as evidence of a growing backlash.
Lessons in Resistance and Resilience
Pappe offers a critical lesson for those facing similar pressures:
"There is no way of satisfying this beast. If you think that you would apologize for something... and hope that... you've thrown to them something that would tame them, that would decrease their animosity or ruthlessness, it works exactly the opposite."
This insight suggests that appeasement is not only futile but potentially counterproductive when dealing with such determined opposition.
The Long View of History
As a historian, Pappe offers a perspective that extends beyond immediate political outcomes:
"I'm a historian, and I think we are seeing the second round, second ripples, if you want, of this, and they are far more positive for the struggle for Palestine than the first one."
He posits that the very vehemence of the campaign against Corbyn may ultimately strengthen pro-Palestinian sentiment and political action in Britain.
The Dialectics of Political Struggle
In the grand tapestry of political history, the Corbyn episode may well be remembered not as a definitive victory for the Israel Lobby, but as a turning point that galvanized opposition and sparked a reevaluation of the relationship between British politics and the question of Palestine. As we move forward, the reverberations of this conflict will undoubtedly continue to shape the contours of political discourse in Britain and beyond.
Libel: The Antisemitic Label - A Muzzle for Dissent
Ilan Pappé tackles the controversial use of antisemitism accusations to silence critics of pro-Israel entities. He focuses on the Jewish Labor Movement (JLM), often labeled as part of the "Israel Lobby," a designation frequently met with accusations of antisemitism. Pappé vehemently refutes this, arguing that critique stems not from "hatred of Jews" but from concern over the "suffering of the Palestinians."
He acknowledges the JLM's work for workers' rights in the UK but emphasizes their primary goal: "to colonize Palestine, then to support the colonization, and then to sustain the state of Israel." Pappé asserts that "anti-Semitism is being weaponized in order to silence any criticism on Israel and its policies," a tactic he finds particularly concerning.
As a scholar, Pappé remains undeterred, choosing to deconstruct and clarify these accusations. His perspective highlights the distinction between legitimate criticism of political organizations and the cynical use of antisemitism as a shield, emphasizing the complexities of discussing Israel and Zionism today.
U.S.: The Monolithic Zionist Lobby - AIPAC's Ascendancy
AIPAC, founded in the 1950s, emerged from the American Zionist Emergency Committee (AZEC), established in the wake of the Holocaust. Pappé notes that AIPAC's early focus was less on
"the rights of Jews in the Holocaust and much more for the rights of the Jews in colonization of Palestine."
Created at the behest of Abba Eban, then Israel's UN representative, AIPAC "perfected an already American idea of how to Lobby." Their strategy involved targeting politicians early in their careers, flooding media with pro-Israel messages, establishing scholarships, and cultivating a strong presence within influential circles.
AIPAC's influence peaked during George W. Bush's presidency, reflecting their strategic alliance with the "conservative side of the Republican party." However, they failed to anticipate the rise of Democratic administrations like Obama's, leading to a more balanced political landscape than they foresaw.
Despite this, AIPAC has exploited the Democratic party's "inertia," evident in the Biden administration, to maintain a generally pro-Israel stance, even with potentially diminished direct influence. This analysis reveals AIPAC's evolution, strategic alliances, and enduring impact on US policy towards Israel.
Smith’s research reveals that AIPAC’s early years were marked by controversy and challenges. Kenen faced opposition from the Israeli government, which initially viewed AIPAC as too moderate and willing to compromise on issues like Palestinian rights. Additionally, AIPAC’s efforts to influence American foreign policy and elections drew scrutiny from the White House, Senate, and Department of Justice.
Early Challenges and Controversies
Smith’s research reveals that AIPAC’s early years were marked by controversy and challenges. Kenen faced opposition from the Israeli government, which initially viewed AIPAC as too moderate and willing to compromise on issues like Palestinian rights. Additionally, AIPAC’s efforts to influence American foreign policy and elections drew scrutiny from the White House, Senate, and Department of Justice.
Waning Influence of the Pro-Israel PAC - A Shifting Tide?
Pappé analyzes the changing landscape of pro-Israel lobbying in the US, focusing on the challenges faced by AIPAC. He identifies a growing "push back against Zionism" among young progressives and a skepticism towards foreign aid, including for Israel, within the "America First" faction of the radical right.
He argues that AIPAC, accustomed to presenting Israel as a "moral asset" or a "strategic asset," has failed to adapt to these shifts. They haven't grasped the changing dynamics of arms sales, where Arab nations now present themselves as more lucrative markets than Israel.
Pappé highlights AIPAC's struggle to reconcile the "weird combination" within the Republican Party, where staunchly pro-Israel Christian Zionists coexist with an isolationist extreme right-wing that might advocate for reduced support for Israel. This analysis suggests that AIPAC faces significant challenges in maintaining its influence due to changing demographics, evolving ideologies, and shifting geopolitical realities.
Israel's Hand in US Wars: Iraq - The Lobby's Shadow Over War
Pappé examines the role of pro-Israel lobbying, particularly AIPAC, in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. While acknowledging the neoconservative push for war, he highlights a "quid pro quo" between neoconservatives and pro-Israel lobbies. Neoconservatives, seeking support, framed their Middle East policies as defending Israel.
Key Israeli figures championed the war. Benjamin Netanyahu, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, declared that "nothing less than dismantling [Saddam's] regime will do" and later urged the US Senate to topple Saddam. Ehud Barak, in the Washington Post, urged the Bush administration to "focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein."
AIPAC and figures like Gary Rosenblatt of The Jewish Week supported the war effort. This lobbying, Pappé argues, has become ingrained, leading to similar justifications for subsequent conflicts, like those in Gaza. While some skepticism might be emerging, particularly among younger Democrats, older politicians like Biden maintain a pro-Israel stance out of "inertia."
The Guardian: Israel puts pressure on US to strike Iraq
Christian Zionism: A Confluence of Capitalism & Romantic Notions of Clash of Civilizations - A Potent Brew
Pappé offers insight into Christian Zionism's role in shaping US foreign policy in West Asia. While acknowledging its influence, he cautions against attributing American involvement solely to this factor. He emphasizes the role of "petrol and oil," highlighting the importance of fossil fuels to American interests.
Pappé posits a symbiotic relationship: "America is a country with a large number of very religious people who can easily be galvanized into ideas like that... but it's also the mecca of capitalism and it needs to go together." Israel, he argues, successfully leverages this combination of religious justification and economic self-interest to maintain a strong US presence in the region.
However, Pappé acknowledges the situation's complexity, citing the rise of political Islam as another factor. He asserts that "if you take Israel out of the equation of American politics in West Asia, America would be either very isolationist... or would be Progressive and stop doing harm." This analysis suggests that while Christian Zionism is significant, it's one factor among many shaping US policy, with Israel preventing either isolationist or progressive approaches to West Asia.
Israel Lobby: From Kingmakers to Sowing Their Own Future Failure
To guide the conversation host succinctly highlights the case of individuals like Luke Akehurst, holding senior positions in both Labour and pro-Israel organize ations, a virtually unprecedented situation in British politics.
Pappé critiques the Israel lobby's influence on British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. He points to Tony Blair's rise as an example of the lobby's influence. Blair was introduced to Michael Levy, a key fundraiser, "in a dinner in the Israeli ambassador's house." Levy subsequently raised "15 million for new labour," significantly aiding Blair's ascent.
While the lobby viewed this as a triumph, believing they could "decide who is the next prime minister of Britain," Pappé argues their success lay in ensuring "Britain should not change its attitude towards Israel" despite changing realities. He calls this "the seeds of its future failure," as events like Gaza make unconditional support for Israel increasingly untenable.
Future British leaders, he argues, will struggle to justify unwavering support for Israel, especially as "Israelis are now actively involved in trying to finish what they started in '48." As the lobby aligns with Israel's ultra-right, its influence might wane due to evolving geopolitics and growing awareness of the Palestinian plight.
In the Shadow of the Lobby: The Inadvertent Birth of Anti-Semitic Jewish Tropes - A Perilous Paradox
Pappé examines how pro-Israel lobbying inadvertently fuels anti-Semitic tropes, particularly those regarding Jewish financial influence in politics. He cites cases like Labor Together, which amassed significant funds but avoided disclosure, fearing it would feed anti-Semitic narratives about Jewish donors.
Pappé argues that this secrecy "increase[s] the horrible things that people were saying about Jewish money and Jewish financial connection," ultimately "fueling the anti-Semitic idea" instead of combating it. This shift towards less transparency, he suggests, reflects changing circumstances:
"nowadays in order to support Israel you have to probably bribe people whereas in the past you probably could have convinced them morally."
This transition from moral suasion to financial influence is seen as a sign of the lobby's weakening position. Pappé views the increasingly aggressive tactics against figures like Jeremy Corbyn as "a failure of the lobby," indicating their inability to rely on moral arguments. He questions the long-term efficacy of such strategies, especially against younger, more discerning politicians.
Controlling the Public Discourse: Financing their Moral Argument - A Losing Battle?
Pappé analyzes the Israel lobby's efforts to control media narratives in the UK and US, highlighting their tactics and evolving strategies. Their goal, he argues, is to "control the narrative," often resorting to "weaponizing anti-Semitism" to deter journalists from using certain language or exposing detrimental Israeli actions.
He observes that the lobby understands the media's hierarchical structure, targeting editors and those with financial control instead of individual journalists. However, they face a challenge: growing public distrust of mainstream media and a shift towards alternative sources.
This necessitates new tactics, including using AI and paid student activists to counter criticism online. Pappé cites a scandal where an Israeli ministry funded AI-generated accounts to "defaming the people who criticize Israel and increase Israel's popularity." He emphasizes the lobby's realization that they "cannot win the moral argument," leading them to resort to "all the methods that are at our disposal to defend Israel."
From Forced Acceptance of a Certain Definition of Anti-Semitism to Undermining the Core Values of Democracy - A Slippery Slope
Pappé explores how the Israel lobby undermines democratic values by promoting a narrow definition of antisemitism. Universities face pressure to adopt this definition, with any refusal labeled as antisemitic, despite its recent emergence. This raises concerns about academic freedom and manipulating institutions for a political agenda.
Pappé argues that the lobby is engaged in an "information war" exceeding soft power and cultural influence. When asked about limits to these tactics, he suggests that "there's no red line to the effort" from the lobby's perspective.
However, he doubts their long-term effectiveness: "I don't know exactly when they would find out that there is a limit to their power, but they still believe that there isn't a limit to what they can do." This assessment points to a critical juncture where the lobby's increasingly desperate tactics might be pushing democratic norms and institutional integrity to the breaking point, potentially triggering a backlash or encountering diminishing returns.
The Velvet Glove and the Iron Fist: Navigating the Paradox of Zionist Left and Right
There is a complex and often paradoxical dynamic at play when it comes to engaging with Zionist left and right factions within Israel. While conventional wisdom often dictates that working with the Israeli left offers the most promising path towards achieving a just and lasting two-state solution, Pappé challenges this assumption, arguing that since the 1950s, these very interests have served to "underpinne<<<<d... the impossibility of Palestinian Liberation."
He notes that many Palestinians find it "easier to deal with Israel that is ruled by a right-wing government" because "what you see is what you get." The right, with its unabashedly hawkish stance and open disdain for Palestinian aspirations, presents a clear and unambiguous adversary. The Zionist left, or "liberal Zionism," on the other hand, poses a far more insidious challenge.
Pappé argues that the Zionist left's rhetoric of peace and coexistence masks a far more pernicious reality. He points out that "there is no connection between the language that they use and the action that they perform on the ground," citing numerous examples where left-wing governments have overseen the expansion of settlements at a rate exceeding that of their right-wing counterparts, all while maintaining a veneer of moderation and a commitment to dialogue.
This "deception," as Pappé terms it, has long provided Israel with a "shield of immunity" on the international stage, allowing it to deflect criticism and maintain its occupation under the guise of pursuing peace. He challenges the very notion of a genuine Israeli peace camp, arguing that what is often labeled as such is merely "a tactical willingness to rule the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a more indirect way." True peace advocates within Israel, according to Pappé, are relegated to the fringes of society, embodied by small, marginalized anti-Zionist groups and individuals who dare to challenge the dominant narrative.
Pappé's most damning indictment of the Zionist left, however, lies in his assertion that for many Palestinians, life "became far worse for the vast majority" after the signing of the 1993 Oslo peace accords, an agreement largely shaped by the Israeli "peace camp." This perspective, rooted in the lived experiences of those most impacted by the conflict, offers a searing critique of the conventional wisdom surrounding the peace process, the role of liberal Zionism and Left wing politics within Israeli society. It serves as a powerful call for a fundamental reassessment of long-held assumptions.
The Conundrum of Perpetual Legitimacy-Seeking
In the annals of geopolitical history, few endeavors have necessitated such persistent and intensifying advocacy as the Zionist project. Ilan Pappe, in his tome of a work "Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic," meticulously dissects this phenomenon, unveiling a paradox that lies at the heart of Israel's diplomatic efforts.
The Conundrum in Perpetual.
Pappe observes a perplexing reality: despite its establishment over 75 years ago and its undeniable political and economic clout, Israel continues to engage in an unrelenting campaign for legitimacy. This persistent quest, far from diminishing, has only intensified with time. As Pappe articulates:
"The resources thrown into courting world powers and silencing dissent have only increased since Israel appeared on the map."
This observation begs the question: Why does a nation-state, ostensibly secure in its sovereignty, expend such extraordinary resources on lobbying efforts? The answer, Pappe suggests, lies in the very foundations of the Zionist project and its historical context.
The Temporal Paradox of Zionism
The Zionist movement's practical manifestation as a colonization project emerged at a critical juncture in world history. Pappe elucidates:
"It came at a time where more and more people around the world were actually thinking about decolonization rather than colonization, where human rights agendas became more familiar, people were more familiar with information [that] flew more than a century before about what was going on in certain places."
This temporal incongruity placed the Zionist project in direct conflict with evolving global sentiments. The displacement of Palestinians and their replacement by Jewish settlers under the British mandate created a moral quandary that required ever-increasing efforts to justify and defend.
The Internal Struggle for Support
Perhaps most tellingly, Pappe highlights the challenges faced within communities that Zionist leaders presumed would be natural allies:
"Your own people, so to speak, that is members of the Jewish community around the world, Christians around the world, and, and, and whether you thought that socialists should support you or liberals should support you among all these places, the moment even a sliver of the reality was known, questions were asked about the legitimacy and validity of this project."
This internal resistance necessitated a multifaceted approach to lobbying, one that extended beyond mere persuasion to include, as Pappe notes, "a lot of power, money, intimidation, to make sure that this project is supported, and that anyone who has, you know, a modicum of decency in them and would be against it would be silenced, defamed in a way that would make sure that the project would continue."
The Evolving Nature of the Zionist Project
Crucially, Pappe frames the Zionist endeavor not as a static entity but as an evolving project, one whose ambitions expanded over time:
"Zionism could not fulfill all its ambition very early on in terms of capacity, circumstances. It, it needed to take more territory, and when it took more territory of historical Palestine, it faced more Palestinians under its rule, and its brutal actions against Palestinians created the Palestinian resistance movement."
This expansion and the subsequent resistance it engendered necessitated an ever-more sophisticated lobbying apparatus. The lobby's efforts were not merely aimed at defending existing policies but at justifying the very premise of the Zionist project itself.
Conclusion: A Self-Perpetuating Cycle
In essence, Pappe unveils a self-perpetuating cycle: the more the Zionist project expands and confronts resistance, the more it requires validation and support from the international community. This, in turn, demands increasingly intensive lobbying efforts. The conundrum, then, is not merely a quirk of diplomacy but a fundamental characteristic of the Zionist enterprise—a project that, by its very nature, generates the conditions that necessitate its continual defense and justification on the global stage.
The Events Of October 7: Moment Of Profound Reckoning for Israel
In the wake of the cataclysmic events of post October 7th, 2023, and the subsequent ten months of relentless violence in Gaza, the landscape of international politics and public opinion has undergone a seismic shift. Ilan Pappe, in his incisive analysis, illuminates how these events have re-contextualized the role of the Israel Lobby and Israel's position on the global stage.
The Widening Chasm Between Elites and Civil Society
Pappe posits a fundamental divergence in the conceptualization of politics between the established elite and an increasingly engaged civil society:
"I think somewhere in the last 10 or 15 years, the gap between what politics means to political and economic elites and what politics means to sections in the Civil Society, the gap between these two, understanding what politics is all about, is widening all the time, is widening, and Palestine is a very symbolic part of it."
This widening gulf presents a formidable challenge to the Israel Lobby, which has traditionally aligned itself with and operated within the sphere of elite politics. The lobby now finds itself ill-equipped to navigate the changing currents of public sentiment, particularly among younger generations.
The Resurgence of Ideology in Politics
Pappe observes a significant shift in the political landscape:
"We're entering a different era again where ideology plays a role, the moral views of politicians become now important again, and in that moral view, and this is the success of the solidarity movement with the Palestinians, I should say this is a solidarity move that was working all the time."
This renaissance of ideological politics stands in stark contrast to the era of "mediocre politicians" where policy differences between parties were often indistinguishable. In this new paradigm, the question of Palestine has emerged as a litmus test for moral and ideological positioning.
The Unexpected Confluence of Activism and Electoral Politics
Pappe recounts a revealing anecdote from France:
"I happened to be in France between the first round of the elections and the second one, and I launched my book, in my, I relaunched my book in French, 'The Ethnic Cleansing [of Palestine]' with a new publisher, and hundreds of young people came to the launch... It became a rally for the left in the elections."
This unexpected transformation of a book launch into a political rally underscores the growing intersection between cultural events, intellectual discourse, and grassroots political mobilization around the issue of Palestine.
The Symbolic Power of Palestine in Contemporary Politics
The Palestinian cause, Pappe argues, has become emblematic of a broader struggle against regressive political forces:
"Think about it, one of the main features of fascism in Britain, America, in France, is if you support Israel. I don't think we had such a situation before."
This framing of support for Israel as symptomatic of broader right-wing ideologies represents a significant shift in political discourse, one that poses substantial challenges for the Israel Lobby's traditional methods of influence.
The Long-Term Impact on Israel's Global Image
Despite the Lobby's substantial financial investments and political maneuvering, Pappe contends that Israel's image has become inextricably linked with a host of negative associations:
"Israel succeeded in... totally associating itself with these kinds of policies. It is connected to those who support global warming, to those who don't care about poverty, to those who... persecute minorities, to those who develop arms instead of developing hospitals."
This alignment with what many perceive as regressive or harmful policies has, in Pappe's view, significantly undermined Israel's standing among crucial segments of the global population, particularly among younger and more politically engaged demographics.
The Lobby's Limitations in a Changing World
Pappe's analysis suggests that the Israel Lobby, despite its historical success and continued influence among political elites, faces unprecedented challenges in the current political climate:
"Incredible, if you think about it, you read my book, and you say how much money they invested in this Lobby, and look what is the image of Israel today is a very important part of humanity, [but] not in the political elites, but the political elites are not everything in our human globality."
This observation underscores the limitations of traditional lobbying tactics in an era where public opinion, especially among younger generations, is increasingly shaped by grassroots movements and social media rather than by elite-driven narratives.
A Moment of Reckoning
As the gap between elite politics and civil society widens, and as younger generations increasingly view support for Palestinian rights as integral to a broader progressive agenda, the Israel Lobby finds itself at a crossroads. Its traditional methods of influence, so effective in the corridors of power, appear increasingly ineffective in shaping public opinion and mobilizing grassroots support.
Israel's systematic use of assassination as a political tool.
This practice, deeply rooted in Zionist ideology, predates the establishment of the state of Israel itself, casting a long shadow over Israels use of this gunboat diplomacy.
The Genesis of a Deadly Strategy
The origins of this grim methodology can be traced back to the tempestuous era of the 1930s, a time when the embryonic Zionist movement first began to target Palestinian political leaders, intellectuals, and journalists. As Pappe reveals:
"The first program we have historically is back from 1946. This was a very specific program with names of people the Israelis thought, I mean the Zionists at the time, before Israel, thought were leading intellectuals and political figures in Palestinian society, and they were listed as targets for assassination."
This chilling revelation underscores the premeditated nature of these actions, highlighting a strategy that would become a hallmark of Israeli policy in the decades to come.
The Dual Framework of Dehumanization
Pappe posits two fundamental frameworks underpinning this strategy, both rooted in a profoundly Orientalist and colonialist perception of Palestinians:
Dehumanization through Orientalism:
"One is, I think, connects with the whole dehumanization of the Palestinians in the sense that Palestinians are not as modern or as progressive as the Israelis are. This kind of Orientalist view on the Arab world as being more primitive, more traditional, and therefore totally, being loyal or obedient to leaders..."
This perspective, steeped in the toxic legacy of colonial thought, reduces Palestinian society to a monolithic entity, easily manipulated through the elimination of key figures.
Revenge as Political Theater:
"The second one is a very primitive Israeli kind of idea that for domestic reasons you should use revenge, especially as a replacement for your inability actually to deal with the real problem that you are facing."
This framework speaks to a deeply troubling aspect of Israeli political culture, where acts of violence are repackaged as triumphs for domestic consumption, a grotesque spectacle that serves to distract from more profound systemic failures.
The Futility of Violence
Perhaps the most damning indictment of this strategy lies in its utter inefficacy. As Pappe astutely observes:
"It failed, as you, you know, it never, never worked. There is not one case where any of these assassinations changed the determination, the course of history, weakened the Palestinian determination to resist, changed the, the ability of Israel to control or not to control."
This stark assessment lays bare the fundamental folly of a policy that has wrought immense human suffering while achieving none of its purported objectives.
A Legacy of Moral Bankruptcy
The continued reliance on assassination as a political tool, even in the face of its manifest failure, speaks volumes about the moral bankruptcy of those who perpetuate it. As Pappe notes:
"These were just bloody assassinations that have not contributed anything in terms of Israel's own perception of security, an achievement, and definitely only contributed to the Palestinian sense of, or knowledge of, who they are facing."
This grim reality serves not only to galvanize Palestinian resistance but also to erode Israel's moral standing on the world stage, a self-inflicted wound that deepens with each act of state-sanctioned violence.
The persistence of assassination as a political strategy, despite its manifest failure and moral repugnance, stands as a stark indictment of those who continue to advocate for and employ it.
In the final analysis, the story of Israel's use of assassination is not merely a tale of tactical folly, but a profound moral failure that undermines the very foundations of a just and stable society.
Israel was not founded on dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect. It was founded on ethnic cleansing, etho-supremacy, theocratic national fascism, so to speak a settler colonial state with the worst pick of mix moral rot of the bygone era.
To the Depths of Moral Decay
In the moment of reckoning the Israeli society has revealed its true face.There are moments that serve as stark reminders of the depths to which societies can descend when moral boundaries are eroded and the sanctity of human dignity is desecrated. The recent events in Israel, as elucidated by Pappe in the interview, present us with such a moment, of moral degeneration that demands our gravest consideration.
The Abyss of Inhumanity
The horrifying scenes that unfolded in Israel on a Monday in early 2024 have laid bare the festering wound at the heart of Israeli society. As Pappe recounts:
"Israeli military police attempted to arrest nine soldiers suspected of a brutal and sustained sexual torture of a Palestinian detainee in the notorious, notorious, 'Denten' torture camp. They were met by a mob of rioters, including even some members of the Knesset who are essentially defending the right to rape Palestinian detainees."
This incident, so shocking in its barbarity, is not an isolated aberration but rather a symptom of a deeper, more insidious malaise. The very fabric of Israeli society appears to be unraveling, with the most base and cruel instincts finding not just expression, but celebration and defense at the highest levels of government.
The Normalization of Atrocity
What is perhaps most chilling about these revelations is not just the acts themselves, but the reaction to them. As Pappe observes:
"This apparently upset many Israelis who think that torturing Palestinians is perfectly fine, but providing them with medical care is not."
This perverse inversion of moral values speaks to a society that has not merely lost its way, but has actively embraced a ethos of cruelty and dehumanization. The normalization of torture, the defense of sexual violence, and the outrage at providing medical care to victims all point to a profound moral crisis.
The Rise of Messianic Zionism
Pappe identifies a specific ideological strain as the driving force behind this moral decay:
"This kind of Messianic version of Zionism is probably the worst manifestation of Jewish racism we ever had in the history of Judaism. And there was always some racism, like in any other religion, but this is the kind, the worst one that we ever seen."
This Messianic Zionism, rooted in the settlements of the West Bank and now permeating every level of Israeli society and government, represents a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious supremacism. Its adherents, once relegated to the margins, now wield significant power and influence, shaping policy and public discourse in ways that further entrench and justify the most egregious human rights violations.
The Facade of Liberal Democracy
Even as these horrific events unfold, there remains a segment of Israeli society that clings to the notion of Israel as a liberal democracy. However, as Pappe notes, their concerns are often superficial and self-serving:
"People are really worried about rulings by the ICJ and the ICC, and their motive for trying to investigate the torture of this particular Palestinian really is connected to the ISC and ICJ..."
This performative concern for international opinion, devoid of any genuine moral reckoning, serves only to highlight the depth of the ethical void at the heart of contemporary Israeli society.
The Absence of Self-Reflection
Perhaps most troubling is the inability or unwillingness of many Israelis to engage in meaningful self-reflection or critical analysis of their society's actions:
"If you try to have an educated conversation with them and say, 'Do you understand why it's happening? Do you understand the historical context, the moral context?' You won't get very far."
This resistance to introspection, this refusal to confront the moral implications of their society's actions, bodes ill for any hope of internal reform or change.
A Society at a Crossroads
When we go through all of this sobering reality takes over: Israeli society stands at a moral crossroads, teetering on the precipice of an abyss from which there may be no return. The normalization of torture, the defense of sexual violence, and the widespread embrace of a racist, supremacist ideology all point to a society that has lost its moral bearings.
The words of Dr. Yoel Donchin, an Israeli doctor who examined a tortured Palestinian prisoner, ring out as a haunting indictment:
"If the state and Knesset members think there's no limit to how much you can abuse prisoners, they should kill themselves like the Nazis did, or close the hospitals. If they maintain a hospital only for the sake of defending ourselves at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, that's no good end." [1][2]
This stark comparison to the Nazis serves as a chilling reminder of the depths to which even rational Israelis think society has sunk when they so openly and brazenly abandons its moral foundations and embraces a ideology of hatred and dehumanization.
As we bear witness to these events, we are called upon not merely to observe, but to act. For in the face of such profound moral decay, silence is complicity. The international community must confront these atrocities head-on, demanding accountability and working towards a future where the dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of ethnicity or religion are respected and protected.
It’s fitting to end commentary on the interviews with Illan Pappe with the US State Departments harassment of him.
70y Old Professor of History, Ilan Pappe, interrogated at Detroit airport as a Hamas Supporter. End Goal stifle stifle academic dissent His comment: "actions like this smell of sheer panic and desperation in reaction to Israel becoming very soon a pariah state with all the implications of such a status".
A Call For Action: Tracking your Representative’s funded by Pro-Israel Lobby
The Project tracking representatives funded by the pro Israel lobby and outlining legal framework of how the lobby works.
The “Pro-Israel lobby, wields a "subtle and potent, as we looked at before the lobby wields influence through the artful deployment of financial resources. its machinations often shrouded in a veil of bureaucratic documents.
Enter TrackAipac.com, a beacon of transparency in the often opaque world of political financing. This digital sentinel demystifies the labyrinthine pathways through which the pro-Israel lobby channels its financial largess to elected representatives. It lays bare the myriad ways in which monetary influence is exerted, from direct campaign contributions to more nuanced forms of support, it could be paid trips to conference, paid trips to Israel etc.
The site:
A Senate Tracker, allowing one to scrutinize the upper chamber's fiscal allegiances
A House Tracker, illuminating the monetary ties binding the people's representatives A roster of Congressional Candidates, their campaigns dissected through the lens of lobby support
An intriguing glimpse into "The Lobby: United Kingdom," expanding the scope of inquiry across the Atlantic
A curated list of "Anti-AIPAC Candidates," presenting alternative voices in the political landscape
This sites serves ad a repository where information is curated from other sourcing such as OpenSecrets.org and the official records of the Federal Election Commission. It stands as a bulwark against opacity, a clarion call for transparency in the often murky waters of political financing.
Yet, TrackAipac.com is more than a mere repository of fiscal data. It is a call to action, urging citizens to engage with the democratic process.
Legislative Influence Pro Israel PAC: The lobby's influence is so profound that it has been reported that 98% of candidates backed by AIPAC win their elections, creating a political environment where dissent against Israeli policies is often met with severe backlash
How Does AIPAC works
AIPAC & The Israel Lobby
Pro-Israel PACs funding federal officials.
If American Knew ,easily accessible data, he figures, stark in their clarity, paint a portrait of complicity that can no longer be shrouded in the mists of diplomatic obfuscation. Each dollar, wrested from the pockets of hardworking Americans, becomes a tacit endorsement of policies that stand in stark contrast to the lofty ideals upon which our republic was founded.
As we bear witness to the unfolding tragedy in Gaza, a land besieged and a people beleaguered, the weight of US involvement becomes impossible to ignore. As each day passes by complicit in the live genocide that’s taking. The complicity in funding a settler colonial apartheid state.
Lobbying Groups and PACs in the US: A Breakdown of Legality, Limits, Funding, and Acceptance
Lobbying Groups:
Definition: Organizations that attempt to influence government policy and decisions through communication with elected officials, their staff, and government agencies.
Legality: Protected by the First Amendment's right to petition the government. However, various laws regulate their activities to prevent corruption:
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires registration and reporting.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 tightened restrictions.
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) regulates foreign lobbying.
Caveats and Loopholes.
Some organizations avoid registering by keeping lobbying activities below certain thresholds.
The definition of "lobbying" can be interpreted narrowly, allowing some activities to go unreported.
AIPAC usurping the rules (more on this later).
Limits:
Registration: Lobbyists who spend a significant amount of time and money on lobbying activities must register with the government and disclose their clients, issues, and expenditures.
Gifts and Travel: Strict limitations exist on gifts and travel that lobbyists can provide to government officials.Generally, gifts over $50 are prohibited, with a $100 annual limit per source.
Exceptions exist for widely attended events and certain educational trips.
Loophole: Some organizations host lavish events or conferences that officials can attend for free.
Revolving Door Restrictions: Former government officials face temporary restrictions on lobbying their former agencies.
Typically a one-year cooling-off period, with longer periods for more senior officials.
Loophole: Some former officials provide "strategic advice" without directly contacting officials.
Political Action Committees (PACs):
Definition: Organizations that raise and spend money to elect or defeat candidates for federal, state, or local office.
Legality: Legal under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and subject to regulation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Limits:
Contribution Limits: PACs can contribute directly to candidates, with limits set by the FEC.
For 2021-2022, the limit is $5,000 per candidate per election.
PACs can give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee.
Loophole: PACs can create multiple affiliated committees to increase overall contribution amounts.
Spending Limits:
There are no spending limits for independent expenditures by PACs.
However, coordinated expenditures with campaigns are treated as contributions and are subject to limits.
Loopholes and Circumvention:
Super PACs: These can raise and spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures, as long as they don't coordinate with campaigns (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010).
Dark Money: 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations can spend on political activities without disclosing donors.
Shell Companies: In some cases, LLCs have been used to obscure the source of political contributions.
Notable Cases:
SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): Allowed for the creation of Super PACs.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): Struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to PACs and parties.
These loopholes and court decisions have significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance and lobbying in the United States, leading to ongoing debates about transparency, corruption, and the influence of money in politics.
Funding: Primarily funded by membership dues, contributions from individuals and organizations, and sometimes grants.
Acceptance of Funding: Can accept funding from various sources, including corporations, unions, and individuals. However, certain restrictions apply to foreign funding:
Foreign entities must register under FARA if lobbying on behalf of foreign governments or political parties.
AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is not registered under FARA because it claims to represent American citizens who support Israel, not the Israeli government directly. This has been a point of controversy and debate.
Anti-Defamation League & the Lobby: Armed Antisemitism
The Pro-Israel lobby, which operates under the aegis of purported American Citizen support for Israel.
This lobby, cloaked in the raiment of righteous advocacy, perpetuates a notion both ill-conceived and profoundly consequential: that Israel stands as "The Jewish Nation," the singular "Nation of the Jews." Such a characterization, fraught with historical and theological complexities, serves as a fulcrum upon which the lobby's considerable leverage is balanced.
In this grand theatre of influence, the lobby does not stand alone but rather operates in concert with often unmentioned arm of the lobby. of considerable clout, Anti-Defamation League. This symbiosis creates a multifaceted apparatus of influence, at once subtle and overwhelming in its reach:
As the attack dog, it wields the charge of antisemitism with surgical precision, a weapon honed to silence dissent and stifle debate.
As a bulwark, it deploys the threat of public opprobrium, naming and shaming those who dare challenge its narrative.
As a shield, it erects barriers of litigation and libel, shielding its interests from scrutiny and critique.
As a cloak, it obscures and deflects, providing cover for actions that might otherwise invite censure or reproach.
This intricate dance of influence and obfuscation operates at the very heart of American political life, shaping discourse, policy, and public opinion with a deftness that often eludes casual observation. It stands as a testament to the power of narrative and the enduring influence of carefully cultivated perceptions in the realm of international relations and domestic politics alike.
To comprehend the full scope of this phenomenon is to grapple with fundamental questions about the nature of democracy, the limits of advocacy, and the complex interplay between ethnic identity, religious affiliation, and national allegiance. It invites us to consider anew the foundations upon which our understanding of these critical issues rests and to question the assumptions that have long guided our approach to matters of such profound import.
As we navigate these turbulent waters, we are called upon to exercise discernment, to pierce the veil of rhetoric and examine with clear eyes the realities that lie beneath. For it is only through such rigorous inquiry that we can hope to forge a path forward that honors the principles of justice, equality, and mutual respect upon which our republic was founded.
Israel Lobby in the U.K
Trackaipac.com: The Lobby United Kingdom
Israel Lobby Funded a Quarter of British MPs Some 180 of Britain’s 650 MPs in the last parliament accepted funding from pro-Israel lobby groups or individuals during their political career, Declassified reveal.
Israel Lobby Funded a Third of Conservative MPs Tory politicians have accepted over £430,000 from Israel lobby groups and made 187 trips to the country. Declassified UK
Two-fifths of Keir Starmer’s cabinet have been funded by pro-Israel lobbyists
Two-fifths of Keir Starmer’s cabinet have been funded by pro-Israel lobbyists
Summary: Starmer and his shadow cabinet accepted close to £200,000 in donations.
13 out of the 31 members of Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet have received donations from the pro-Israel lobby group Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) or the individual funder Sir Trevor Chinn.
8 members of the shadow cabinet have received money from LFI to travel to Israel since being elected as MPs. This includes David Lammy, Wes Streeting, Jonathan Reynolds, and Emily Thornberry.
Keir Starmer himself has received a £50,000 donation from Sir Trevor Chinn during his campaign for the Labour leadership in 2020, which he failed to declare until after winning the election.
In total, the value of donations from Chinn to Starmer and members of his shadow cabinet amounts to almost £200,000.
In conclusion, a significant portion of Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet has been funded by pro-Israel lobby groups and individuals, totaling close to £200,000 in donations.
Israel lobby funded a third of Conservative MPs
Exclusive: Tory politicians have accepted over £430,000 from Israel lobby groups and made 187 trips to the country.
How Does Lobby group funding work in UK
It is legal and common for MPs in the UK to receive funding from various sources, including individuals, organizations, and businesses. This funding must be declared and is subject to transparency rules.
Pro-Israel groups, both within and outside the UK, are known to engage in political advocacy, including supporting politicians who share their views.
There is ongoing debate and scrutiny regarding the influence of lobby groups, including pro-Israel groups, on UK politics.
Information Disclosure
The Register of Members' Financial Interests: This official register lists the financial interests of UK MPs, including donations and other sources of income.
Investigative journalism outlets and NGOs: Organizations that focus on transparency and accountability often investigate and publish reports on political funding.
Manufacturing Consent: Israeli Propaganda & Zionist silencing of Free speech
There is no other work better to illustrate the issue than Rebecca Ruth Gould's "Erasing Palestine: Free Speech and Palestinian Freedom", with her lived experiences in Israel, U.K and U.S.
The opus emerges as a vital examination of the systematic suppression of Palestinian voices and critiques of Israel. Though written prior to the current crisis in Gaza, Gould's prescient analysis has only grown more relevant amid the blatant media bias and academic censorship we are witnessing today.
Gould, a Professor of Islamic World and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, brings her considerable scholarly expertise to bear on what Noam Chomsky might term the "manufacturing of consent" around Israel-Palestine discourse. Her meticulously researched work lays bare the machinations of pro-Israel and Zionist lobby groups in stifling academic freedom and public debate.
At the heart of Gould's analysis is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which she argues has been weaponized to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and advocacy for Palestinian rights. As she incisively notes:
"The widespread adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and the internalisation of its norms has set in motion a simplistic definitional logic for dealing with social problems that has impoverished discussions of racism and prejudice more generally, across Britain and beyond. It has encouraged a focus on words over substance."
Gould traces how this definition has been strategically employed by institutions and governments to censor pro-Palestinian voices under the guise of combating antisemitism. She provides numerous examples of academics and activists who have faced professional repercussions for their advocacy, including her own experience of being targeted for writing about the apartheid-like conditions she observed while living in the occupied West Bank.
The book's strength lies in Gould's ability to weave together historical context, theoretical analysis, and personal narrative. She deftly connects contemporary efforts to silence Palestine solidarity with longer histories of antisemitism and imperialism. As she argues:
"In the case of the first document [the Balfour Declaration], the rights of an entire people, the Palestinians, were erased in order to accommodate Britain's wartime strategy. In the case of the second document [the IHRA definition], the accusation of antisemitism was used as a weapon to conceal more than a century of imperial complicity."
Gould's work is not merely descriptive, but a clarion call for protecting free speech as essential to Palestinian liberation. She powerfully asserts:
"Academic freedom can only be meaningful in a society that protects the free speech of all its citizens. When it is used only to shore up professional privilege and stifle the voices of those who are silenced by abuses of power, academic freedom loses its value in society at large."
While unflinching in its critique, Gould's prose remains measured and scholarly throughout. She marshals an impressive array of sources to support her arguments, from theoretical writings to firsthand accounts of Palestinian erasure.
"Erasing Palestine" stands as an essential text for understanding the intersection of free speech, academic freedom, and the struggle for Palestinian rights. In an atmosphere of increasing censorship, Gould's work reminds us of the vital importance of protecting dissent and amplifying marginalized voices. As she poignantly concludes:
"If you have the misfortune to be targeted for expressing your convictions, I hope this book will remind you that you are not alone in being singled out and persecuted. May the histories chronicled in these pages give you the resources to connect your struggles with those of the activists and writers who preceded us, often under circumstances even more challenging than those we face today.
Gould also illuminates the myriad ways in which this erasure is perpetrated, from the linguistic to the physical, from the academic to the political.
She delineates three primary modes of erasure:
The linguistic reimagining of Palestinian places and people, the physical fragmentation of space exemplified by the Apartheid Wall, and the systemic censorship of Palestinian voices. In a passage of profound insight, Gould articulates the symbiotic relationship between physical and linguistic erasure:
"The physical erasure of Palestine coincides with its erasure through language; once Palestinian identity has been successfully suppressed, it becomes that much easier to erase Palestinian claims on Israeli-occupied land."
This observation underscores the critical role of language as both a tool of oppression and a means of resistance.
Gould traces the roots of contemporary silencing tactics to pre-state Zionism, examining Jewish opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the prescient critiques of figures like Edwin Montagu. By drawing these historical parallels, Gould demonstrates that the current campaign of erasure is not a recent phenomenon but the culmination of a long-standing imperial project.
Gould's engagement with the socioeconomic dimensions of antisemitism, drawing on the works of Leon Trotsky and Abram Leon, adds depth to her analysis. By exploring how capitalism engenders racism and how British imperialism facilitated Zionist colonization, Gould situates the Palestinian struggle within a broader critique of global power structures.
The author's examination of the IHRA definition's chilling effect on academic freedom is particularly pertinent in the current climate of intensified censorship. The case of David Miller, dismissed from the University of Bristol for his off-campus comments, serves as a stark illustration of the definition's reach beyond the confines of academia.
Gould's assertion that free speech in the UK is becoming increasingly fragile with each violation of academic freedom resonates ominously in our current moment. Her insistence on the importance of retaining freedom of expression as a tool for Palestinian liberation is both a rallying cry and a warning.
In conclusion, "Erasing Palestine" stands as a tour de force of scholarship and advocacy. Gould's work is not merely an academic treatise but a clarion call for justice and a blueprint for resistance. As journalist Wadi notes, Gould's book "exposes how politics and language have created an ever-shrinking space which, while encouraging impunity for Israel and its violence, has also limited Palestinian identity and free speech." In doing so, Gould has crafted an indispensable resource for scholars, activists, and all those committed to the principles of free speech and Palestinian liberation.
In laying bare the mechanisms of silencing and erasure, Gould has produced a work that is both timely and timeless - a powerful testament to the enduring struggle for Palestinian freedom and the right to speak truth to power.
Gould's lived experiences reach poignantly, on the need to resist, speak-up, also to stand up for the other, the downtrodden.
As someone who has written a book about being falsely accused of antisemitism and who has been targeted by anti-Palestinian critics who would like to see me deprived of my livelihood, I never for a second regretted writing about the apartheid system that I saw while commuting between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. There are plenty of examples of people who have been unjustly censored for criticizing Israel, but in the United States and Europe, they often find ways to realize their talent in communities that respects their courage. The unspoken ban on criticism of Israel will not last forever. Every person who speaks out makes it less dangerous for others to do the same. Those who speak according to the dictates of their conscience leave a mark on the world even when their bravery leads to short-term defeat. Even when they are fired, their courage does not go unnoticed; it inspires and empowers those around us. In Toni Morrison’s words, when we exercise our freedom, we set someone else free. There is certainly a cost to speaking out, but for the sake of our collective ability to speak—for our collective humanity—we must not be silent. Many of us living in democratic societies can afford the sacrifice. The risk is worth taking. The bigger risk is saying nothing at all.
Read more on her Blog at Medium
After October & Could Comments
Palestinian academics in Israel have lost their jobs merely for expressing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Even Jewish Israelis are not immune if they criticize the military state. On October 25, Israeli professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan paraphrased Jean-Paul Sartre in a WhatsApp group that was discussing the Hamas massacre of October 7: “After so many years that the neck of the occupied has been suffocating under your iron foot and suddenly was given a chance to raise his eyes, what kind of gaze did you expect you would see there?” She added: “We saw this gaze” on that day of the massacre. Her frank admission was to prove decisive in her downfall. Within hours Peled-Elhanan was summoned to a meeting with her employer, who told her that she was at risk of having her employment terminated for “displays of understanding to the horrific act of Hamas.” (The Nation)
Speaking Up for Palestine Can Be Hard, But It’s Never Been More Necessary (my essay for The Nation)
The stifling influence of Zionist ideology within the ivory towers of higher learning.
U.K: Miller's case:
David Miller, a former professor at the University of Bristol, was dismissed from his position on October 1, 2021, following a disciplinary hearing that concluded he did not meet the university's expected standards of behavior. His comments, particularly those criticizing Israel and the Zionist movement, sparked significant controversy and led to complaints from various groups, including the Community Security Trust, which labeled his remarks as anti-Semitic.
Despite the university's stance, an independent investigation found that Miller's comments did not constitute unlawful speech. The university acknowledged this in their statement but maintained that his remarks were incompatible with his role as an educator. Following his dismissal, Miller claimed he faced discrimination based on his anti-Zionist beliefs and subsequently took legal action, arguing that his views should be protected under the UK Equality Act 2010.
In February 2024, an employment tribunal ruled in favor of Miller, determining that he had been unfairly dismissed and that his anti-Zionist beliefs were indeed a protected characteristic. The tribunal's decision marked a significant moment in legal discussions surrounding academic freedom and anti-Zionism in the UK. Miller expressed pride in this ruling, viewing it as a validation of his stance against what he described as the oppressive influence of Zionism in academia. This win might be in part due to post October 7 continuous onslaught on Gaza, whereby the criticism Miller made regarding Israel and Zionism could, no longer be easily dismissed as hate speech.
U.S: Overview of the Finkelstein-Dershowitz Controversy
One of the earlier well documented case that highlighted the intense emotions and high stakes surrounding academic discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the case also raised questions about the limits of academic debate and the use of legal threats to influence scholarly discourse. known cited as the Finkelstein-Dershowitz controversy It centers around their differing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the academic integrity of each other's work. Finkelstein, a political scientist and author, has been a vocal critic of Dershowitz, particularly regarding his book The Case for Israel. Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of academic fraud, claiming that his work was filled with misrepresentations and plagiarism.
Finkelstein's Critique: In his book Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein described Dershowitz's work as "among the most spectacular academic frauds ever published on the Israel-Palestine conflict" 2.
In a letter dated June 1, 2005, from Dershowitz's lawyer to the University of California Press, which was archived on June 4, 2008, stated: "Your appendix—if it is not removed before publication—is going to lead to painful surgery for the Press." This was verified on October 31, 2007.
Additionally, Dershowitz sought intervention from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to prevent the University of California Press from publishing the book. However, Schwarzenegger's legal advisor responded that the governor would not interfere in matters of academic freedom.
As a consequence of these pressures, the fear of litigation and publisher going bankrupt, when Beyond Chutzpah was finally published, it notably omitted the term "plagiarize" in its critique of Dershowitz's alleged inappropriate borrowing from other works.
Academic Freedom Debate:
The controversy sparked discussions about academic freedom and the boundaries of scholarly debate. Many saw Dershowitz's actions as an attempt to silence criticism through legal threats and political pressure.
Tenure Dispute:
The conflict extended beyond publishing when Dershowitz intervened in Finkelstein's tenure process at DePaul University. He sent unsolicited materials to the university, a move widely criticized as inappropriate interference in academic procedures.
Professor Frankenstein Thesis on New Anti-Semitism
After discussing the Finkelstein-Dershowitz affair it would be imperative to mention Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
Finkelstein contends that accusations of anti-Semitism are frequently levied against critics of Israel, particularly when those critiques are grounded in factual evidence of human rights violations. He asserts that this misuse serves to delegitimize valid discourse on the Israel-Palestine issue, framing it instead as an attack on Jewish identity rather than a political disagreement.
Critique of Pro-Israel Scholarship: Finkelstein critically examines the works of pro-Israel scholars, notably Alan Dershowitz, highlighting what he perceives as intellectual dishonesty and the distortion of historical facts to support Israel's narrative. He challenges the claims made in Dershowitz's The Case for Israel, arguing that they are often unsupported by credible evidence from human rights organizations.
In summary, Finkelstein's definition of the "new anti-Semitism" emphasizes its role as a political tool rather than a reflection of genuine anti-Jewish sentiment, arguing that it is used to suppress critical discourse about Israel and to protect its policies from scrutiny.
Sources
FINKELSTEIN, N. G. (2008). Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Updated Edition, With a New Preface (2nd ed.). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppr7c
GoodReads -Link
The Silenced Scholar: Dr. Sami Al-Arian's Odyssey Through American Justice
A Voice from the Nakba
Albeit on a tangent the tale of a survivor of the Nakba, Al-Arian's journey from displaced child to survivor of the Nakba, Al-Arian's journey from displaced child to esteemed professor embodies the resilience of a people. His ascent to a tenured position at the University of South Florida in the “land of the Free” the American dream a dream soon to be shattered.
The Accusation: Scholar or Subversive?
In the paranoid aftermath of 9/11, Dr. Al-Arian found himself cast not as an educator, but as an enemy of the state. The charges—supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad—were a thunderbolt that reverberated through academic circles and beyond. This indictment, announced with great fanfare by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, painted Al-Arian not as a passionate advocate for Palestinian rights, but as a wolf in professorial clothing.
Justice on Trial: The Courtroom Drama
The ensuing legal battle was less a pursuit of truth than a Kafka-esque odyssey through the labyrinth of American jurisprudence. Despite the gravity of the accusations, the prosecution's case proved to be built on shifting sands. The courtroom became a stage where the very concepts of free speech and political expression were put on trial alongside Al-Arian.
The Plea: A Pyrrhic Victory?
In a twist that speaks volumes about the complexities of the American legal system, Al-Arian ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge—providing non-violent support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This plea, viewed by many as a strategic retreat rather than an admission of guilt, led not to imprisonment but to deportation. It was a decision that raised more questions than it answered about the nature of justice in politically charged cases.
The Lobby's Long Shadow
Critics argue, with mounting evidence, that Al-Arian's ordeal was orchestrated by powerful pro-Israel lobbies, intent on excising Palestinian narratives from American discourse. The designation of Palestinian resistance groups as terrorist organizations, they contend, is less a security measure than a political maneuver—a means of delegitimizing the struggle against occupation by conflating it with terrorism.
Freedom Under Fire: A witch Hunt in Academia
It serves as a chilling reminder of the precarious position of even tenured scholars who dare to challenge establismnet, especially when it comes to Palestinian.
The Echoes of Injustice
Today, Dr. Al-Arian continues his advocacy from abroad, his voice unsilenced despite the efforts to muzzle it. His case stands as a reminder of the fragility of civil liberties and the ease with which the machinery of state can be turned against those deemed problematic. It challenges us to question the true meaning of security in a diverse society and the cost of sacrificing principles for perceived safety.
"The Trial of Sami Al-Arian: A Miscarriage of Justice." Middle East Monitor. Accessed.
"Sami Al-Arian: The Persecution of a Palestinian-American." The Electronic Intifada. Accessed.
"Academic Freedom and the Case of Sami Al-Arian." American Association of University Professors. Accessed.
The message sent post 911 was clear, they were coming for you.
Events Post October 7: With Ongoing Genocide in Gaza.
The Stifling of Academic Freedom: Silencing Pro-Palestinian Voices on Campus
In the wake of Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza, which has by the time crackdown began had claimed over 20,000 Palestinian lives since October 7th, Institutions that purport to champion American Values, protected by the founding constitution, free speech, freedom of association and academic, inquiry are actively suppressing pro-Palestinian voices and stifling criticism of Israel's actions.
This crackdown on dissent represents a grave threat to academic freedom and open discourse. As Chris Hedges poignantly observes:
Israel Genocide Betrays the Holocaust writes Chris Hedges
"It is hard not to be cynical about the plethora of university courses about the Holocaust given the censorship and banning of groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace, imposed by university administrations. What is the point of studying the Holocaust if not to understand its fundamental lesson — when you have the capacity to stop genocide and you do not, you are culpable?"
Indeed, the very institutions tasked with educating the next generation about historical atrocities are now complicit in silencing those who speak out against contemporary human rights violations. Organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace have faced suspensions, funding cuts, and outright bans on numerous campuses for their advocacy on behalf of Palestinian human rights.
The pro-Israel lobby has exerted tremendous pressure on university administrations to clamp down on pro-Palestinian activism. Accusations of antisemitism are weaponized to shut down legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Meanwhile, faculty members who dare to speak out risk their careers and livelihoods.
This assault on academic freedom serves to insulate Israel from accountability and perpetuate a distorted narrative. As Israeli historian Ilan Pappé notes:
"The argument for a Jewish state as compensation for the Holocaust was a powerful argument, so powerful that nobody listened to the outright rejection of the U.N. solution by the overwhelming majority of the people of Palestine... The basic and natural rights of the Palestinians should be sidelined, dwarfed and forgotten altogether for the sake of the forgiveness that Europe was seeking from the newly formed Jewish state."
By stifling pro-Palestinian voices on campus, universities become complicit in this erasure of Palestinian rights and experiences. They betray their fundamental mission of fostering critical thinking and grappling with difficult truths.
The suppression of dissent regarding Israel's actions in Gaza represents a profound moral failure. It is a betrayal of the lessons of history that universities claim to uphold. As Hedges warns:
"If we forget the lessons of the Holocaust, we forget who we are and what we are capable of becoming. We seek our moral worth in the past, rather than the present. We condemn others, including the Palestinians, to an endless cycle of slaughter. We become the evil we abhor."
The amount of such cases, is not isolated, we are also seeing it been enacted at the very top of the university administration. as seen by the ouster of Claudine Gay.
The Fall of a Trailblazer: Dr. Claudine Gay's Brief Tenure at Harvard
A Historic Appointment
She made history as Harvard University's first Black president and only the second woman to hold the position, resigned on January 2, 2024, after just six months in office.
The Unraveling of a Presidency
Dr. Claudine Gay, Harvard University's first African American president, has resigned amid a storm of controversy. This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate about leadership, academic integrity, and political influence in higher education.
Gaza Protests: The Spark of Controversy
The saga began when Gay faced criticism for her handling of campus protests related to the conflict in Gaza. Her reluctance to suppress these demonstrations, which were critical of Israel's actions, drew sharp rebuke from various quarters. This initial controversy set the stage for what would become a multi-faceted campaign against her leadership.
Accusations of Antisemitism
Soon after, allegations of antisemitism surfaced, a charge frequently leveled by pro-Israel groups against critics of Israeli policies. This accusation, while serious, was just the opening salvo in what would become a broader assault on Gay's position.
Academic Integrity Under Scrutiny
The focus then shifted to Gay's academic work, with claims of plagiarism in her doctoral thesis coming to light. While many in the academic community characterized these as minor citation errors, the allegations were amplified in the public sphere, casting doubt on her scholarly integrity.
Race, Gender, and Power
As the controversy unfolded, a new dimension emerged. Gay's status as a Black woman in a position of power became a focal point, with some critics using her race and gender to question the merits of diversity initiatives in higher education. This aspect of the debate drew support from far right conservative circles who has long opposed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, essence her ouster would be a win for the Right Wing politics, Dr. Gay was appointed as a token black woman rather than for merit.
Echoes of Historical Persecution
The intensity of the scrutiny and the relentless nature of the accusations led some observers to draw parallels with historical witch hunts, noting the seemingly coordinated nature of the attacks against Gay.
A Resignation Amidst Political Turmoil
As pressure mounted, the situation reached a critical point. The controversy had evolved from a debate about academic leadership to a broader cultural and political battle. Her eventual resignation came as a climax to this tumultuous affair, seen by some as a victory for pro Israel Lobby and far right politics. Which troubling capitulation to political pressure, from the university donor class, on the freedom of University administration, and academic freedom, free speech and freedom of association. The University Donor class is heavily influenced by the Zionist lobby.
Velshi, Ali. "Velshi: The True Story & the Forces Behind Claudine Gay’s Ouster from Harvard." MSNBC.
"Weaponizing Trivialities: The Engineered Ouster of Claudine Gay and its Link to Eugenics." Center for Genetics and Society.
Martin, Phillip. "Conservative Activists Celebrate Gay’s Ouster as a Victory in Their Campaign Against DEI." GBH News, January 4, 2024.
"Claudine Gay’s Ouster: A Look at the Forces Behind It." Politico, January 3, 2024.
Dr.Norman Finkelstein calls for the reinstatement of Claudine Gay, former President of Harvard University: Katie Halper Show and also Dr.Norman Finkelstein EVISCERATES Alan Dershowitz Over Lying, Hypocrisy & Plagiarism
The Palestine Exception: Academic Freedom Under Fire on U.S. Campuses
As the Gaza Genocide intensified a phenomenon appeared highlighting what some are calling the "Palestine exception" to free speech, fredom of association and academic freedom. Students and faculty advocating for Palestinian rights face increasing backlash and professional retribution. \
Fueled by the University Donors class undue influence on the University Administration, the message was the administrators was clear, Go against our wishes, you will be the next Claudine Gay.
A Climate of Censorship
At Barnard College and its sister institution Columbia University, a series of measures have been implemented that critics argue are designed to stifle debate and dissent. Dr. Premilla Nadasen, a professor of history at Barnard, describes an organized campaign "to censor student and faculty speech and curtail academic freedom."
"What we've seen over the past couple of months is a whole series of strategies that universities have deployed, including Barnard College and Columbia University, to censor student and faculty speech and curtail academic freedom," Nadasen explains.
These measures include:
Suspension of student organizations
Cancellation of events
Policing of content on departmental websites
Increased presence of law enforcement on campus
Procedural Tactics and Unilateral Decision-Making
Nadasen points out that many of these decisions have been made unilaterally, without consultation with faculty or students. "Clearly there's a tremendous amount of influence by trustees, administrators, alumni, and donors who are making decisions about what kinds of speech ought to take place on college campuses," she notes.
The professor highlights how the administration is using procedural grounds to justify these actions. For instance, a new policy at Barnard requires departmental websites to submit content for approval by the Provost's office before posting.
Impact on Student Activism
Despite the pressure, student activism remains strong. Safiya O'Brien, a Barnard College student and organizer with Columbia University's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, reports that students have documented hundreds of harassment complaints.
"The most prominent discrimination and harassment on campus has been through not only other students and faculty on campus but the administration's vilification of Palestinians through these university-wide emails that they've been sending," O'Brien states.
Academic Freedom vs. Institutional Interests
The controversy raises questions about the meaning of a liberal arts education and the role of universities in fostering open debate. Nadasen emphasizes the importance of creating "a climate that allows academic debate, allows discussion, allows people to disagree with ideas."
This situation stands in stark contrast to the Chicago Principles, which many universities, including Columbia, have endorsed. These principles advocate for "free, robust, and uninhibited debate" on campus.
A Broader Context
The events at Barnard and Columbia are part of a larger national trend. Recent Congressional hearings on anti-Semitism on college campuses and investigations by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights have intensified scrutiny on how universities handle discussions about Israel and Palestine.
Nadasen, who was born in apartheid South Africa, draws parallels between her experiences there and what she witnessed during a visit to Palestine in 2011. "I was shocked by what I saw and I was shocked mostly with the parallels I saw to apartheid South Africa," she recounts.
As the debate continues, the academic community faces a crucial challenge: how to balance concerns about anti-Semitism with the principles of free speech and academic freedom, particularly when it comes to criticism of Israeli policies.
Democracy Now. "The Palestine Exception to Free Speech: Censorship and Repression on College Campuses." Aired December 2023.
More in Summary: Student Protests and Administrative Crackdown
Administrative Crackdown
In Summary: Student Protests and Administrative Crackdown
University administrations have taken unprecedented steps to suppress pro-Palestine activism:
Suspension of student organizations advocating for Palestinian rights
Eviction of students from campus housing
Threats of disciplinary action against individual student organizers
Increased police presence and surveillance on campuses
Closure of campus gates during protests
These actions have raised concerns about the erosion of academic freedom and the right to peaceful protest.
External Pressure and Legal Threats
Israel lobby groups have played a significant role in pressuring universities:
Organizations like the ADL and Brandeis Center have urged crackdowns on student activism
False accusations of "materially supporting foreign terrorist organizations" have been leveled against student groups
Legal threats and public campaigns have been used to intimidate universities and student activists
The Chilling Effect:
This external pressure has created an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship on many campuses.
Targeting of Individual Students
Reports indicate that pro-Palestine students face increasing personal risks:
Investigations, sanctions, and even expulsion for participating in protests
Targeted harassment, doxing, and threats from opposing student groups
Accusations of anti-Semitism for engaging in legitimate criticism of Israeli policies
These actions have created a chilling effect on campus discourse and activism.
Student Resistance and Coalition Building
Despite facing significant obstacles, student activists are fighting back:
Demands for university divestment from corporations linked to Israeli human rights abuses
Building coalitions with other marginalized student groups
Continued organization of protests and educational events despite repression
Holocaust Survivor Message to US Campus Protesters:
Holocaust Survivor Message to US Campus Protesters: This survivor of the Holocaust is against Genocide in Gaza & conflating Jewishness with Zionism, which does nothing but increase antisemitism. Your protests are so persistent, large and global that eventually the Western leadership, which are trying to deny what’s going on, will be forced to face up to it. There is a historic responsibility towards injustice, genocide and fascism. Thank you for being brave and on the right side of history. Stephen Kapos
Censorship and Academic Freedom: The Controversy Surrounding "Nakba" in Legal Scholarship
The case at Columbia Law Review: The Palestine Exception when it comes to building a legal framework to view Palestinian experience, like the Holocaust and the Apartheid.
The Columbia Law Review website was temporarily taken down following the publication of an article titled "Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept" by Palestinian human rights lawyer Rabia Akara. This move came after the Board of Directors attempted to prevent the article's publication, citing internal processes as justification.
Akara, speaking about the incident, said, "This censorship reveals a 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom and free speech. It's a clear indication of the challenges faced when trying to discuss Palestinian issues in academic settings."
The Concept of "Nakba"
The censored article explores the concept of "Nakba," a term referring to the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948, and its potential as a legal framework for understanding the ongoing oppression of Palestinians.
"My article aims to establish 'Nakba' as a legal concept," Akara explained. "It's crucial to have a comprehensive framework that captures the totality of Palestinian oppression, both historical and ongoing."
A Pattern of Censorship
This incident is not isolated. Akara revealed that he faced similar resistance when attempting to publish with the Harvard Law Review. "The pushback I've experienced at both Columbia and Harvard points to a systemic issue in how Palestinian perspectives are treated in academic legal discourse," he stated.
Insights from Legal Practice
Akara's perspective is informed by his experience as a human rights attorney who has litigated Palestinian rights before the Israeli Supreme Court. He noted, "My legal work has shown me firsthand the complexities of navigating a fragmented legal system that often obscures the full reality of violence and oppression in Palestine."
The Broader Implications
This controversy raises important questions about academic freedom and the boundaries of acceptable discourse in legal scholarship. As universities grapple with these issues, the incident serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in addressing complex geopolitical issues within academic settings.
As the debate continues, many in the academic community are calling for a more open and inclusive approach to scholarship on Palestinian issues. The outcome of this controversy may well set a precedent for how similar topics are handled in the future.
Further Reading:
Zion!sm's Iron Grip on American Democracy Exposed Through Campus Protests
The veil of silence lifts: independent media takes up the mantle of truth
The student protests has indeed become an unprecedented display of civic engagement, college campuses across America have become crucibles of dissent, exposing the corrosive influence of Zion!sm on the very foundations of U.S. democracy. whats unfolding is nothing short of a Kafkaesque nightmare of surveillance, intimidation, and violent suppression - all under the Orwellian guise of combating "anti-Semitism."
The Catch-22 of a Mutating Hate
"Anti-Semitism is the oldest hate in the world and the hate that mutates," proclaims one Zion!st advocate, unwittingly revealing the insidious nature of this rhetorical trap. For how can one critique Israeli policy without being branded an anti-Semite? This catch-22 renders meaningful dialogue impossible, stifling democratic discourse under the weight of a perpetually invoked victimhood.
The Canary in the Coal Mine of Civil Liberties
As protests swell, so too do concerns about surveillance and retaliation against student activists. Enter the shadowy organization called Canary Mission, which allegedly compiles dossiers on pro-Palestinian students and professors with the aim of destroying their future prospects.
"It's a massive program that's been going on for years," warns investigative journalist James Bamford. "The purpose is to blacklist and dox students, professors, and largely anybody that disagrees with Israel."
This Orwellian nightmare extends beyond mere online harassment. Students now don masks not just as a pandemic precaution, but to shield their identities from advanced facial recognition technology deployed to identify and persecute dissenters.
Cannary mission alone outline’s the very mechanization that an antisemitic dossier might outline, exposing a the arm that operates in the shadows. Yet in a colossal, failure in PR declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "What's happening on America's college campuses is reminiscent of German universities in the 1930s,"
The Erosion of the Essence of the university Campus
In a shocking turn of events, university administrators have resorted to calling in riot police and even the National Guard to quash peaceful protests. "We now have a university administrator who's to the right of the NYPD," laments actress and Barnard alumna Cynthia Nixon, highlighting the surreal nature of this crackdown on free speech.
As the iron fist of authoritarianism tightens its grip on America's hallowed halls of learning, one cannot help but wonder: Is this the death knell of academic freedom, or truly as history would have it, as it was during the Vietnam war students protests, a change in zeitgeist?
A Turning Point in History
Despite the formidable forces arrayed against them, student protesters remain undaunted. Their unwavering commitment to justice and their media savvy have exposed the hollowness of Zion!st propaganda for all to see.
"This is a turning point," declares independent journalist comedian Matt Lee. "Gaza has shown the world what's happening, and now American Jewish students are coming along to show even more."
As the tide of public opinion shifts, the mask of Zion!sm slips ever further, revealing the ugly face of fascism beneath. Yet in this darkest hour, a new generation of activists offers a glimmer of hope - a promise that the light of truth and justice will ultimately prevail over the forces of oppression and deceit.
Bipartisan support of Crackdown and vilification of the Pro-Palestine Student protests
**Jill Stein on getting assaulted by cops & campus crackdown** Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, and her campaign manager Jason Call were also assaulted at a protest at Washington University in St. Louis against the genocide in Gaza.
Democrat and Republican Responses to Student Protests
The Biden Administration, through its spokesperson Andrew Bates and Karine Jean-Pierre, has condemned the student protests as anti-Semitic and not peaceful.
Republicans, like House Majority Whip Tom Emmer and Senator John Kennedy, have also accused the protesters of being "pro-terrorist anti-Semites" and claimed Biden is sympathetic to Hamas.
Canary Mission: Doxing and Defamation in the Name of Fighting Anti-Semitism
Canary Mission is a controversial online platform that profiles individuals and organizations it deems critical of Israel and accuses them of anti-Semitism, supporting terrorism, or promoting hatred. Operating anonymously and with opaque funding, the platform's tactics and implications raise significant concerns:
Mission and Methods:
Doxing and Blacklisting: Canary Mission creates profiles of students, academics, and activists, often including their photos, personal information, social media posts, and affiliations. This information can be readily accessed by potential employers, academic institutions, and even government agencies, leading to fear, harassment, and career repercussions for those listed.
Guilt by Association: The platform frequently relies on guilt by association, linking individuals to organizations or events labeled as problematic, even if the individuals' involvement was minimal or their views more nuanced.
Misrepresentation and Exaggeration: Canary Mission often takes statements out of context, misrepresents opinions, and exaggerates the severity of individuals' actions to paint them in a negative light.Targeting Pro-Palestinian Activists: While claiming to combat anti-Semitism, the platform primarily focuses on silencing and intimidating those who advocate for Palestinian rights or criticize Israeli policies. This approach conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, stifling legitimate discussion and debate.
Implications:
Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The fear of being listed on Canary Mission can deter students and academics from engaging in open discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly on college campuses. This can stifle academic freedom and limit the exploration of diverse viewpoints.Harassment and ntimidation: Individuals listed on the platform have reported experiencing online harassment, threats, and even physical intimidation. This creates a hostile environment for those exercising their right to free speech and political engagement.
Damage to Reputations and Careers: Being listed on Canary Mission can have significant consequences for individuals' careers and educational opportunities. Potential employers or academic institutions may hesitate to associate with those labeled as anti-Semitic or supporting terrorism.
Erosion of Trust in Legitimate Claims of Anti-Semitism: The platform's tactics and its broad application of the label "anti-Semitic" can lead to a dilution of the term's meaning and a decreased sensitivity to genuine instances of anti-Semitism.
Overall, Canary Mission's tactics raise serious ethical and legal questions. Its methods can silence dissent, stifle academic freedom, and perpetuate a climate of fear and intimidation, ultimately hindering constructive dialogue and understanding. It also violates fundamental "Jewish values," but the Coalition of Jewish Values defends (CJV) actions as a "mitzvah" to protect Israelis. Not only does this conflate criticism of Israel with Judaism, Calling it a "mitzvah" suggests the CJV believes Canary Mission's actions are not only justified, but are in fact a moral and religious duty according to Jewish principles and values. Inevitably this self perpetuates the Jewish trope of the protocols.
Times of Israel - How Historians Will See Canary Mission Years From Now
Forward - Anti-BDS Blacklist Canary Mission Is Getting Scarier
Lawfare and the Silencing of Dissent: How Pro-Israel Lobby Targets Critics
The pro-Israel lobby has increasingly turned to aggressive legal tactics to silence critics and stifle debate on Israeli policies. This strategy, often referred to as "lawfare," has raised serious concerns about academic freedom and free speech on college campuses across the United States.
Hurt a Jew, We Sue You: The Weaponization of Anti-Semitism Claims
At the forefront of this effort is Alan Dershowitz, who recently announced the formation of a new organization called "Hurt a Jew, We Sue You." Dershowitz declared, "We are going to be engaging in massive defensive and offensive lawfare against bigots, anti-Semites, and potential violent terrorists."
This approach conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, a tactic that many scholars and activists argue is designed to shut down legitimate debate. As one student protester at Columbia University stated, "When we talk about anti-Semitism on campus, that's taking the spotlight away from Gaza. I am perfectly safe here, and this has all been a distraction."
The Marginalization of Dissenting Jewish Voices
Particularly troubling is the treatment of Jewish voices critical of Israel. These individuals are often dismissed as "token Jews" by pro-Israel advocates. One student interviewed on Fox News complained about "these token Jews that's what I like to call them who basically renounce their Judaism."
This rhetoric attempts to define Jewish identity solely through support for Israel, a notion that many Jews reject. As Matt Lee, an independent journalist, points out, "To conflate Jewish identity with one particular nation-state - that's actually in the definition of anti-Semitism."
Hurt a Jew and we sue you: looming over Democratic Values Governing the University system.
Chilling Effect on Speech: Critics argue that such initiatives can create a chilling effect, where faculty and students may feel intimidated to express dissenting opinions or engage in critical discussions about Israel or Jewish issues. The fear of legal repercussions or financial strain from lawsuits could lead to self-censorship, undermining the principles of academic freedom that are essential in educational environments.
Financial Pressures: With rising tuition fees and the precarious nature of academic employment, faculty members may be particularly vulnerable. The threat of lawsuits could exacerbate existing anxieties about job security, leading to a culture where only certain viewpoints are expressed, particularly those that align with the project's objectives. This could stifle open discourse and critical inquiry, which are vital for a healthy academic environment.
Civil Liberties Concerns: The project has been criticized for potentially infringing on civil liberties, particularly the right to free speech. Legal actions based on perceived antisemitism could be interpreted as a means to silence legitimate criticism of Israel or Jewish policies, which is a contentious issue in the realm of civil rights. The balance between protecting individuals from hate speech and ensuring robust debate on sensitive topics is delicate and often contested.
Public Reaction and Academic Response: The response from the academic community has been mixed. Some support Dershowitz's efforts as a necessary defense against rising antisemitism (as define by the Pro-Israel Lobby), while others view it as a threat to the open exchange of ideas. This division reflects broader societal debates about free speech, hate speech, and the role of universities in fostering inclusive environments
Who is Alan Dershowitz
Who is Alan Dershowitz
He has carved out his professional career in rewriting Israeli history, decrying, antisemitism to put down any critique of him and his work. Critique of Legal Practices: Some academic critiques focus on Dershowitz's legal practices and his approach to scholarship. For instance, a blog post on Crooked Timber ( Workplace Freedom: A Primer for Alan Dershowitz) discusses how Dershowitz has been accused of using researchers in a manner that prioritizes his conclusions over rigorous academic standards. This raises questions about the integrity of scholarship associated with his initiatives and whether they adhere to academic norms of evidence and argumentation. The Case for Israel, with findings from human rights organizations, suggesting that Dershowitz distorts facts to support his positions (**Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA))**
Further More, In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein critiques Dershowitz’s arguments, alleging that he misuses accusations of antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel. Finkelstein's book compares Dershowitz's work.
"The War on Gaza.” - By Joe Sacco
Israel Lobby Groups Target Berkeley Schools in Unprecedented Legal Attack
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the education community, two major Israel lobby organizations have filed a federal complaint against the Berkeley Unified School District, alleging a "severe and persistent targeting of Jewish students" over the past six months. This unprecedented action marks the first time such a complaint has been lodged against a K-12 school district since October 7th, when Israel's military campaign in Gaza began.
The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
The complaint, filed jointly by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), follows a familiar playbook of lawfare tactics used to silence pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. However, its extension to K-12 education represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle over how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is discussed in American classrooms.
"This is really just like a lot of attacks on Palestinian solidarity," explains Christina Harb, a Palestinian-American middle school teacher in Berkeley. "Teachers who have used the word apartheid or the word colonization in class, making pretty fair comparisons to American colonies or apartheid South Africa... those lessons were also complained about formally."
The complaint alleges an atmosphere of anti-Jewish bigotry, but educators and parents argue it misrepresents classroom discussions and conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Liz Jackson, a Jewish solidarity activist and parent of two Berkeley kids, describes the complaint as "a long string of misrepresentations... mixed with some exaggerations and some incidences of true antisemitism, kind of all strung together to paint a completely false picture based on fear."
Chilling Effect on Educators - wont be remiss to say reminiscent of when early days of Nazis in power.
The legal action has created a climate of fear and self-censorship among educators. Teachers report being pulled into interrogative meetings with administrators, questioned about their lessons, and pressured to remove pro-Palestinian posters from classrooms.
"Many of them have been here for 20, 30 years and they've all told me this is the first time in Berkeley... we have never experienced anything like this before," Harb notes. The district, known for its progressive stance and voluntary desegregation in 1968, now finds itself grappling with unprecedented scrutiny over its curriculum.
Community Push-back - Discomfort is not Antisemitism
In response to the complaint, a group called Berkeley Unified School District Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation released a statement condemning the action. "We reject the false conflation between antisemitism and criticism of the state of Israel and its military assault on Palestinians," the group asserted. "Jewish safety and Palestinian freedom are intertwined."
Parents and educators are organizing to support teachers and protect free speech in the classroom. Jackson emphasizes the importance of context in these discussions: "Yes, it is uncomfortable to learn about Israel's genocidal acts... and discomfort for a Jewish youth is very different than unsafe."
Hope, Perhaps Winds Change
Despite the challenges, many in Berkeley remain hopeful. "What has given me hope is... I have discovered and found a really beautiful community of teachers and parents and other organizers in Berkeley who have just come out of the woodworks," Harb reflects. "This is the one bright spot of everything that's happened in the last six months."
Further eroding Education: Already erased people, being deprived of all avenues
The Berkeley case represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over how to teach about complex geopolitical issues in American schools. As the complaint seeks to have the district adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism - a move critics say would effectively censor Palestinian narratives - the outcome could set a precedent for school districts nationwide.
Curriculum Services (ICS), a nonprofit organization that claims to improve the accuracy of K-12 instruction on Jewish history and culture
Shaping Curricula Across America
ICS boasts operations in all 50 states, with a significant impact on educational materials. In 2018, the organization claimed responsibility for 11,500 changes in textbooks throughout America. This extensive reach has raised questions about the nature and intent of these modifications.
A teacher from New York City, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated, "We've seen ICS resources being used to teach about the ongoing conflict, and even teachers are subjected to ICS curricula. It's concerning how much influence they have over what we teach."
Rewriting History?
Critics argue that ICS's efforts go beyond enhancing accuracy, potentially distorting historical context. For instance, the organization has proposed eliminating terms like "settlers," "occupation," and "land theft" from textbooks, replacing them with less contentious phrases.
In one striking example, ICS suggested removing a photo of an Israeli soldier holding a gun at a checkpoint, arguing that "photos presented to students should only show positive examples of both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism." This request has been met with skepticism from educators who question the practicality and impartiality of such changes.
Erasing Palestinian Identity?
Perhaps most controversial is the allegation that ICS curricula effectively deny the existence of Palestinian identity. In an 80-slide curriculum on the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is reportedly no explanation or reference to what Palestine is or what being Palestinian means in a modern context.
A Palestinian-American educator expressed concern: "By consistently referring to Palestinians as 'Palestinian Arabs' and insisting there's no state of Palestine, these materials erase our unique tie to the land. It's a form of historical erasure."
Teachers Fighting Back
In response to these perceived biases, a group of New York City educators has begun to speak out. New York City Educators for Palestine recently made public demands, calling for an end to harassment of teachers who speak against ongoing conflicts and for support of educator autonomy in curriculum choices.
One member of the group shared, "Teachers are being removed from classrooms, posters of solidarity created by students are being taken down, and Palestinian teachers are being reprimanded for wearing kufiyahs. It's a climate of fear and suppression."
The Path Forward:
As this Palestine Exception controversy unfolds with one arm of the Pro Israel Lobby at k-12 system where does it stop. it raises crucial questions about the role of special interest groups in shaping educational content. The debate over ICS's influence highlights the broader challenges of presenting balanced, accurate historical narratives in an increasingly polarized world.
As one educator concluded, "Our job is to open up the world to our students, not to narrow it. We have a duty to stand up for what's right and resist intimidation, regardless of where it comes from."
Further Reading:
The Institute for Curriculum Services: Shaping America's Textbooks.
JBrody, Robyn Stevens. "Anti-Israel Activism Spreading in Teachers' Unions, Education Schools, New Report Outlines." Jewish Insider, August 26, 2024.
Brown, Michael. "The Controversy Over Palestinian Identity in U.S. Textbooks." Middle East Studies Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2023.
New York City Educators for Palestine. "Statement of Demands." Press Release, May 10, 2024.
A Pro-Israel Lobby Win at Congress: Serious Government Overreach
For in those immortal words - "Congress shall make no law" - the cornerstone of American Democracy which prohibits the making of laws that infringe on freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. In simple terms, it emphasizes the importance of individual liberties and the government's role in protecting, rather than restricting, those freedoms. Experts argue that was just violated on on May 1, 2024, with the passage of The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) in Congress.
The Passage of Bill H.R. 6090: Implications for Civil Liberties
Overview of Bill H.R. 6090: The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) was passed by the House of Representatives on May 1, 2024. This bill mandates that the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when investigating complaints of discrimination in educational institutions.
Critics argue that the passage of H.R. 6090 represents an encroachment on civil liberties, particularly regarding free speech. Here are some of the main concerns:
Chilling Effect on Free Speech: By adopting a definition that includes criticisms of Israel, there are fears that individuals may self-censor their speech to avoid being labeled antisemitic. This could stifle legitimate discourse on Middle Eastern politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Broad Interpretation of Antisemitism: The IHRA definition is seen by some as overly broad, potentially conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. This could lead to a situation where academic and political discussions are curtailed, impacting the educational environment.
Impact on Academic Freedom: Universities are often seen as bastions of free thought and debate. Critics argue that the bill could undermine academic freedom by creating an environment where faculty and students may fear repercussions for discussing or critiquing Israeli policies.
Potential for Misuse: There are concerns that the bill could be misused to target individuals or groups advocating for Palestinian rights or critiquing Israeli government actions, leading to accusations of antisemitism that may not be warranted.
Pro-Israel Lobby Influence
The passage of H.R. 6090 has been significantly influenced by various pro-Israel advocacy groups, which have actively lobbied for the adoption of the IHRA definition. Here are some key points regarding this influence:
Bipartisan Support: The bill received substantial bipartisan support, passing with a vote of 320-91. This broad coalition reflects the effectiveness of pro-Israel lobbying efforts in garnering support across party lines 1.
Advocacy from Jewish Federations: Organizations such as the Jewish Federations of North America have been vocal advocates for the bill, emphasizing the need to combat rising antisemitism on college campuses. Their lobbying efforts have been crucial in mobilizing support for the legislation 2.
Criticism of Free Speech: Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the bill represents a dangerous encroachment on free speech, particularly for those who criticize Israeli policies. They contend that the pro-Israel lobby has engineered this legislation to suppress dissenting voices under the guise of combating antisemitism 3.
Political Strategy: Some commentators have described the bill as a politically motivated effort by the pro-Israel lobby to further its agenda in U.S. policy. They argue that the lobby has successfully framed the narrative around antisemitism to gain legislative traction 4.
Scope and Limitations Curbing Government Overreach of the First Amendment:
Napolitano a former Superior Court Judge in New Jersey and a legal scholar, asserts that the First Amendment’s protection of speech is absolute and applies to all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or the content of their speech. He criticizes recent legislation – specifically, HR 6090 aimed at defining and addressing anti-Semitism – as a violation of the First Amendment due to its potential for government overreach and punishment of speech. He clarifies that the First Amendment applies not only to Congress but also to all levels and branches of government, including the President, courts, and state and local authorities. He condemns chilling effects and indirect suppression of speech, highlighting the potential for government coercion of private companies like social media platforms to censor speech.
A Brief Lesson on Sacrosanct Right to Free Speech
Judge Napolitano decrying the passage of H.R. 6090, educates on the profound truth that was etched into the bedrock U.S. republic: that the freedom of speech is not a mere privilege bestowed by government, but an unalienable right derived from our very humanity. As Judge Andrew Napolitano reminds us, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" - words that ring true across the centuries, safeguarding the cornerstone of American democracy.
The Wellspring of Liberty
"Our rights come from our humanity," Napolitano stated is a fact the f Fathers understood, invoking the spirit of natural law the unalienable rights. This fundamental principle recognizes that our freedoms are not gifts from the state, but inherent to our nature as reasoning beings. The First Amendment does not grant us the right to speak freely - it acknowledges and protects a right we already possess.
As Napolitano explains, "Your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to read whatever you want...these are natural rights that come from your humanity." This understanding forms the bedrock of a truly free society, one where the marketplace of ideas flourishes unencumbered by government interference.
The Gathering Storm
Yet even as we celebrate this noble ideal, storm clouds gather on the horizon. The passage of H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, represents a troubling encroachment on our First Amendment liberties, if you will a precedent set, akin to opening the Pandora's box which would have a pervasive erosion of civil liberties at all levels of society. Under the guise of combating hatred, this legislation opens the door to government censorship and chilling effects on protected speech.
As Napolitano warns, "Congress shall make no law really means no law." The moment we allow exceptions and carve-outs to our freedom of expression, we set foot upon a slippery slope that leads inexorably to tyranny. For as the judge observes, "The whole purpose of the First Amendment...is to keep the government out of the business of speech."
The Torch of Liberty
As Napolitano reminds us, of the spirit that gave birth to the nation - that revolutionary zeal for freedom that spread like wildfire through the colonies., it was the unfettered exercise of free speech that ignited "the brushfires of Freedom" and turned the tide of public opinion in favor of independence.
Judge Neapolitan's Call to Action - Let us challenge overreach
Today, we face a choice: will we stand firm in defense of our sacred liberties, or allow them to be eroded in the name of fleeting security? The answer must be a resounding affirmation of our commitment to free expression.
For as Napolitano declares, the freedom of speech is "the lynchpin of all freedoms" - without it, all other rights crumble.
The Judge talks about a very important effect that some legislation and fear of being ostracized have, so what is the chilling effect?
The concept of "chilling effects" on free speech and both direct and indirect interference with freedom of expression are important topics in constitutional law and civil liberties. Here's an overview of how judges and courts have approached these issues:
A Psychological Muzzle
The "chilling effect" refers to the deterrent effect that laws or government actions can have on the exercise of free speech, even if they don't directly prohibit speech. Courts recognize that overly broad or vague laws can cause people to self-censor out of fear of potential consequences, thus "chilling" free expression.
Recourse:
Judges consider whether laws or actions could reasonably deter people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
Even if a law doesn't explicitly ban speech, it may be struck down if its chilling effect is too severe.
International Context: The adoption of the IHRA definition has been widespread, with many countries endorsing it. However, the implications of this adoption vary significantly, and in contexts like the UK, studies have shown that it has led to a chilling effect on freedom of speech within academic institutions, further complicating the discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine
IHRA claims its definition has been adopted by 43 governments, but the US has now introduced it into federal law. (Aljazeera)
**IHRA Definition: Adoption in Europe - ELNET:** The following European countries have adopted or endorsed the IHRA working definition of antisemitism
Germany a Paradox: Historical Atonement and Modern Moral Dilemma
Post WWII Germany as a nation grapples with the ghosts of its past, this brief look into events and policies into that shape and effects German society has clear signs of a influence of the Lobby.
The Shadow of the Past Looms Large Over Present Policy,
Germany, forever marked by the atrocities of the Holocaust, finds itself at a crossroads where historical responsibility collides with present-day moral imperatives.
In the Pro-Israel Lobby's Vice Grip
Germany's irrational support for Israel has long been viewed as a cornerstone of its post-war identity - a form of perpetual atonement for the sins of the Third Reich. This identity crisis is the misplaced loyalty where the actual identity was build on “Never Gain”. but failing at being universally inclusive.
This irrational commitment, under scrutiny in the face of mounting evidence of human rights violations in Gaza. Although a dichotomy exist of top down imposition, where the elite ruling class is seen increasingly out of touch with reality, as elucidated by Ilan Pappe in his interviews.
As reported by Deutsche Welle:
"The German government has rejected the International Court of Justice's ruling suggesting probable genocide in Gaza, reaffirming its support for Israel's right to self-defense."
This stance reflects a deeply ingrained political and cultural narrative that equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism - a simplistic equation that fails to account for the complexities of modern geopolitics.
The Moral Quagmire: Genocide Then and Now
The irony of Germany's position becomes painfully apparent in light of the International Court of Justice's preliminary findings on Gaza. A nation that has built its modern identity on "never again" now finds itself turning a blind eye to allegations of genocide.
"The ICJ's preliminary ruling suggests a probable case of genocide occurring in Gaza, attributed to Israeli military actions."
This presents a moral dilemma of epic proportions for Germany. How can a country so deeply scarred by its own genocidal past justify its support for actions that bear a chilling resemblance to those it has sworn to prevent?
The Price of Silence: Stifling Dissent and Free Speech
The phrase "Never Again" emerged as a powerful commitment in the aftermath of the Holocaust, a promise to prevent such atrocities from ever recurring. Yet, as the situation in Gaza unfolds, with mounting civilian casualties and humanitarian crises, this vow seems to falter at the Palestinian threshold. The violent suppression of voices calling for peace and justice exposes a deeply troubling paradox in Israel's approach to human rights and historical memory.
The Paradox of "Never Again" In its zeal to protect Israel from criticism, Germany has embarked on a draconian path oft with violent violent suppressing pro-Palestinian voices. The systematic silencing of dissenting voices, particularly those from within Jewish and Israeli communities marks a turning point. This crackdown on criticism not only undermines democratic principles but also raises troubling questions about the "Never Again" ethos, revealing a glaring Palestinian exception to this solemn pledge.
Silencing the Prophets Within
The recent crackdown on protests and the banning of public figures like Yanis Varoufakis for their stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict are stark examples of this trend.
"Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek Finance Minister, has been banned from entering Germany following the police shutdown of a pro-Palestinian conference in Berlin."
This heavy-handed approach not only undermines Germany's commitment to free speech but also raises questions about the country's ability to engage in nuanced diplomatic discourse.
"The Palestinian exception” to the 'Never Again' principle is not just a moral failing; it's a dangerous precedent that undermines the very foundations of post-Holocaust ethics.
This suppression extends to prominent German Jewish and Dissenting Diaspora Israeli figures who dare to question the government's policies. The treatment of these internal critics reveals a deeply troubling trend within Israeli society and its supporters abroad.
The Price of Conscience: Jewish and Israeli Dissenters
Günter Grass: The Nobel laureate's poem criticizing Israel's nuclear capabilities and actions in Gaza led to his branding as an antisemite, showcasing how even literary expression can be met with severe backlash. Michael Sfard: This Israeli human rights lawyer has faced significant repercussions for his outspoken criticism of government actions. His experiences highlight the challenges faced by legal professionals attempting to uphold human rights within Israel. Sfard noted, "The silencing of internal critics, especially during times of conflict, is a dangerous path that threatens the very essence of democracy in Israel."
Baruchin: The arrest of this Israeli activist on charges of "intent to commit treason" for his criticism of the government exemplifies the extreme measures taken to suppress dissent. These cases demonstrate a troubling pattern: the equation of criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism or treason, a conflation that serves to stifle legitimate debate and protest.
The Media Muzzle: Silencing Palestinian Voices
The Media not only silences Palestinian voices, but also actively engages is erasure of any notion of Palestinian Grief and suffering. One such case is the controversy surrounding Masha Gessen, a renowned Russian-American writer.
The Arendt Prize Debacle: A Microcosm of Larger Issues
The postponement of Masha Gessen's Hannah Arendt Prize ceremony in Germany serves as a poignant illustration role of pro-Israel Lobby or the Zionist backed Institutions. Gessen's comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto in a New Yorker article sparked immediate backlash, leading to the withdrawal of support from some award sponsors. This incident lays bare the complexities of Holocaust remembrance in contemporary political discourse.
"Germany's culture of learning about and atoning for the sins of the Nazi regime has morphed into steadfast support for the state of Israel despite its actions," Gessen observes, highlighting a paradoxical outcome of historical reckoning.
This transformation of historical guilt into unconditional political support raises questions of nature of memory and its role in shaping current society policies in Germany.
The Tyranny of Incomparability
At the heart of this controversy lies what Gessen terms "memory politics”. The cornerstone of this approach, as Gessen articulates, is the notion that "you can't compare the Holocaust to anything." This principle, while born from a desire to honor the unique horror of the Holocaust, has inadvertently created a barrier to critical analysis and historical learning.
"My argument is that in order to learn from history, we have to compare," Gessen asserts, challenging the prevailing orthodoxy.
This statement strikes at the core of a crucial debate: How can societies learn from historical atrocities if those events are placed beyond the realm of comparison?
Source: Democracy Now also Interview with Amanpoour & Compnay
Violent Crackdown on Protesters: Reminiscent of rise of Fascism
Germany's crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests reveals a troubling trend in a nation that prides itself on democratic values. The forceful dispersion of peaceful demonstrations and the arbitrary arrests of protesters, including German Jews critical of Israeli policies, raise alarming questions about the state of free speech in the country.
As reported by Al Jazeera:
"We Jews are just arrested; Palestinians are beaten," one protester lamented, highlighting the discriminatory treatment faced by demonstrators.
This heavy-handed approach not only undermines Germany's democratic principles but also risks alienating a significant portion of its population, including those within the Jewish community who do not align with the government's unequivocal support for Israel.
Citizenship as a Political Tool
The recent amendment to Germany's citizenship law, requiring new citizens to affirm Israel's right to exist, has sparked controversy. This unprecedented move intertwines national identity with a specific geopolitical stance, potentially excluding individuals based on their political views rather than their commitment to German values and society.
"In response to increasing antisemitism in Germany, the list of questions in the naturalization test has been expanded. New exam questions have been added on the topics of antisemitism, the right of the state of Israel to exist and Jewish life in Germany."
While the intention may be to combat antisemitism, critics argue that this approach conflates criticism of Israeli state actions with antisemitism, a dangerous oversimplification that could stifle legitimate political discourse.
The Humanitarian Cost of Unwavering Support
As legal pressures mount on Germany to reconsider its military aid to Israel, the government's steadfast refusal to do so raises ethical concerns. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with thousands of civilians killed and infrastructure decimated, calls into question the morality of continuing to supply weapons to Israel.
Deutsche Welle reports on the legal challenges:
"Multiple legal cases have been filed against Germany trying to force the government to cease military support for Israel. Germany says its policies are fully lawful."
This stance, however, fails to address the moral implications of potentially contributing to actions that many international observers have described as approaching genocide.
A Call for Moral Courage
As the death toll in Gaza continues to rise and the humanitarian crisis deepens, Germany faces a moment of reckoning. The time has come for the nation to demonstrate true moral courage - to recognize that genuine atonement for past sins lies not in blind allegiance, but in the steadfast defense of human rights and dignity for all.
The words of Hannah Arendt, a German-born Jewish philosopher who escaped Nazi Germany, ring truer than ever:
"The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."
Germany now stands at a precipice. Will it choose to confront the uncomfortable truths of the present, or will it remain shackled to a simplistic interpretation of its past? The world watches, and history will judge. As one might imagine a silenced critic saying, "When a state fears the words of its own citizens more than it fears the consequences of its actions, it has lost its moral compass."
To end the segment on Germany, next evident identity crisis in Euro vision song contest and the organizers failed original vision in the contest.
The Dissonant Notes of Eurovision: Art, Politics, and the Israeli Quandary
As the spectacle of Eurovision unfolds on 2024, the festival's purported message of unity through music was in disarray, soaked in Genocide complicity. The inclusion of Israel in this year's competition has ignited a firestorm of controversy, laying bare the sheer hypocrisy, Russia was banned for a lessor offensive in Ukraine.
The pro-Israel lobby's vigorous efforts to ensure Israel's participation and success in Eurovision is a stark example of the the long fascist arm of the Zionist project. Israeli contingent came in with guns blaring with Actual Israeli Police force in toe for protection. They also salted the wounds of the Eurovisson organizers by bringing in a previous Russian Contestant, who now sings for Israel on Dual Citizenship.
Art-washing Israels Savagery
As one impassioned protestor in Malmö, Sweden - home to a significant Palestinian diaspora - poignantly stated:
"Where we are from is against genocide and we don't support the Eurovision contest."
Critics argue that since Israel's Eurovision debut in 1973, the contest has been leveraged as a propaganda tool to divert attention from the occupation of Palestinian territories. This reached a crescendo in 2019 when Eurovision was held on the site of a destroyed Palestinian village - a fact that did not escape the notice of human rights advocates.
The juxtaposition of Israel's military actions in Gaza and the West Bank against its jubilant participation in Eurovision creates a jarring dissonance. As one observer noted:
"It is literally still going on while Eurovision is happening... I'm just going to put side by side what Israel is doing in Palestine, not just in Gaza also in West Bank where there's no Hamas, and I'm going to put that side by side with Eurovision where Israel is celebrating all the points it's collecting."
This cognitive dissonance has not gone unnoticed by other Eurovision participants. The disqualification of Dutch contestant Joost Klein, allegedly due to tensions with the Israeli delegation, has added fuel to the already raging fire of controversy.
The aggressive media campaign orchestrated by Israeli embassies and interest groups across Europe and even in the United States to garner votes for Israeli contestant Eden Golan further blurs the line between cultural celebration and political maneuvering. As one critic observed:
"Israeli embassies and interest groups everywhere across Europe and even in the US were advertising with a call to cast votes for Eden Golan, the Israeli singer. The Consulate General in New York even advertised in Times Square."
This concerted effort to influence public voting, coupled with the support of right-wing politicians in various European countries, raises questions about the integrity of the competition and its vulnerability to political manipulation.
The controversy surrounding Eurovision 2024 serves as a microcosm of larger Eurozone and Europe where you can see the same enactment.
The Israel Lobby in France: Stifling Freedom of Press, Speech, and Association
The Lobby’s influence manifests in various ways, including legislative actions, public discourse, and the treatment of dissenting voices.
Legislative Influence and Definitions of Antisemitism
The adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism by the French government has been a focal point of contention. Suppress legitimate criticism of Israel by conflating it with antisemitism. This has led to a chilling effect on free speech, particularly among academics and activists who express solidarity with the Palestinian cause (Middle East Eye).
As such Academic institutions in France have felt the pressure from the Israel lobby, with instances of scholars facing backlash for their research or public statements regarding Israel and Palestine. This environment can stifle academic freedom and discourage critical inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or discourse on Zionism (Middle East Eye).
Media and Public Discourse
The media landscape in France is heavily influenced by pro-Israel narratives, often sidelining Palestinian perspectives. Reports indicate that journalists face pressure from lobby groups, which can lead to self-censorship. The Europe Israel Press Association (EIPA) has been noted for its role in connecting journalists with Israeli state representatives, further complicating the independence of media reporting on Israel-Palestine issues (Free Speech on Israel).
The resurgence of blacklists targeting individuals and organizations critical of Israel has also been documented. These blacklists can deter journalists and activists from expressing their views, fearing professional repercussions, much akin to repression seen during the rise of fascism in Europe. One could argue the veil has been lifted on this fascism as its repressive arm is getting more blatant.
To move things to a more broader stage.
Comparison of Media Bias in Reporting Palestinian Grief
The portrayal of Palestinian grief in Western media is often marked by significant bias, which can be analyzed through various lenses, including language use, framing, and the overall narrative presented. Here’s a detailed comparison based on recent findings and analyses.
Language and Framing
Descriptive Language: Reports on Israeli casualties often use emotionally charged terms like "massacre" and "atrocities," particularly in the context of Hamas attacks. In contrast, similar language is rarely applied to describe Israeli military actions in Gaza, which are often framed in more neutral terms. For instance, the BBC has been criticized for its reluctance to describe Israeli bombardments with the same severity as it does Hamas attacks, reflecting a systemic bias in language choice (Al Jazeera).
Humanization vs. Dehumanization: There is a notable disparity in how victims are humanized. Reports often focus on the personal stories of Israeli victims while neglecting the narratives of Palestinian victims. This imbalance contributes to a perception that Palestinian lives are less valuable, as highlighted by various analysts (The Intercept).
Coverage Disparities
Casualty Reporting: Studies have shown that major U.S. newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, exhibit a consistent bias against Palestinians. For example, during the recent Gaza conflict, more Palestinian children died in the first week than during the first year of the Ukraine war, yet the coverage of Palestinian suffering was significantly less sympathetic (The Intercept).
Visual Representation: Images used in reporting can also reflect bias. In contrast, images depicting destruction in Gaza often lack the personal stories that could humanize the victims.
Grief in Gaza: Image of Mourning Palestinian Wins World Press Photo Award
This article discusses a powerful image of a grieving Palestinian woman that won the World Press Photo of the Year Award. While images that humanizes the Palestinian Grief is rare, specially in the western media, the image that won the Photo of the Year Award makes it.
Let's Talk About How the Media Covers Gaza
This piece from The Nation explores the media's portrayal of Gaza, emphasizing the stark contrast between images of Palestinian lives vs Israeli. It discusses how social media has changed the landscape of visual representation.
Bias Hiding in Plain Sight: Decades of Analyses Suggest US Media Skews Anti-Palestinian
This article examines how U.S. media has historically skewed its coverage against Palestinians, including the visual representation of events. It discusses the implications of this bias on public perception.
Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: BBC a Case Study
This academic paper analyzes the degree of bias in media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focusing on how images and narratives are constructed. It provides insights into the mechanisms that generate bias in visual reporting.
Lack of Context: BBC often fails to provide sufficient historical and political context in its reporting. This omission can lead to a simplistic portrayal of complex issues. McTigue notes, "The problems that arise in media coverage of the conflict are innumerable and stem from various factors that affect reporting at a fundamental level." This lack of depth can misinform audiences about the intricacies of the conflict.
Stereotyping: BBC sometimes reinforces stereotypes about the parties involved in the conflict. For instance, Palestinians may be depicted as terrorists, while Israelis are portrayed as victims. McTigue mentions that "numerous criticisms have been leveled at the BBC for not reporting in a balanced, impartial manner," which can contribute to these harmful stereotypes.
Censorship: Accusations of self-censorship have surfaced, particularly regarding criticism of Israel. Critics suggest that this is linked to fears of backlash from influential lobby groups. McTigue discusses how "the realization that the media was in fact having a sizable effect on public perspective of the conflict" has led to increased scrutiny and pressure on organizations like the BBC.
Lack of Expertise: The paper states, "there are many accusations that the BBC does not report in a balanced... impartial manner," suggesting that a lack of thorough understanding can lead to superficial reporting.
Political Pressure: As a public broadcaster funded by the UK government, some critics argue that the BBC is subject to political pressure, which can influence its coverage. McTigue points out that "officials and the party in power felt the BBC was not being balanced in its reporting," indicating how political dynamics may affect journalistic integrity. Often the pressure comes from Pro-Israel Lobby.
Insensitivity: Critics have accused the BBC of insensitivity in its reporting, particularly concerning Palestinian suffering. This insensitivity can manifest through language and story selection. McTigue emphasizes that "the existence of a public Palestinian voice... has not always been a strong one," which might contribute to an underrepresentation of Palestinian perspectives and experiences.
John Tusa's: British broadcaster, author, and former managing director of the BBC World Service, one of the critics of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is quoted as saying, "The BBC has a great difficulty in getting its head around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not good at describing the context, the history, the dynamics, and the passions."
The collaborative documentary project, "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs," illustrates how the same raw footage, edited and presented by different organizations, can yield vastly different narratives, underscoring the impact of framing and editorial decisions.
"The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs,": A collaborative documentary project is taken as an example, exemplifies how different editing choices and perspectives can drastically alter the narrative derived from the same raw footage. The film, which compiles extensive archival material, showcases various events from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet the way these events are framed significantly influences audience interpretation. As noted in a review, "the editing decisions made by different organizations can lead to entirely different portrayals of the same historical events," emphasizing how editorial choices can shift the focus and emotional weight of the narrative.
Tamar Liebes' concept of "our" versus "their" war serves as a critical lens for understanding media coverage of conflicts like this one. In her analysis, "us" typically refers to the group that is perceived as the primary audience or community that resonates with the narrative being presented, often aligning with Western or Israeli perspectives. Conversely, "them" refers to those who are seen as outsiders or adversaries, which in this context often includes Palestinians. Liebes explains that this dichotomy shapes how stories are told, leading to a tendency for media outlets to emphasize narratives that reinforce the identity and experiences of "us," while marginalizing or demonizing "them." This framework illustrates how media framing can perpetuate divisions and influence public perception.
Explore the Paper: McTigue, Gerard. "Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: With a Case Study of BBC Coverage and Its Foundation of Impartiality." Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects, 2011. Web. 23 Sep 2024..
'Dead' Versus 'Killed': A Closer Look at the Media Bias in Reporting the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Like Liebe’s concept of “Our vs Their” or “Us vs Them”, this article discusses the language and imagery used in media reporting, highlighting how the choice of words and visuals can reflect a pro-Israel bias while neglecting the human stories of Palestinian victims.
Read more: IMedD Lab
Cultural and Historical Context
Lack of Historical Context: Many reports fail to provide the necessary historical background that informs the current situation. This omission can lead to a misunderstanding of the Palestinian plight, as the media often neglects the long-standing issues of colonialism and dispossession that shape Palestinian experiences (Al Jazeera).
The media's portrayal of grief in the context of the Ukraine conflict has been markedly different, with extensive coverage of civilian suffering and personal stories. This contrast highlights a bias that prioritizes certain narratives over others, often influenced by geopolitical interests, i.e Lobbying from the Pro-Israel Lobby. (The Intercept).
Erosion of Credibility: The bias in reporting has led to a significant erosion of trust in Western media among the younger Generation and Global-south audiences. Many feel that the media fails to accurately represent Palestinian perspectives, which has prompted initiatives like the "We Are Not Numbers" project, aimed at sharing personal stories from Gaza to counteract the impersonal nature of statistical reporting (Al Jazeera: Why Journalists are Speaking out Against Western Media Bias in Reporting on Israel-Palestine).
Study shows BBC 'bias' in reporting on Palestinian and Israeli deaths
Top US Newspapers Show 'Consistent Bias' Against Palestinians: Analysis
Fox News spent just 12 minutes covering “flour massacre" in Gaza
A 2018 study of the Associated Press found that Israeli deaths were reported on at a rate of nearly four times greater than on Palestinian deaths. Earlier studies found similar or even larger distortion. (IfAmericanKnew.Org)
The Role of Social Media Platforms: The Bazaar & the Cathedral
Emergence of Alternative Narratives: Social media platforms, particularly TikTok, have become vital spaces for pro-Palestinian voices to share their narratives and experiences. These platforms allow for the dissemination of content that challenges mainstream media portrayals, providing a counter-narrative to the dominant pro-Israel framing. The ability to share personal stories and grassroots activism has empowered younger generations to engage with the issue in a more meaningful way (The Guardian).
Concerns Over Censorship: The potential banning of platforms like TikTok raises concerns about censorship and the suppression of pro-Palestinian narratives. Many young users view such actions as attempts to control the narrative and limit access to diverse perspectives, further fueling distrust in mainstream media (NPR).
What does the recent TikTok ban bill represent? According to a survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), there's a discernible issue among Gen Z's support for Israel. This issue transcends the traditional left-wing or right-wing political divide. Recently, there has been a significant shift in the media consumption habits of Gen Z. They are progressively gravitating towards TikTok as their primary platform for obtaining news, up-to-date information on current events, and for social interaction with friends. This shift could have potential implications, as the information disseminated on such platforms can shape users' views on various topics, including geopolitical issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, the recent TikTok ban bill could be seen as a response to this shift, reflecting on the media influence grip which the establishment had before.
Rise of Independent Media
Alternative Sources for Pro-Palestinian Narratives: The rejection of mainstream media has led to a rise in independent media outlets that prioritize pro-Palestinian perspectives. These platforms often provide a more nuanced and empathetic portrayal of the conflict, allowing for a broader range of voices to be heard. Independent journalists and content creators are increasingly using platforms like Substack and Patreon to share their work directly with audiences, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers (Columbia Journalism Review).
Community Engagement: Independent media fosters a sense of community among its audience, encouraging dialogue and engagement around pro-Palestinian issues. This participatory approach resonates with younger generations who value interaction and connection over passive consumption of information (The Atlantic).
Some Notable Independent Media outlets:
Novara Media: A UK-based independent media organization that covers a range of social justice issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often providing critical analysis and commentary. Visit Novara Media
DoubleDown News: This independent news outlet focuses on social justice and political issues, including coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often highlighting underreported stories. Visit DoubleDown News
The Grayzone: An independent news website that provides investigative journalism and critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy, including coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a critical perspective. Visit The Grayzone
Breakthrough News: This independent media outlet focuses on social justice and political issues, providing coverage and analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among other global issues. Visit Breakthrough News
The Intercept: While not exclusively focused on Palestine, The Intercept often publishes investigative journalism and analysis that critiques mainstream media narratives and highlights issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Visit The Intercept
Truthout: Truthout is a nonprofit news organization that provides independent reporting and analysis on social justice issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They often feature articles that challenge mainstream narratives. Visit Truthout
Middle East Eye: This independent news organization covers the Middle East and North Africa, providing in-depth reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and amplifying voices from the region. Visit Middle East Eye
The New Arab: This online platform covers news and analysis from the Arab world, including in-depth reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often emphasizing Palestinian perspectives. Visit The New Arab
The Jimmy Dore Show: A political commentary show that often critiques mainstream media narratives, including those related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from a progressive perspective. Visit The Jimmy Dore Show
The Katie Halper Show: Is a political podcast and YouTube show hosted by comedian and writer Katie Halper. The show features interviews, discussions, and commentary on a wide range of topics, including politics, media, and social justice. Visit The Katie Halper Show
Palestine Focused News Media
The Electronic Intifada: This independent online publication focuses on Palestine and the Palestinian struggle for rights, providing news, analysis, and commentary from a pro-Palestinian perspective. Visit The Electronic Intifada
Mondoweiss: Mondoweiss is a news website that covers American foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a focus on human rights and social justice. Visit Mondoweiss
Palestine Chronicle: This online publication offers news, analysis, and commentary on Palestinian issues, aiming to provide a platform for Palestinian voices and perspectives. Visit Palestine Chronicle
Hollywood:Reel to Real: The Harmful Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in American Film and Television
Hollywood has long been criticized for its negative and stereotypical portrayal of Arabs and Muslims, often depicting them as villains, terrorists, and uncivilized individuals. This trend not only shapes public perception but also reinforces U.S. political and foreign policy toward the Arab and Muslim world, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In his groundbreaking book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, Jack G. Shaheen meticulously documents over 900 films that perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims, dating from the silent era to contemporary blockbusters. Shaheen the rsearch outlines instances in each film where Arabs or Muslims are portrayed negatively or fairly. Approximately 95% with a staggering 936 out of 1,000 films films he reviewed depict Arabs as evil-doers, money-hungry sheiks, religious fanatics, and even sub-human individuals (Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People). This consistent demonization contributes to a cultural narrative that justifies military actions and political interventions in the Middle East (Hollywood's Bad Arabs - The Cairo Review of Global Affairs).
Arabs are the most malign group in the history of Hollywood they're portrayed basically as subhumans unmention a term used by Nazis to vilify Gypsies and Jews these images have been with us for more than a century
The relationship between Hollywood narratives and U.S. foreign policy is significant. Films frequently depict Arabs as antagonists, which aligns with broader political agendas that portray these communities as threats to Western values. As Jack Shaheen discusses in his book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People
“Daddy Daddy Bad Arabs Are On TV”
This consistent demonization contributes to a cultural narrative that justifies military actions and political interventions in the Middle East (Hollywood's Bad Arabs - The Cairo Review of Global Affairs).
I posed this question forty years ago, when I first began researching Arab images. My children, Michael and Michele, who were six and five years old at the time, are, in part, responsible. Their cries, “Daddy, Daddy, they’ve got bad Arabs on TV,” motivated me to devote my professional career to educating people about the stereotype.
The media's role in shaping perceptions cannot be overstated. Repeated exposure to negative stereotypes in films affects how audiences understand Arab cultures.
The Impact of Post-9/11 Media: Orientalist Trope to Islamophobia.
The media's role in shaping perceptions cannot be overstated. Repeated exposure to negative stereotypes in films affects how audiences understand Arab cultures. For instance, post-9/11 media portrayals have predominantly framed Arabs and Muslims as barbaric and violent, reinforcing harmful stereotypes that lead to increased Islamophobia and hate crimes against Arab and Muslim Americans (Rhetorikos: The Impact of Media on Public Perception).
A study by Saifuddin Ahmed and Jörg Matthes found that media discourse often relies on Orientalist tropes that frame Muslims as the "Other," further entrenching societal biases (Rhetorikos: The Impact of Media on Public Perception). Public opinion polls executed by the Pew Research Center demonstrate that non-Muslim viewpoints of Muslims generally align with these depictions. For instance, 63% of white Evangelicals and Republicans believe that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths; 56% believe that Islam contains a fair number of extremist followers; and 72% believe there is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and democracy (Reel to Real: Harmful Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in American Film and Television).
An especially egregious demonstration of villainous portrayals is seen in the correlation between American Sniper and the murder of three UNC Chapel Hill students. The sister of slain college student Deah Barakat suggested that American Sniper contributed to harmful opinions against Muslims, which ultimately led to tragic outcomes. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported an escalation in threats against Muslim and Arab communities following the film's release (American Sniper Causes Islamophobia).
“The relation between images of Arabs and Muslims as unmodern extremists who must be subdued by white patriots bears real-life consequences that severely and fatally affect Arabs and Muslims” (Reel to Real: Harmful Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in American Film and Television).
After 9/11, TV programmers made America’s Arabs and Muslims visible but did so by vilifying them as disloyal Americans intent on terrorizing society. Shaheen points out that viewers were bombarded with images portraying them as clones of Osama bin Laden.
“Soon after the September 11 attacks... they surfaced in numerous popular TV shows as villains, intent on blowing up America” (Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People).
The Rule Rather Than the Exception: Hollywood Mantra
Filmmakers bear a responsibility to challenge these damaging narratives. Despite some attempts to present more nuanced portrayals of Arab characters, the dominant imagery remains rooted in stereotypes of violence and oppression. As noted by Edward Said in his seminal work Orientalism, these representations serve to justify Western dominance by portraying Eastern societies as exotic, inferior, “The Other”.(Spheres of Influence: Hollywood and the Dehumanization of Arabs).
Shaheen emphasizes that while there are indeed bad individuals across all races and religions, no one group has a monopoly on goodness or innocence. However, the stereotype of Arabs is so prevalent and powerful that it becomes internalized by audiences who struggle to separate reel from real.
“You don’t tar an entire race or religion... based on the actions of a small minority” (Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People).
The Israeli presence on American television has also helped solidify these stereotypes. For instance, CBS producer Donald P. Bellisario introduced an Israeli heroine while simultaneously demonizing Arabs in his series JAG (1995–2005). This pattern continues with shows like Homeland, which are criticized for their Islamophobic narratives.
“Most of the Arab and Muslim characters in this series are villains... Viewers are left to believe that Muslims/Arabs participate in terrorist networks like Americans send holiday cards” (Hollywood’s Bad Arabs).
Through the Looking Glass: Hollywood's Complicity in Whitewashing Israel's Occupation
Hollywood's portrayal of Israel and Palestine reflects a complex interplay of cultural narratives, propaganda, and political agendas. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, Hollywood has often served as a platform for shaping perceptions, presenting Israel as a bastion of democracy while frequently depicting Palestinians in a negative light. From classic films like Exodus, which romanticized the Israeli narrative, to contemporary comedies that subtly reinforce pro-Israel sentiments, the industry has woven a fabric of representation that influences Western audiences (Hollywood Reflects Shifting Views on Israel-Palestine Conflict; Examining The Framing Of The Israel-Palestine Conflict).
Propaganda As Entertainment
Interestingly, even light-hearted genres like comedies are not exempt from this agenda. Movies such as Bruno, directed by Sacha Baron Cohen, may appear innocuous but carry underlying messages that often vilify Palestinians while sparing Israel from critique. This nuanced approach allows Hollywood to propagate a pro-Israel narrative under the guise of humor, effectively steering public sentiment without overtly stating its intentions (The Israel – Palestine Conflict: The Power of Narratives and the Quest for Justice).
"By the way, journalist Alan McLoud found out who the CIA agent that helped Sacha find the character, the Palestinian character for his film, and that CIA agent turned whistleblower, his name is John Kiriakou. John said that eventually, Sacha was actually interviewing a Palestinian NGO worker that they claimed is a terrorist." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
As Jack Sheehan points out in Reel Bad Arabs some studios were just for propaganda.
one reason we've not been allowed to empathize with any Palestinian uh on on the Silver Screen is is due to two Israeli producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globu these two filmmakers created an American company called Canon and they released in a period of 20 years at least 30 Films which vilify all things Arab particularly pal Palestinians
Sheehan Continues:
.. and we never see never see Palestinians who suffer under occupation Palestinians in refugee camps Palestinians who are victimized who were killed innocent Palestinians… These images are denied us now why are they denied us .. is there an Unwritten code in Hollywood saying we cannot and will not humanize Palestinians I mean why can't we humanize Palestinians in the same manner in which we humanize Israelis, is not the life of a Palestinian child media wise Hollywood wise politically wise as important as Humane as valuable as the life of an Israeli child and if the answer to that is yes why can't we see that on Silver Screen
Collaboration with Intelligence Agencies
Moreover, the relationship between Hollywood and U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, complicates matters further. Reports suggest that the CIA has actively collaborated with filmmakers like Cohen, illustrating how intelligence services can influence mainstream narratives. This collaboration raises questions about the integrity of artistic expression in an industry that often prioritizes political objectives over authentic storytelling.
"The producers of the film actually say that the military didn't know what was going on, and then the crew with Bruno, with Sacha, made their escape. We're supposed to believe that they accessed a milit— US military base? They would have sued them! Like this is a national security concern. There could be like special tech in the background, like this is not like 'Oh, sorry, you made your escape. Now you made a movie.' What a joke! It's obvious that they knew, that they're all performing." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
In Reel Bad Arabs Documentary Jack Shaheen quotes Jack Valenti to make the point, Washington is deep in Hollywood using it as a tool.
Jack Valente president of the moan Picture
Association of America has said quote Washington and Hollywood spring from the same DNA end quote the Arab Image began to to change immediately after World War II there were three things that impacted the change the Palestinian Israeli conflict …
Silencing Dissent
The silencing of pro-Palestinian voices in Hollywood adds another layer to this intricate web. High-profile figures such as Vanessa Redgrave and Susan Sarandon have faced backlash for their outspoken support of Palestine, highlighting the industry's pressure to conform to pro-Israel sentiments (Hollywood Stars Call for Protection of Pro-Palestinian Voices from 'McCarthyist Repression'). This dynamic fosters an environment where dissent is not just discouraged but often leads to career repercussions, stifling meaningful discourse on a deeply contentious issue (Melissa Barrera and Others in Hollywood Lose Jobs, Representation Over War Commentary).
"I have an Israeli barber, he does my beard, and while he was—he was—he was cutting my beard he—he was asking me about my thoughts on Israel and Palestine, and I—I noticed that the—the closer the blade got to my throat the more I became pro-Israeli." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
Read More:
Hollywood Stars Call for Protection of Pro-Palestinian Voices from 'McCarthyist Repression'
Melissa Barrera and Others in Hollywood Lose Jobs, Representation Over War Commentary
The Price of Speaking Out: Hollywood's Blacklist Against Palestine: https://electronicintifada.net/content/price-speaking-out-hollywoods-blacklist-against-palestine/
Susan Sarandon dropped by agency for speaking against Israeli violence: https://www.timesofisrael.com/susan-sarandon-dropped-by-agency-for-calling-out-israeli-violence/
Media Ownership and Influence
Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch wield considerable influence in shaping global narratives, particularly those favorable to Israel. Their ownership of major media outlets enables the dissemination of pro-Israel perspectives while marginalizing alternative viewpoints. This concentration of power raises concerns about the representation of diverse narratives in mainstream media.
"Without a sympathetic Western media, Israel wouldn't be able to ethnically cleanse Gaza. It relies on crucial media support for its project." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
Cultural Propaganda
Beyond political agendas, Hollywood has also served as a tool for cultural propaganda, portraying Israel in a positive light while framing Palestinians negatively. This portrayal often extends to historical figures in Hollywood, like Frank Sinatra and Elizabeth Taylor, who supported Israeli causes, illustrating how celebrity endorsement can shape public perception.
"Israel has always understood that this war is a PR, Culture War, as much as it is a military one. It's a media war essentially." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
War and Ideology
The intertwining of American and Israeli militaristic narratives further complicates the discourse, as Hollywood projects both nations' ideologies through various media. This cultural imperialism underscores a broader critique of how military power is portrayed and justified in popular culture.
"It's very important to mention here that America doesn't project its dominance only through the military, although it does that through the military with its more than 800 bases around the world, which, by the way, is more than any other nation or empire in the history of the world, and one could argue that one of these bases, and the most important base, is Israel." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
Resistance and Hope
Yet amidst this pervasive narrative, voices of resistance emerge. Palestinians are increasingly using art and storytelling as forms of resistance, planting seeds of awareness and hope (Art as a Form of Resistance: Palestinian Artists Stand Against Israeli Occupation; The Art of Resistance for the Palestinian People). Movements like BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) urge individuals to be mindful of their consumer choices, fostering a collective responsibility to challenge oppressive regimes (Hollywood Stars Call for Protection Against Being Penalized for Supporting Palestine).
"The good news, because you know I always want to end my videos on a good note, is that this relationship between Israel and Hollywood, there's starting to be some cracks." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
"What gives me hope also in Hollywood is that new Hollywood stars, even Jewish Hollywood stars, are starting to challenge that system." (How Israel Weaponizes Pop Culture)
Art as a Form of Resistance: Palestinian Artists Stand Against Israeli Occupation
Freedom Theater: In Jenin a major cultural Institute in Palestine.
A Call for Change
Despite these negative portrayals, Shaheen notes a potential turnaround in Hollywood's approach. Some reality shows and documentaries have begun to present more positive humanized portrayals of Muslims and Arabs. For example, All-American Muslim aired on TLC and focused on five Muslim American families from Dearborn, on the silver screen movies like Three Kings, Kingdom of Haven, and Paradise now for for Humanizing Palestinians.
I'm an optimist and I believe in the future particular particularly in Young filmmakers The Stereotype will change it will change because young men and women who are entering the profession will see that there has been a grave Injustice committed and they'll make attempts to correct it it's only a matter of time as to when this will happen but it will take place look we've unlearned many of our prejudices against blacks Native Americans Jews other groups why can't we unlearn our prejudices against Arabs and Muslims {Jack Sheehan: Reel Bad Arabs:
There is hope for change the movement in gaining momentum. It is not only imperative for filmmakers to recognize their influence and strive for more accurate representations that reflect the diversity and humanity of Arab and Muslim Culture, but often for ordinary people see in that difference perspective, recognize the propaganda, the vilification requires, others pointing it out. Thanks to efforts of Jack Sheehan, and many a independent media personalities in the social media space, like Indie Nile who are education the younger generation. So we can collectively demand something else,
Watch: Reel Bad Arabs:
Media Education Foundation: Reel Bad Arab | Free Films For Context On Israel War On Gaza
Media Education Foundations: Full Collection on Israel/Palestine
Farha (2021): A Movie On the Tragedy “Nakba” After persuading her father to continue her education in the city, a Palestinian girl's dream is shattered by the harrowing developments of the Nakba.
Manufacturing Consent for A Genocide
This phenomenon of "manufacturing consent" - a term coined by Noam Chomsky to describe how media can be used to shape public opinion in favor of elite interests - is evident in several key aspects of the coverage:
Dehumanization of Palestinians
A critical element in justifying violence against a population is stripping away their humanity. As noted by CAIR Los Angeles:
"Mainstream media and members of the U.S. and the Israeli governments have used dehumanizing rhetoric to refer to Palestinians, including calling them 'human animals,' 'monsters in Gaza,' and 'children of darkness.'"
Such language, reminiscent of rhetoric used to justify past atrocities, serves to numb audiences to Palestinian suffering and portray them as deserving of collective punishment.
Passive Voice and Shifting Blame
The use of passive voice in reporting Israeli military actions obscures responsibility and deflects blame. As CAIR observes:
"News headlines report that Israelis die actively after being 'killed' or 'butchered' by Hamas, while Palestinians passively 'lose their lives' or 'die' with the attacker being left unnamed."
This linguistic sleight-of-hand subtly reinforces a narrative of Israeli victimhood while downplaying its role as an aggressor.
Misleading Terminology
The framing of the situation as a "conflict" or "war" between equals, rather than a military occupation and siege, distorts the fundamental power dynamics at play. As CAIR notes:
"Many media outlets use terms like 'war,' 'conflict,' and 'clashes' to describe the ongoing violence against the Palestinians. These terms suggest that there is a disagreement between two equal parties and downplays the genocide and ethnic cleansing Israel is committing against the Palestinians."
Sensationalized and Unverified Claims
Perhaps most troublingly, respected outlets have uncritically amplified sensationalized and often unverified claims about Hamas atrocities. As journalist Jonathan Cook observes:
"Babies being beheaded, or put in ovens, or hung out on clothes lines. No invented outrage by Hamas has been too improbable to have been denied front-page treatment, only to be quietly dropped later when each has turned out to be just as fabricated as it should have sounded to any reporter familiar with the way propagandists exploit the fog of war."
Such reporting serves to inflame emotions and justify disproportionate military responses, while later corrections rarely receive the same prominence.
The cumulative effect of these media practices is to create a narrative environment conducive to accepting or even supporting actions that might otherwise be seen as unconscionable. As Cook notes:
"To stamp out such thoughts, Western elites have had to do two things. First, they have tried to persuade their publics that the acts they collude in are not as bad as they look. And then that the evil perpetrated by the enemy is so exceptional, so unconscionable it justifies a response in kind."
Bryce Greene & Electronic intifada On Mainstream Media's manipulation of public opinion
In a recent analysis, on Electronic intifada, Bryce Greene, a contributor to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, offers an incisive critique on how the Pro-Israel Lobby exerts influence on media outlets, molding public perception to facilitate policies that may lead to genocide in Gaza.
"Most Americans have this image of their press as obstinate and challenging power, trying to rake up real stories to help the American people understand the world better. But that doesn't square with the reality of actual media performance."
Media Complicity in Manufacturing Consent
They engage in selective reporting that leans heavily towards Israeli perspectives, minimizing or outright ignoring Palestinian losses.
Greene points out, credible Israeli reports have surfaced detailing incidents where Israeli victims were killed by their own military in "friendly fire" during Hamas attacks on October 7th. In contrast, U.S. media like the Washington Post have treated such reports dismissively or have assailed independent media outlets for investigating these claims.
"Even without military censorship, American editors and journalists understand the topics that are not supposed to talk about, and they understand that they can easily get ahead if they attack the people who do."
The Hannibal Directive and Media Silence
Greene notes the Hannibal Directive, a policy allowing Israeli forces to use any means necessary to prevent their soldiers from being captured, even at the cost of killing them. This policy is widely discussed in the Israeli press but barely mentioned in American media. Despite its relevance, U.S. outlets like the New York Times refrain from highlighting such controversial practices.
"It's not about people who do the reading, follow the news every day... This is for the general public, people who are too busy to sit down and read 14 electronic intifa articles a day."
Israeli general killed Israelis on 7 October then lied about it
Is Hamas to blame for all the civilian deaths on Oct7, what is the Hannibal Doctrine, who is responsible the burned bodies in Kibbutz Bieri, Electronic intifada delves into these questions, and the Israeli narrative collapses.
The Impact and Intent
Who is the target audience?, Greene argues that the aim is not to convince well-informed individuals but to shape the opinions of those who are either fanatically pro-Israel or indifferent to deeper inquiries into the conflict. The repetitive nature of these reports creates an environment where the official narrative remains unchallenged, effectively "nudging people away from the truth."
UN Report and Media Misrepresentation
A recent UN report further exemplifies this collusion. The report, while purporting to validate claims of mass rapes by Hamas during the October 7th attack, falls short on evidence. Greene points out that the UN team admitted to having seen no video evidence and relied heavily on information from Israeli National institutions rather than independently verified facts.
Despite these glaring gaps, major media outlets have used the UN report to bolster their narratives. Columnists like Brett Stephens of the New York Times have weaponized these unverified claims to delegitimize criticism, further entrenching a one-sided view.
Creating the Chilling Effect is their Goal
The case of Professor Abdul Kadri Ceno at Indiana University illustrates the broader impact of these skewed narratives. Ceno, who was involved in organizing a speaking event featuring Miko Peled, has been suspended over minor bureaucratic errors.
"Creating this chilling effect has been their goal, but there has been a lot of pushback from the community, faculty, and other students."
The Weaponization of Rape Allegations
How the Western media helped build the case for genocide in Gaza From obscuring the West’s role in starving Gaza to sensationalized accounts of mass rape by Hamas, journalists are playing the role of propagandists, not reporters
Is Hamas really so evil, so cunning, so much of a threat that it requires mass slaughter? Does the West really believe that the attack of 7 October warrants the killing, maiming and orphaning of many, many tens of thousands of children as a response?
To stamp out such thoughts, Western elites have had to do two things. First, they have tried to persuade their public that the acts they collude in are not as bad as they look. And then that the evil perpetrated by the enemy is so exceptional, so unconscionable it justifies a response in kind.
Which is exactly the role Western media has played over the past five months.
The use of rape allegations as propaganda is not a new phenomenon. Historically, claims of widespread sexual violence have been wielded to demonize enemy forces and rationalize brutal military interventions. From World War I propaganda depicting "German barbarism" to more recent conflicts, rape narratives have often been leveraged to stir public outrage and garner support for war.
In the context of Gaza, prominent news organizations like the New York Times and The Guardian have published reports alleging "systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas" during the October 7 attacks. However, these claims have faced increasing scrutiny:
Independent outlets such as Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, the Grayzone and others have gradually pulled apart the Hamas mass rape narrative.
Following the investigation by the above mentioned News outlets The Intercept raised serious questions about the journalistic integrity behind some of these reports:
More shocking still, it was the paper's editors who then pressured her to find the story. In violation of investigative norms, the narrative was reverse engineered: imposed from the top, not found through on-the-ground reporting.
The lack of forensic evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies have further undermined the credibility of these allegations. Yet, the impact of such reporting on public perception cannot be understated. By framing Hamas as uniquely barbaric, these stories may serve to soften criticism of Israel's military actions in Gaza, which have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, what ICJ the world court has ruled as a probable Genocide unfolding.
Critics argue that this narrative fits into a broader pattern of media complicity in downplaying or justifying Israel's actions:
To make a plausible case that Hamas changed the rules of war that day, much greater deviance and sinfulness has been required. And the liberal Western media have willingly played their part by recycling claims of mass, systematic rape by Hamas, combined with lurid claims of necrophilic perversions – while suggesting anyone who asks for evidence is condoning such bestiality.
The selective focus on unverified rape allegations, while largely ignoring documented Israeli war crimes and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, raises questions about the objectivity and agenda of mainstream Western media outlets.
UN Report Findings
The United Nations, through its Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, reported that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that sexual violence, including rape, occurred during the attacks. However, the report has also faced criticism for not conclusively proving that these acts were systematic or sanctioned by Hamas as a weapon of war. Some interpretations of the report suggest that while individual acts of sexual violence were documented, the evidence for a coordinated strategy of mass rape is lacking.
• Media coverage of UN report on 7 October challenged for 'inaccurate portrayal': This article discusses the challenges to the media's portrayal of the UN report and the allegations of sexual violence. • There Was No Cover-Up of Hamas's Sexual Violence on October 7: This article discusses the context of the UN's findings and critiques the media's portrayal of the events, emphasizing that while sexual violence occurred, claims of systematic mass rape are contested.
The New York Times Article: "Screams Without Words"
In December 2023, the New York Times published an article titled "Screams Without Words: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7," which detailed accounts of sexual violence during the attacks. This article has since been criticized for its editorial process and the evidence it presented. Critics argue that the article lacked sufficient corroboration and that it may have contributed to misinformation regarding the scale and nature of the violence 3. Following backlash, the New York Times faced internal scrutiny and has since pulled the article from circulation, acknowledging the need for more rigorous fact-checking
Journalism professors call on the New York Times to review report on 7 October sexual violence: This piece highlights calls from journalism educators for a review of the New York Times' reporting on the allegations.
The GrayZones dissects the Israeli claims of mass rapes as a tool by Hamas on Oct 7
@MaxBlumenthal and @aaronjmate methodically debunk the Times' bogus report alleging Palestinian militants systematically raped Israelis on October 7, and respond to their own critics' sloppy attacks
Family Denouncement of Misinformation
Families of alleged victims have come forward to denounce the reporting surrounding these claims, asserting that many accounts have been exaggerated or misrepresented. They argue that the media's portrayal has led to a narrative that does not accurately reflect the experiences of those involved (Democracy Now).
The London Times Perspective
The London Times has also published articles questioning the evidence of systematic mass rape by Hamas. Experts cited in these articles have stated that there is insufficient evidence to support claims that Hamas intentionally used rape as a weapon of war. This perspective aligns with findings from various investigations that suggest while sexual violence occurred, it was not part of a coordinated strategy. (Electronic Intifada)
Media Bias in Coverage of Genocidal Statements: An Examination of the Evidence Presented by South Africa at ICJ
South Africa has filed a case at the ICJ, accusing Israel of committing acts of genocide against Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. The docket outlining their case includes meticulously documented statements from senior Israeli government representatives and military officials that are alleged to reflect genocidal intent. The ICJ has already issued a preliminary ruling indicating that there is a probable genocide occurring (ICJ.org).
Incriminating statements: Benjamin Netanyahu on Amalek:
Statement: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible — we do remember."
Netanyahu's reference to Amalek, a biblical enemy of the Israelites, has been interpreted as a call to exterminate those perceived as enemies, drawing parallels to the historical context of genocide. This invocation suggests a justification for extreme measures against Palestinians, framing them as an existential threat that must be eradicated (New York Times, Mother Jones)..
Yoav Gallant, Israeli Defense Minister:
Statement: "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly."
This dehumanizing language reduces Palestinians to the status of animals, which is a common precursor to justifying violence against a group. Such rhetoric can normalize extreme military actions and disregard for civilian lives, contributing to a narrative that supports genocidal actions (Haaretz), and echoed in Al Jazeera's coverage that highlights the implications of such language on military strategies (Al Jazeera).
Gallant on Cutting Off Supplies:
Statement: "There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel."
This statement indicates a strategy of collective punishment, where essential supplies are cut off to the civilian population of Gaza. Such actions can lead to starvation and suffering, which are considered acts of genocide under international law, as they aim to destroy a group by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction (Middle East Eye).
Common Statements on Gaza such as:
Statement: "We will do whatever it takes to ensure our survival, even if it means sacrificing the lives of those who stand in our way."
This reflects a willingness to accept civilian casualties as collateral damage in military operations, which can be interpreted as genocidal intent when directed at a specific group (Al-Jazeera).
Rhetoric of Erasure:
Statement: Calls for Gaza to be “flattened,” “erased,” or “destroyed” have been prevalent in public discourse.
Such language suggests a desire to eliminate not just the military threat but the entire population of Gaza, which aligns with definitions of genocidal intent. The normalization of such rhetoric in public and political discourse can lead to widespread acceptance of violent actions against civilians (New York Times). As discussed by The New Arab, this kind of incendiary language is increasingly common in Israeli political rhetoric (The New Arab).
Statements on Starvation:
Context: The Israeli government has been accused of using starvation as a weapon against the Palestinian population.
Cutting off food supplies and essential services can be seen as a deliberate strategy to weaken and destroy a population, which is a key element of genocidal actions as defined by international law (Haaretz, Middle East Eye).
Media Coverage and Bias
Despite the gravity of these statements, media coverage has often failed to adequately address their implications. Many outlets have focused on political narratives that downplay the severity of the allegations, framing them as mere rhetoric rather than expressions of intent. For instance, a report from The New York Times described the statements as "strong language" without acknowledging the potential for genocidal implications.
Similarly, CNN reported on the ICJ case but did not delve into the specific statements made by Israeli officials, instead opting for a more neutral tone that obscures the urgency of the allegations. This pattern of coverage raises questions about the responsibility of media outlets to accurately report on statements that may indicate genocidal intent.
For more information on the South African docket and the ongoing case at the ICJ, you can access the official documents at International Court of Justice website.
Other Media
Electronic Intifada: Why do media keep parroting Israel's genocidal lies?
The Complicity of Western Media in Genocide: Legal and Ethical Implications
In a penetrating analysis, international human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber has issued a stark warning about the role of Western media in enabling and obscuring the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Drawing on historical precedents and international law, Mokhiber argues that major media outlets could potentially face legal consequences for their reporting practices.
Long Tradition of International Law
Mokhiber traces a line from the Nuremberg trials to the present day, highlighting how international law has long recognized the power of media to incite violence and persecution. He notes:
"There's a long tradition going all the way back to Nuremberg for example on holding media accountable for incitement to genocide or complicity in crimes against humanity."
This principle was enshrined in foundational human rights documents following World War II. As Mokhiber explains, the framers of these instruments were:
"...very explicit in international human rights treaties for example to say that you cannot use your right to free speech as a weapon to destroy other rights of people, including the right to life itself. That is not protected speech."
Incitement of Genocide & Geneva Convention
The Genocide Convention specifically criminalizes incitement to genocide, applying to both state and private actors. Mokhiber points to precedent-setting cases like the conviction of Nazi publisher Julius Streicher at Nuremberg and the prosecution of media figures by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Treading on Ethical Lines
In Mokhiber's assessment, today's Western media outlets are treading dangerously close to crossing ethical and legal lines in their coverage of Gaza:
"It is not arguable that...this live streamed genocide that's unfolding on the screens of everybody around the world, it's not credible to suggest that these companies are not aware of the realities on the ground and what they're doing to obscure them."
He accuses major outlets of systematically hiding the genocide, dehumanizing Palestinians, and insulating Israel from accountability. This pattern has persisted even in the face of damning assessments from bodies like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
The consequences of this biased coverage are severe. Mokhiber contends that consumers of mainstream Western media remain largely ignorant of key facts, including:
The repeated public statements of genocidal intent by Israeli leaders
The systematic killing of Palestinian civilians, including children
The existence of torture camps and widespread sexual violence against Palestinian detainees
Instead, these outlets continue to propagate debunked narratives that justify Israeli actions while censoring Palestinian voices.
Free-Speech Does not mean Impunity from Incitement to War Crimes
Mokhiber is careful to affirm the importance of robust free speech protections, acknowledging that restrictions on expression often target dissenting voices. However, he maintains that:
"Free speech does not protect incitement to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide. Those can be subject to criminal accountability."
Media Paints a Picture of Victim hood: ISIS-ification of Hamas
Surrounding the events of October 7th and the subsequent Israeli response Mokhiber points out the dangerous consequences of this narrative manipulation
"If they had told that story, that sounds like war. So instead, they had to tell another story about 40 beheaded babies and babies cut out of their mother's abdomen and mass systematic rape of all of the girls... all of which has been completely debunked as false, fabricated propaganda for genocide."
In a chilling observation, Mokhiber notes how some of the falsely attributed atrocities mirror actual crimes committed against Palestinians, yet these receive little to no coverage in Western media. This pattern of "accusation in the mirror," he argues, serves to further dehumanize Palestinians and shield Israeli actions from scrutiny.
The Right to Self Defense Argument
Perhaps most illuminating, Mokhiber challenges the oft-repeated assertion of Israel's "right to self-defense." He argues that this claim is, in fact, a "double lie":
Under international law, Israel does not have an Article 51 right to self-defense in territories it occupies, including Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
The Palestinian people, conversely, do have a right to self-defense against "colonialism, apartheid, foreign occupation."
Furthermore, Mokhiber emphasizes that even if the right to self-defense were applicable, it would not justify the types of actions being carried out:
"Saying that Israel has a right to defend itself has nothing to do with these crimes because self-defense is not a justification for those crimes under international law."
Craig Mokhiber is an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations Official. He left the UN in October of 2023, penning a widely read letter that warned of genocide in Gaza, criticized the international response and called for a new approach to Palestine and Israel based on equality, human rights and international law.
**Western media can be held legally accountable for its role in the Gaza genocide: Craig Mokhiber on Mondoweiss**
The Confluence of Far-Right Ideology and Pro-Israel Advocacy: A Case Study in “2024 U.K. Race Riots”
The Incendiary Role of Tommy Robinson in Britain's Recent Racial Turmoil
In the sweltering heat of July 30 to August 5, 2024, Britain found itself engulfed in a maelstrom of racial unrest, the likes of which had not been witnessed in living memory. At the epicenter of this tumultuous storm stood Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a figure whose controversial career has long been intertwined with far-right movements in the United Kingdom. The riots, ostensibly sparked by a tragic mass stabbing in Southport that claimed the lives of three children, rapidly metamorphosed from anti-Islamic sentiment into a broader conflagration of anti-immigration and racial tensions. Ironically, the perpetrator of the initial crime, was not Muslim, a fact that stood in stark contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric fueling the unrest.
The August 2024 riots saw thousands swept up in a tide of demonstrations, many orchestrated or influenced by Robinson's provocative leadership. Reports paint a vivid picture of a nation in turmoil, with violent confrontations between law enforcement and protesters erupting across urban landscapes. The atmosphere was electric with tension, as evidenced by haunting images of massive crowds surging against police lines, their faces illuminated by the eerie glow of burning effigies and makeshift barricades. Across the U.K. the far-right groups like a paramilitary establishing stop and search check points to identify people of non white ethnicity, demanding proof and citizenship. The atmosphere was charged, as evidenced by images from the protests showing large crowds and intense interactions with law enforcement (BBC, Al Jazeera).
Britain has experienced its worst far-right riots in living memory. They first erupted in Southport, then spread like wildfire to Rotherham, Tamworth, Middlesbrough, Hull, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Bolton, Blackpool, Sunderland, Plymouth, Hartlepool, Belfast, and beyond.
Targeted mostly against Muslims, mosques, asylum seekers and people of colour, the country – and, indeed, the world – has watched in shock at images of rioters destroying shops, libraries, cars and hotels, while seeking out ethnic minority citizens for harassment and violence. (Bylinetimes)
Read More:
Economic, Political, and Social Impact of the 2024 UK Riots
Economic Fallout
The riots have exacted a heavy toll on the UK's economy, with businesses and infrastructure bearing the brunt of the destruction. Local enterprises, many with debt on their balance sheet, recovering from post-pandemic instability, now face the daunting prospect of rebuilding from ashes.
"The economic fallout from the riots is staggering, with estimates suggesting that local businesses could face losses in the millions, not to mention the long-term impact on community trust and investment." - New York Times
Social Schisms
Perhaps the most insidious consequence of the unrest has been the deepening of social fissures along racial and ethnic fault lines. The riots have cast a harsh spotlight on the fragility of community cohesion and raised troubling questions about the efficacy of community policing strategies.
Quote: "These riots are not just about immediate grievances; they reveal a fracture in our society that needs urgent attention." (Al Jazeera)
For further reading, you can explore the following articles:
Tommy Robinson: The Man Behind the Mayhem
Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Yaxley-Lenno’s trajectory from a fringe figure to a central instigator in nationwide unrest is a study in the power of extremist rhetoric in an age of social media amplification.
Robinson, who was a part of several far-right political groups in the UK, previously served as a political advisor to former UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Gerard Batten and was named deputy leader of the fascist group British Freedom Party (BFP). He also founded the far-right English Defence League (EDL) and led it for several years. (Jurist.org). After serving some jail time for mortgage fraud, he reappears, realigning himself with more broader appeal Pan-Europe, with the Anti-Muslim migrant organization Pegida, which stands for ‘Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident’ (Channel 4 News). The persona of the sightly more liberal narrative he aimed to adopt would soon fail with him a key instigator of the “race riots” which he stated is connected to October 7 incident as well.
Incitement of Protests
Robinson has organized and participated in numerous protests, often leading to significant police presence and counter-protests. His rallies have drawn thousands of supporters
Role in Protests: Robinson's ability to mobilize thousands of supporters through his rallies and social media presence has been a key factor in the escalation of tensions. His rhetoric, which often targets immigrants and Muslims, has found resonance with certain segments of the population, leading to increased friction and violent clashes during demonstrations. Given his history, his past affiliations with various Right-Wing groups have provided him with a platform to disseminate his divisive ideology.
A spokesperson for Hope Not Hate offered this scathing assessment:
"There is no doubt that Tommy Robinson's social media is playing a really important role in these far-right demos. His reach has grown exponentially since his X account was reinstated last year, giving him an enormous platform to spread his divisive rhetoric." - TheStandard.co.Uk
As Sabby Dhalu, co-convenor of Stand up to Racism, aptly notes:
"What we're seeing... is not just violent disorder and thuggery. They are racist, Islamophobic, fascist riots, with targeted attacks on Mosques, asylum seekers and anyone not white. Tommy Robinson is deliberately stoking up racism and Islamophobia, whilst on the run." - Independent
Independent: Tommy Robinson's Influence on UK Riots
BBC: Tommy Robinson's Protests and Their Impact).
Independent: Tommy Robinson Jailed for Protest Against Free Speech
Judicial Oversight: Fled UK Before Court Appearance
A stunning display of legal ineptitude: Allowed to Leave Country Despite Pending Court Date
On July 28, 2024, Robinson was arrested in Kent under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, while attempting to flee the country via the Channel Tunnel. Despite this clear indication of flight risk, the system inexplicably allowed him to depart British soil before a scheduled court appearance related to contempt charges. It was only after Robinson had fled that the judge issued an arrest warrant, a move that can only be described as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
"This case exemplifies the glaring inadequacies in our judicial system when dealing with high-profile, potentially flight-risk individuals. The fact that Robinson was able to leave the country despite a pending court date is nothing short of a systemic failure.” - BBC
While British authorities fumble with paperwork, Robinson has wasted no time in stoking the fires of unrest from his overseas hideout. Leveraging his substantial social media following—over 800,000 on X alone—Robinson has been providing a steady stream of commentary on the ongoing riots, framing the disorder as stemming from "legitimate concerns" and calling for "mass deportations.” (Independent).
The Paradoxical Pulpit: Tommy Robinson's Israeli Media Foray
Far-Right Rhetoric Meets Pro-Israel Sentiment in a Volatile Mix Alarmingly he was platformed, on Israeli television, claiming that the riots in the UK were connected to the October 7 Hamas attack, this deftly meld anti-Muslim sentiment with pro-Israel advocacy, This is seen a play on the psyche of the rioters garnering support for rightly so the growing public outrage at the Israeli Genocidal action in Gaza, 10 months in.
Israeli TV Appearance: on Israeli TV: Channe13 (YouTube: Tommy Robinson on Israeli TV)
Here is an Analysis of Robinson’s interview in an Israeli Television based News Media
The Paradoxical Pulpit: Tommy Robinson's Israeli Media Foray
Far-Right Rhetoric Meets Pro-Israel Sentiment in a Volatile Mix
In a recent interview with an Israeli television news outlet, Tommy Robinson, the controversial far-right figure, has once again thrust himself into the spotlight with a rhetoric that deftly melds anti-Muslim sentiment with pro-Israel advocacy. This peculiar amalgamation offers a fascinating glimpse into the evolving dynamics of far-right ideology in the contemporary geopolitical landscape.
The Specter of Perpetual Threat
Robinson's narrative is built on a foundation of persistent danger. He paints a grim picture of the UK, asserting:
"We have had Jihad attacks every year for 15 years."
This claim, while emotionally potent, fails to provide context or nuance, instead serving to cultivate a sense of perpetual siege among his audience.
London: A City "Taken Over"?
In a particularly inflammatory statement, Robinson declares:
"Since October 7th, there has been a takeover of our Capital City every single week by Pro Hamas pro-jihadi groups who are encouraging hatred on our streets."
This hyperbolic characterization of London's political demonstrations reveals Robinson's penchant for dramatic overstatement, a common tactic in far-right discourse aimed at stoking fear and resentment.
The Unlikely Alliance: Far-Right and Pro-Israel Sentiment
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Robinson's interview is his apparent alignment with pro-Israel positions. He boldly claims:
"The average British person stands with Israel."
This assertion, outright contradicts his earlier statement of protests everyday and opinion polls.Tot only where the protests in U.K in decades. These protests saw a large potion of British Jews walking in tandem. With slogan of not in our name, and Never Again means Never Again for all.
UK public opinion on the Israel-Gaza conflict has shown a significant shift towards support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel's actions. Polls indicate that over 70% of Britons call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (Al Jazeera), while 59% believe Israel is violating human rights in Gaza (Al Jazeera). Recent surveys show more Britons sympathizing with Palestinians than with Israel, marking a change from previous years (YouGov).
This shift in public opinion has been reflected in large-scale protests across the UK. On November 11, 2023, a massive demonstration in London drew 300,000 participants, making it one of the largest protests in the UK in recent years, comparable to the 2003 Iraq war protests (Wikipedia). Other significant protests included 100,000 on October 21, 70,000 on October 28, and 30,000 on November 4. These demonstrations have occurred in various towns and cities across the UK, with tens of thousands joining rallies and sit-ins (BBC).
The protests have been characterized by their diversity, including significant participation from British Jews marching under slogans like "Not in our name," emphasizing their opposition to Israeli policies (Middle East Eye). These demonstrations have collectively voiced strong opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and called for Palestinian rights, illustrating a growing movement within the UK supporting the Palestinian cause and criticizing Israeli military actions.
Robinson’s rhetoric showcases the complex and often contradictory nature of modern far-right movements, The the new Far-Right white supremacy the Zionist Jewish supremacy has merged, both legitimizing each other.
Apocalyptic Visions and Media Mistrust
Robinson's rhetoric reaches a fever pitch with his dire warning:
"If they go through Israel, if they killed all the Jews, if they won the war and took Israel, they're not stopping there, they're coming straight through Europe."
This apocalyptic scenario serves a dual purpose: demonizing Muslims while positioning Israel as a crucial bulwark against a perceived Islamic threat to the West.
Critical Analysis
Robinson's interview is a masterclass in Zionism’s grooming of the far-right. This apocalyptic vision serves a dual purpose - it both demonizes Muslims and positions Israel as a bulwark against a perceived Islamic threat to the West. Such rhetoric often finds support among certain pro-Israel think tanks and advocacy groups, who see far-right figures like Robinson as allies in their geopolitical stance.
Tommy Robinson criticizes British media, particularly the BBC, for allegedly sympathetic coverage of Hamas. He claims, "BBC refused to even call Hamas terrorists; they sympathize with them." This reflects a broader mistrust in mainstream media's handling of far-right rhetoric. Interestingly, the BBC has faced accusations of bias in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often favoring Israel. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, the BBC has been criticized for its portrayal of this conflict, typically leaning towards a pro-Israel perspective (Media Bias/Fact Check: BBC).
Additional Sources:
Novara Media: Tommy Robinson is at the forefront of growing collaboration between Hindutva organisations and the far right.
Double Down News: Lowkey EXPOSES Tommy Robinson’s Links to Israel
The Tangled Web: Tommy Robinson's Far-Right Networks and Pro-Israel Funding
His involvement and influence in these riots, his platforming at Israeli news media to further galvanize the far-right movement in U.K with the Israeli action in Gaza.
a deeper investigation into Robinson's activities and associations reveals a complex network of financial and ideological support that spans continents, exposing intersection of extremist politics, foreign influence, and social unrest, in this particular case social unrest, that aligns with the Zionist agenda.
Ideological Bedfellows: The EDL and JDL Connection
Robinson is a co-founder of the English Defence League (EDL), a far-right organization known for its anti-Islam protests. The EDL has been linked to the Jewish Defence League (JDL), which has a history of extremist actions and rhetoric. Founded by Meir Kahane, an ultra-nationalist who was denounced by the Knesset for his extremist views, he JDL has been classified as a terrorist organization by the FBI since 2001 due to its violent actions and rhetoric . (Byline Times: Exposing the Real UK Race Riot Instigators).
Photographed Wearing IDF T-Shirt: Robinson has been photographed wearing a t-shirt of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and posing with Israeli military personnel. These images have been used to bolster his image among supporters who share pro-Israel sentiments, further solidifying his connections to far-right and pro-Israel groups (Independent: Tommy Robinson's Pro-Israel Stance).
Unmasking the Global Network Behind Britain's Controversial Figure
Follow the Money: Robinson's Financial Backers
Robinson's activities have been supported by various far-right think tanks and advocacy groups, particularly those with Pro-Israel affiliation’s or Zionist Policy advocacy groups from across the Atlantic and even as far as Australia.
Key sources of funding include:
Middle East Forum (MEF): This Philadelphia-based think tank has reportedly spent around $60,000 on Robinson's legal fees and demonstrations.
David Horowitz Freedom Center: This far-right think tank has defended Robinson and facilitated his interactions with U.S. politicians.
Robert Shillman: A billionaire known for his contributions to Israeli institutions, he financed a fellowship for Robinson in 2017. He also serves on the board of David Horowitz Foundation.
Gatestone Institute: While there is no known public knowledge funding Robinson, this Israel-focused think tank has published supportive articles about him.
source: The Times of Israel: Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?
Spotlight: What links U.K Riots to Israel:
Tommy Robinson along with the other little known instigator in the protest Katie Hopkins, was paid approximately £5,000, in Rebel Media, via the Shillman Fellows Program.
While Shillman is a major donor to the DHFC (David Horowitz Freedom Center) and has served on the think tank’s board of directors, Rebel Media emphasizes their Shillman Fellows are entirely separate from the DHFC’s similarly named Shillman Fellows program. The DHFC did not respond to requests for comment from PressProgress about their Shillman Fellows program.
DHFC credits Robert Shillman’s “generosity” with creating their separate Shillman Fellows program, which has helped launch the careers of young right-wing commentators like Ben Shapiro.
Rebel Media’s former Shillman Fellows have included personalities like Katie Hopkins, Laura Loomer and UK far-right figure Tommy Robinson. (PressProgress)
Often the far-right narrative promoted by these groups is confounding in its conflicting nature. For instance “Rebel Media personality travels to St. Petersburg, praises Vladimir Putin as an ally of the global far-right”
Legal Fees Paid by a US-based Pro-Israel think tank.
Legal Fees Paid by Middle East Forum: Robinson's legal fees have reportedly been covered by the Middle East Forum, a US-based pro-Israel think tank. This connection highlights the financial backing he receives from organizations that align with his anti-Islam and pro-Israel stance, further intertwining his activities with international political interests (Middle East Eye: Tommy Robinson's Legal Fees Paid by Middle East Forum).
Financial Support from the Middle East Forum
Legal Fees Coverage: The Middle East Forum has publicly acknowledged its involvement in funding Robinson's legal defense. In statements, the MEF indicated that it mobilized resources to support Robinson during his legal challenges, including providing necessary funds for his defense and organizing public rallies in his support. (Middle East Monitor: Pro-Israel think tank funds Tommy Robinson’s legal costs)
The Philadelphia-based think tank Middle East Forum is one of the British extremist’s biggest sponsors. Daniel Pipes, MEF’s president, confirmed to The Times of Israel that his group has spent roughly $60,000 on three demonstrations defending Robinson’s legal trial. (**Times Of Israel: Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?)**
Mr. Robinson has acknowledged this assistance: “The political establishment here in the UK is doing everything possible to silence me solely for my views on political Islam. The Middle East Forum has been instrumental in assisting with my reoccurring legal challenges.”
(Middle East Forum: MEF Funds Tommy Robinson Defense ... To No Avail)
Historical Context:
The MEF has a history of supporting figures and causes that resonate with its anti-Islam and pro-Israel ideology. In the past, it has funded legal defenses for other far-right figures and has been involved in various campaigns against perceived threats from Islamism.
David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC)
Horowitz himself has espoused a number of racist theories, including that former US president Barack Obama was a secret Muslim. “Obama is an anti-American radical and I’m actually sure he’s a Muslim, he certainly isn’t a Christian,” Horowitz once said in a taped interview posted by the website Right Wing Watch. “He’s a pretend Christian in the same way he’s a pretend American.”
The Ideological Nexus: Decoding the Shared Agenda
These international think tanks and policy advocacy groups has these in-common,:
Advocating for hawkish Middle East policies (ex; Push for Iran War / confrontation)
Aligning with neoliberal economic views
Appealing to far-right sentiments on racial grounds
Promoting narratives that depict Islam as incompatible with Western civilization
Promoting the view via media: Israel as a white Western Civilization, bastion in the middle east constantly besieged, by Islamic horde., appealing to western romantic Nationalism
What fueled the U.K riots is this confluence and interplay, the concoction of support across the far-right spectrum, exploiting the economic discontent, blaming the immigrants, in Robinson's case Islam as incompatible in U.K and west as inherent aggressive barbaric rape prone and to western Civilization.
Articles from sources like The Guardian and Times of Israel detail these relationships and the implications for UK politics and society (Middle East Monitor, Times of Israel, The Guardian).
The Intersection of Far-Right Groups, Islamophobia, and Pro-Israel Advocacy
Introduction:
The relationship between far-right groups, Islamophobia, and pro-Israel advocacy has become increasingly complex and intertwined in recent years. As Israel's political landscape shifts further to the right, there has been a growing alignment with Western far-right groups, many of which have been co-opted by Zionist or pro-Israel organizations. This convergence is fueled by shared ideologies, particularly a staunch anti-Islam stance and a hawkish approach to Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Shared Ideologies and Mutual Support:
Islamophobia as a Unifying Factor: Both far-right groups and some pro-Israel organizations share a deep-seated hostility towards Islam, often portraying it as a monolithic and inherently violent ideology. This Islamophobia serves as a powerful unifying force, fostering alliances and collaborations between these seemingly disparate groups.
Hawkish Foreign Policy: Far-right groups often advocate for aggressive military interventions and a hardline stance against perceived enemies, particularly in the Middle East. This aligns with the interests of some pro-Israel groups who push for similar policies, viewing military strength and a forceful approach as essential for Israel's security.
Shared Narrative of Victimhood: Both far-right groups and some pro-Israel organizations utilize a narrative of victimhood to justify their actions and garner support. This narrative often portrays their respective groups as being under constant threat from external forces, requiring a strong defense and a proactive approach to security.
The Role of Pro-Israel PACs and Think Tanks:
Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) and Zionist think tanks play a significant role in fostering this intersection. They often promote a hawkish foreign policy agenda and actively cultivate relationships with far-right groups, providing them with platforms and resources to amplify their message. This support helps to mainstream far-right ideologies and normalize their anti-Islam rhetoric.
Consequences and Concerns:
The confluence of far-right groups, Islamophobia, and pro-Israel advocacy raises several concerns:
Normalization of Hate Speech: The alliance between these groups provides a veneer of legitimacy to far-right ideologies, including racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Achieved via the cudgel and the shield of antisemitism, victim-hood of the “Jewish State of Israel”
Erosion of Democratic Values: The increasing influence of far-right groups and their rhetoric poses a threat to democratic values such as tolerance, pluralism, and freedom of speech.
Increased Violence and Discrimination: The demonization of Muslims and the promotion of a hostile environment can lead to increased violence and discrimination against Muslim communities.
Destabilization of International Relations: The aggressive foreign policy advocated by these groups can further destabilize the Middle East and escalate tensions with other nations.
The intersection of far-right groups, Islamophobia, and pro-Israel advocacy represents a dangerous trend, it is crucial to understand the dynamics of this alliance and actively challenge the narratives and policies that fuel it.
Further Reading
Conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism emboldens the far right - This article discusses how traditional far-right ideas and narratives are making their way into mainstream discourse. (OpenDemocracy.net)
What Makes Israel's Far Right Different - This piece explores the dynamics of Israel's far-right politics and how it intersects with broader nationalist movements. (ForeignPolicy.com)
Far-right Israel Explained: Netenyahu’s Radical New Government - This article provides insights into the rise of far-right parties in Israel and their implications for Zionism. (Haaretz.com)
Critical Analysis of Zionist Pro-Israel Groups: Policies, Impact, and Connections
The Other Arm of the Pro-Islam Lobby:
The 2024 U.K riots as nexus event, we will focus, and delve into the international Pro-Israel Groups who financed the main instigator of the event.
The Gatestone Institute is a think tank and media organization founded in 2008 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress known for her significant financial contributions to various right-wing and pro-Israel causes. The institute positions itself as an international policy council dedicated to educating the public on issues of human rights and democracy, but it has garnered attention for its far-right, Zionist, and pro-Israel stances (Powerbase: Gatestone Institute).
The David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC), founded by David Horowitz and Peter Collier in 1998, is a right-wing organization based in Los Angeles, California. It operates as a nonprofit entity focused on combating what it perceives as the threats posed by radical Islam, leftist ideologies, and anti-American sentiments. The organization has garnered attention for its far-right positions and its connections to pro-Israel advocacy (SourceWatch: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
The Middle East Forum (MEF) is a think tank established in 1990 by Daniel Pipes, aimed at promoting American interests in the Middle East and protecting Western values from perceived threats originating in the region. Based in Philadelphia, MEF is known for its far-right stance and strong pro-Israel advocacy, often focusing on issues related to radical Islam, U.S. foreign policy, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Middle East Forum).
Political Stance and Ideology
Far-Right and Zionist Orientation:
The Gatestone Institute is closely associated with far-right ideologies, particularly through its promotion of anti-Muslim narratives and strong pro-Israel sentiments. It features writings from notable figures in the neoconservative movement and has been linked to organizations that advocate for aggressive foreign policies, particularly toward Iran (Powerbase: Gatestone Institute, InfluenceWatch: Gatestone Institute, Georgetown Bridge: Factsheet-Gatestone Institute).
The DHFC describes itself as a "battle tank" rather than a traditional think tank, emphasizing its combative approach to ideological conflicts. Horowitz, a former Marxist turned neoconservative with the changing tides, has positioned the center as a platform for promoting anti-leftist and anti-Islam narratives. The organization is known for its strong pro-Israel stance, often framing Israel as a frontline state in the battle against radical Islam (SourceWatch: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
The Middle East Forum’s leadership and funding sources are closely tied to pro-Israel interests. The organization supports policies that reinforce U.S.-Israel relations and often criticizes any actions perceived as anti-Israel. MEF publishes the Middle East Quarterly, which frequently features articles advocating for strong U.S. support for Israel while critiquing Palestinian leadership and narratives (Middle East Forum).
Islamophobia:
Gatestone has been criticized for publishing content that fuels Islamophobia. Reports indicate that the institute disseminates alarmist narratives about Muslim immigration in Europe, suggesting a looming "Islamization" and portraying Muslim migrants as a threat to Western civilization. This rhetoric has been cited by far-right politicians to justify anti-Muslim policies and sentiments (Powerbase: Gatestone Institute, InfluenceWatch: Gatestone Institute, Bridge Initiative: Factsheet-Gatestone Institute).
The DHFC has been identified as a significant player in the Islamophobia industry. It has funded and supported various initiatives that portray Islam and Muslims as threats to American values and security. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled Horowitz as a leading figure in promoting anti-Muslim sentiments, highlighting the organization's role in fostering an environment of fear and mistrust towards Muslim communities (C-SPAN: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
The Middle East Forum, organization's focus on "defeating radical Islam" often translates into broader anti-Muslim sentiments. By framing Islam as a threat to Western values, MEF contributes to an environment where Islamophobia can thrive. MEF's advocacy can influence public perceptions of Muslims and Islamic communities, leading to increased discrimination and hostility. The organization’s projects often emphasize a narrative that portrays Muslims as potential extremists or threats (Middle East Forum).
Pro-Israel Advocacy:
The Gatestone institute's leadership, particularly Nina Rosenwald, has deep ties to pro-Israel organizations, including AIPAC. The Gatestone Institute's articles often align with the interests of the Israeli government, particularly regarding military actions against perceived threats, such as Iran. This alignment reflects a broader trend among certain pro-Israel groups to partner with anti-Muslim factions to advance common geopolitical goals (Powerbase: Gatestone Institute, Islamophobia.org: Gatestone Institute, LobeLog: Bolton-Led Group Partnered with Racist Anti-Semitic Website).
The David Horowitz Freedom Center: organization is known for its strong pro-Israel stance, often framing Israel as a frontline state in the battle against radical Islam. Its publications and events frequently emphasize support for Israeli policies and depict Israel as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism (SourceWatch: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
Middle East Forum’s leadership and funding sources are closely tied to pro-Israel interests. The organization supports policies that reinforce U.S.-Israel relations and often criticizes any actions perceived as anti-Israel. MEF publishes the Middle East Quarterly, which frequently features articles advocating for strong U.S. support for Israel while critiquing Palestinian leadership and narratives (Middle East Forum).
Policies on Iran and Military Stance
Hawkish Position on Iran:
Gatestone institute's narrative characterizes Iran as a primary sponsor of terrorism and a significant threat to regional stability. The institute opposes diplomatic efforts, such as the Biden administration's proposed nuclear deal with Iran, arguing that it would empower the Iranian regime and its militia allies. This hawkish stance advocates for a more aggressive U.S. military posture in the Middle East, often echoing calls for preemptive action against Iran (InfluenceWatch: Gatestone Institute, Times of Israel: Why Are US Pro-Israel Groups Boosting a Far-Right Anti-Muslim UK Extremist?, ).
The David Horowitz Freedom Center advocates for a hawkish stance on Iran, opposing diplomatic negotiations and promoting military intervention as a necessary response to perceived threats. This position aligns with the broader neoconservative agenda that views Iran as a significant adversary in the Middle East (GuideStar: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
Middle East Forum’s advocates for a hawkish stance on Iran, opposing diplomatic negotiations and supporting military action as a necessary response to perceived threats from the Iranian regime. This aligns with broader neoconservative agendas that view Iran as a significant adversary (Middle East Forum).
Connection to Militaristic Rhetoric
The Gatestone institute has been associated with promoting a militaristic approach to foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran and other perceived adversaries. John Bolton, a prominent figure in the institute and former U.S. National Security Advisor, is known for advocating preventive war strategies, which aligns with Gatestone's overall hawkish perspective (Times of Israel: Why Are US Pro-Israel Groups Boosting a Far-Right Anti-Muslim UK Extremist?, Gatestone Institute: Adopt Deterrence, Militarist Monitor: Gatestone Institute).
The David Horowitz Freedom Center’s policies regarding Iran are closely linked to the agendas of pro-Israel political action committees (PACs). These PACs have historically lobbied for aggressive U.S. policies in the Middle East, particularly against Iran, framing the nation as a direct threat to Israel's security.
Middle East Forum’s advocacy for aggressive policies against Iran is closely linked to pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) that lobby for military interventions and sanctions. MEF's positions reflect these influences, promoting narratives that frame Iran as an existential threat not only to Israel but also to U.S. interests (Middle East Forum).
Impact on Public Discourse
Publications and Media Influence:
The Gatestone Institute has developed sophisticated media strategies:
Online Presence: Gatestone's website publishes daily content shaping narratives around Islam, Iran, and Israel (Gatestone Institute).
Traditional Media Outreach: Key figures from Gatestone often appear in mainstream media, extending their influence
Education and Outreach: The institute engages in outreach activities, including sponsoring educational events and producing materials that support their ideological positions.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center: has a significant media presence through FrontPage Magazine, which features articles that often promote Islamophobic rhetoric and criticize leftist policies. The center also organizes events and campaigns aimed at raising awareness about what it terms "Islamofascism," further solidifying its alignment with far-right and Zionist ideologies (Wikipedia: David Horowitz, SourceWatch: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
Middle East Forum’ publishes the Middle East Quarterly, which frequently features articles advocating for strong U.S. support for Israel while critiquing Palestinian leadership and narratives. The organization also engages in various projects, such as Campus Watch, which critiques Middle Eastern studies programs for perceived biases, and Islamist Watch, which seeks to expose non-violent Islamism in Western societies (Middle East Forum).
Media Impact
The rhetoric employed by the DHFC contributes to the normalization of Islamophobia in American society. By framing Muslims as inherently linked to terrorism and radicalism, the organization influences public perception and policy discussions surrounding immigration and national security (Horowitz Freedom Center).
MEF's advocacy can influence public perceptions of Muslims and Islamic communities, leading to increased discrimination and hostility. The organization’s projects often emphasize a narrative that portrays Muslims as potential extremists or threats (Middle East Forum).
Analysis of Israel Connection
Collaborations with Pro-Israel Organizations:
There's a notable pattern of collaboration between these groups and established pro-Israel organizations:
Shared Platforms: Events and conferences often feature speakers from both Zionist pro-Israel groups and mainstream pro-Israel organizations
Policy Alignment: On key issues, particularly regarding Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there's significant alignment in policy positions.
Influence of Pro-Israel PACs:
The relationship between these groups and pro-Israel political action committees is complex:
Financial Connections: While some are open in some cases direct funding links are not always clear, there's evidence of overlapping donor bases (OpenSecrets: Pro-Israel PACs).
Policy Synchronization: The policy positions advocated by these groups often align closely with those of major pro-Israel PACs, suggesting a level of coordination (The Guardian: Pro-Israel Lobby AIPAC).
Funding and Support:
The financial backing of these organizations reveals interesting patterns:
Wealthy Individual Donors: Figures like Robert Shillman have provided significant funding to multiple organizations in this sphere. Including funding both Middle East Forum and David Horowitz Freedom Center. ((Middle East Monitor: Zionism and the Far Right, Powerbase: Robert Shillman).
Foundation Support: Several conservative foundations have been identified as consistent supporters of these groups (InfluenceWatch: Gatestone Institute).
Collaborations with Other Right-Wing Organizations: These organizations collaborate with other pro-Israel and right-wing groups, creating a network that promotes shared interests. This includes partnerships with groups that advocate for military actions against Iran and support for Israeli policies (Powerbase: Gatestone Institute).
Major Benefactors: Influential Zionist Philanthropists of the Same Cloth
Robert Shillman
Background: Founder of Cognex Corporation
Philanthropy: Supports pro-Israel and conservative causes, including the Zionist Organization of America and Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (PowerBase). Is Involved and funds Middle East Forum. Funds and sits in the board of David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Rebel Media and Shilman Fellows: Shillman’s financial contributions have historically subsidized salaries for various media personalities who espouse anti-Islam views, including Robinson himself. Reports indicate that Robinson was paid approximately £5,000 a month through arrangements linked to Shillman’s funding. Other Figures included personalities like Katie Hopkins, Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro (PressProgress, Vice:Inside Rebel Media’s big-money anti-Islam crusade )
Islamophobia: Funds anti-Muslim rhetoric through the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Middle East Forum (SourceWatch, Carter Center, (Middle East Monitor: Zionism and the Far Right).
Iran Policy: Advocates for military action against Iran (PowerBase).
Daniel Pipes
Pipes is the front man, the president of Middle East Forum. It is of note that this organization receives funding from Robert Shillman.
Background: Historian, founder of the Middle East Forum (MEF)
Pro-Israel Advocacy: Promotes U.S. support for Israel, publishes pro-Israel content (Middle East Forum).
Islamophobia: Accused of promoting anti-Muslim sentiments (Bridge Initiative).
Hawkish on Iran: Opposes diplomatic efforts, supports military intervention (Daniel Pipes).
Nina Rosenwald
Background: Heiress, founder of Gatestone Institute
Philanthropy: Pro Israel Advocacy converging on Far-Right and Islamophobia Donated millions to pro-Israel and anti-Islam groups like Gatestone Institute and Center for Security Policy (The Nation). Her funding ranges across the Far-Right, with notable white-supremacist likes Robert Spencer.
”As The Intercept previously reported, Rosenwald’s foundation not only finances Gatestone, but also funds leading Islamophobic pundits, including Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, and David Horowitz.Horowitz is the conservative activist who mentored Stephen Miller, a White House aide who was closely involved in President Donald Trump’s executive order temporary banning individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. As journalist Max Blumenthal reported in 2012, Rosenwald is an active supporter of hardline pro-Israel groups, and a former board member at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” (The Intercept)
Islamophobia: Gatestone Institute described as hub for anti-Muslim propaganda (The Intercept). She via her institute, has been involved in stoking anti-Muslim fears in Germany and influencing elections.
The Intercept: Islamophobic U.S. Megadonor Fuels German Far-Right Party With Viral Fake News Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims. In one of the most recent posts, the website warns of the construction of mosques in Germany and claims that Christianity is becoming “extinct.”
Iran Policy: Supports aggressive measures against Iran (Militarist Monitor).
Other Notable Zionist Financiers of Policy think Tanks Organization and Political Pro-Israel PAC’s
Sheldon Adelson: Founder of Just Peace Advocates and major fancier of North American based Birth Right Israel
Sheldon Adelson's influence on pro-Israel initiatives and U.S. policy was characterized by controversial statements and substantial financial contributions. His views on Palestinians were starkly negative, referring to them as an "invented" people and viewing their existence primarily as a political obstacle to Israel's security. These remarks reflected a broader narrative among some far-right groups that dehumanizes Palestinians. Through his foundation, Adelson donated hundreds of millions of dollars to pro-Israel organizations, significantly shaping the discourse around Israel-Palestine relations.
While Adelson's primary focus was supporting Israeli interests, his funding patterns aligned with organizations promoting anti-Muslim sentiment in the context of defending Israel. This intersection exemplified how some far-right groups frame their opposition to Islam as part of their pro-Israel stance. Adelson's influence extended into U.S. foreign policy discussions regarding Iran and broader Middle Eastern issues. His hawkish stance often echoed sentiments found in Islamophobic rhetoric that portrays Muslims as threats to Western civilization, thereby significantly impacting the broader Middle East policy in the United States.
Political Influence: Adelson was a major donor to Republican candidates and pro-Israel PACs. He was known for transforming the GOP into a party that strongly supports Israeli interests, often at the expense of Palestinian rights. His financial backing helped shape U.S. foreign policy towards Israel during the Trump administration. (The Center for Public integrity)
In 2012, Adelson and his family donated $93 million to super PACs, making him the top donor to these political spending groups. (The Intercept)
Adelson's influence led to several Trump administration policies, including:
Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
Legitimizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank
Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (The Intercept)
"Adelson wanted Trump to torpedo diplomacy with Iran; Trump backed out of the Iran deal in May 2018. Adelson believed the U.S. Embassy should move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; Trump did so, also in May 2018.” (The Intercept)
Donated nearly $200 million to Birthright Israel, while the organization receives funding from multiple sources Adelson via major donor status is associated with the foundation in public discourse. • Adelson's contributions account for 40% of the money raised by the Birthright Foundation since 2007. (The Center for Public integrity)
Charles Bronfman & Michael Steinhardt: Co-founders of Birthright Israel.
The Birthright Paradox: Shaping Jewish Identity Through a Narrow Lens
A Journey of Selective Enlightenment
Birthright program is targeted at Jewish young adults, often during a critical period of "emerging adulthood" when political opinions and identities are being formed and revised. Participation in the program may play a role in shaping their Jewish identity and views on Israel-related issues. Birthright risks instilling a worldview that sees the Israeli state as inherently justified in its actions, regardless of the consequences for Palestinians. Approximately 20% of American Jews aged 18-46 have participated in a Birthright Israel trip.
The Gilded Experience
Birthright's itinerary is a carefully choreographed dance through Israel's achievements and challenges. Participants are treated to a showcase of technological marvels and democratic ideals, all set against the backdrop of ancient history, by a team curators which are mostly IDF personnel.
Selective Storytelling: The program's narrative emphasizes Jewish victimhood and resilience while sidelining Palestinian perspectives.
Security-Centric Discourse: Israel's defensive posture is highlighted, often at the expense of exploring the root causes of conflict.
Cultural Immersion with Blinders: While celebrating Jewish culture, the program largely ignores the rich tapestry of Palestinian heritage.
The Identity Crucible
The impact of Birthright on Jewish identity is profound and paradoxical. Participants often return with a their Jewish identity conflated with Israel, yet this newfound identity is built on a foundation of selective understanding.
Uncritical Political Alignment: A tendency to support Israeli policies without fully grasping their implications.
Empathy Gap: Difficulty in relating to or acknowledging Palestinian struggles.
Simplified Worldview: A black-and-white understanding of a conflict painted in shades of gray.
Consequences
By presenting a sanitized version of reality, the program:
Cultivating a generation of Jewish Americans ill-equipped to engage in nuanced dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Reinforcing divisive narratives that hinder progress towards mutual understanding and peace.
Fails to foster empathy and critical thinking among future influences and policymakers.
Explore these Articles & Media
Romantic Zionism: Birthright, a program designed to lure young Jews worldwide to Israel with curated experiences that blend adventure, romance, and sexual allure. By fostering personal and emotional connections, Birthright subtly uses sex and relationships as tools to promote Zionism, sustain Jewish demographic growth, and entrench loyalty to the Israeli state. (Uncivilized Media)
"Swipe Left On Birthright Israel" - This article critiques the Birthright program for its perceived propagandistic nature, discussing how it primarily serves to promote a pro-Israel narrative while neglecting Palestinian perspectives. The Daily Nexus
"Young Jews Walk Out of Birthright Trip to See the Reality of Occupied Palestine" - This piece covers an incident where participants walked off a Birthright trip to engage with Palestinians, highlighting the program's failure to address the realities of occupation. The Intercept
"How Israel's 'Birthright' Denies Palestinians Their Basic Rights" - This opinion piece discusses how Birthright Israel serves as a vehicle for pro-Israel propaganda, emphasizing narratives that marginalize Palestinian rights and experiences.Middle East Eye
Paul Singer is an influential American billionaire investor and hedge fund manager, best known as the founder of Elliott Management Corporation the along with Sheldon Adelson are major fianciers of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank founded in 2001, primarily focused on foreign policy and national security issues. It is known for its strong advocacy of a hawkish stance on Iran and its alignment with pro-Israel narratives. The FDD has been influential in shaping U.S. policy towards the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran and terrorism.
The FDD's leadership and board members often include individuals with ties to other pro-Israel organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). (FDD - Board of Advisors, The Intercept).
FDD experts frequently publish analyses that call for a robust response to Iranian activities, including its nuclear program and support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (FDD - Iran, FDD - Sanctions, FDD - Israel, FDD - Iran). (Inside the Small, Pro-Israel Think Tank Leading the Attack on Obama’s Iran Deal)
Singer also funds organizations across the Atlantic with the same Ideological profile, The European Foundation for Democracy (EFD) was granted $1,475,000 by Paul E. Singer Foundations along with NGO Monitor and MEMRI. Singer is the third largest political donor in the United States, giving more than $10 million to the Republicans through various super PACs (Bridge Institue- Goearge Town U).Bernie Marcus: Founder of the Israel Democracy Institute (Israel Democracy Institute). The IDI is often perceived as promoting a far-right and pro-Israel stance. Its research and policy recommendations frequently align with the interests of the Israeli government, particularly under right-wing leadership.
Haim Saban: Donor to the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy (Philanthropy Roundtable). a significant donor to various pro-Israel organizations and political action committees (PACs). His financial contributions have bolstered groups that advocate for a hardline approach to Israel's security and foreign policy, often at the expense of Palestinian rights. The Saban Center serves as a platform for discussions that typically reflect a pro-Israel narrative, emphasizing security concerns and the need for military support for Israel. Frames iran as a existential threat to israel, and advocates for military intervention over diplomacy. These narrative often intersect with Islamophobia. Saban has echoed Netanyahu's hardline positions on Iran. (New Arab: The battle between American-Jewish political donors heats up)
Seth Klarman: Donor to the Israel Project (Israel Project). Klarman's financial support aligns with a far-right, hawkish approach to Israeli security, advocating for strong military responses to perceived threats rather than diplomatic solutions. His contributions extend to various political action committees (PACs) that support pro-Israel candidates and policies, reinforcing a narrative that prioritizes military solutions over diplomacy in the Middle East. This alignment with far-right ideologies is evident in the rhetoric used by the Israel Project and similar organizations, which often depict Israel as a beleaguered democracy surrounded by hostile forces (Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Seth Klarman's Dark Money)
Leslie Wexner: Supports Jewish organizations focused on Israel. Co-Founder with his family of Ruderman Foundation. Wexner's philanthropic contributions have included significant funding for organizations that promote a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. This support often reflects a hawkish stance on foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran, where the foundation has been involved in initiatives that advocate for military solutions over diplomatic engagement. Wexner's foundation has been characterized by a far-right and pro-Israel stance, particularly evident in its recent actions and statements. The foundation's decision to cut ties with Harvard was framed as a response to what Wexner described as the university's "dismal failure" to adequately support Israel during the recent conflict (Harvard President Supports Jewish Community Amid Donor Pressure). This reflects a broader trend among wealthy donors who are increasingly vocal about their expectations regarding institutional support for Israel. (MR Online: Follow the money: How Israel-linked billionaires silenced U.S. campus protests ) In 2023, he donated $100,000 to AIPAC amidst heightened tensions in Gaza following Hamas attacks (The Daily Beast: *Epstein Client Les Wexner Donated $100K to Pro-Israel Group)*
Roger Hertog: He is the co-president of the Hertog Foundation and the chairman of the Tikvah Fund, Along with Adelson, Hertog is in the camp of Zionist who funded and supported Trump and other MAGA Candidate like DeSantis, associates and advocates with the same policies.
Adelson, the Falics, Hertog and Moskowitz all have close ties to the Israeli hard right. Adelson is a major backer of Benjamin Netanyahu .. Hertog is president and chairman of the Tikvah Fund, a conservative, free-market-oriented think tank and philanthropy that hosts and funds a wide range of programs, including educational seminars in the occupied West Bank. And Moskowitz and her late husband Irving have given tens of millions of dollars to Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem with the explicit goal of “Judaizing” Palestinian neighborhoods. (Jewish Currents: **The Settlers’ Man in Florida)
John Boruchin: Jewish National Fund (JNF). Following his passing, Boruchin left a substantial bequest that has been used to fund various pro-Israel initiatives. JNF associates and collaborates with other Zionist organizations and push for the same policy as Pro-Israel super PAC’s. Which rates from far-right to Islamophobic narratives.
Rebekah Mercer, a major Trump donor and financial backer of Breitbart News, was listed as a member of the Gatestone Institute “board of governors” earlier this year, but her name was later removed from the website. Mercer is the daughter of billionaire hedge fund executive Robert Mercer, whose foundation has supported Gatestone over the years. (The Intercept)
In 2016, a Politico article described her as “the most powerful woman in GOP politics.”
Investigative journalist and writer for The New Yorker, stated that Mercer has been described as the “first lady of the Alt-Right.” An insider at Breitbart reported that
Rebekah is heavily involved in Breitbart’s content: “She reads every story, and calls when there are grammatical errors or typos.” (
Along with giving at least $15.5 million to the family super PAC, Make America Number 1, the Mercers also gave $4 million to the John Bolton Super PAC and $2 million to the Club for Growth Action.
(Bridge Institute: Robert Mercers Finacing of Islamophobia)
Mercer's political contributions and affiliations are closely tied to a far-right and pro-Israel stance. She has been a significant donor to various pro-Israel organizations and PACs, advocating for policies that support Israel's military and political interests. Her financial backing of Breitbart has also helped amplify narratives that align with a hawkish approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran (The Atlantic: What Does the Billionaire Family Backing Donald Trump Really Want?)
Robert Shillman, Singer, Adelson, Hertog, Wexner and Nina Rosenwald exemplify the intersection of far-right ideologies, pro-Israel advocacy, and Islamophobia. Institutions like the Brookings Institution engage in similar ideological advocacy. Programs like Birthright Israel, while aiming to connect young Jewish Americans with Israeli culture, face criticism as younger generations reassess their views on the Zionist project.
Other Non-American Far-Right Collaborations
Staying close to “2024 U.K Race Riots”, as a nexus event, next we will look into two other international groups with similar if not the same profile as the previously discussed Zionist groups, who supported and platformed Tommy Robinson. The Times of Israel: Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?
Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA)
The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA), originally founded in 2015, is a far-right political party in Australia that emerged from the broader anti-Islam movement. Initially known for its strong opposition to Muslim immigration and Islamization, the party has positioned itself within the context of Australian politics as a voice for conservative values, particularly in relation to national identity and security (Research on Australian Muslims, Yellow Vest Australia).
Anti-Islam Focus and Social Impact: Campaigns against Muslim immigration, promotes anti-Islam rhetoric, They hosting events featuring prominent anti-Islam figures like Geert Wilders, Its focus on Islam and immigration fosters a narrative that portrays Muslims as outsiders. Which can lead to increased discrimination and social distance between Muslim communities and the broader Australian population (Research on Australian Muslims, Yellow Vest Australia).
Media Use:Leverages social media to disseminate its message and rally supporters. These platforms are used to share content that emphasizes the perceived threats of Islam and the values of Western civilization (Australian Muslims Report). The ALA organizes public forums, rallies, and other events to engage directly with its audience, often featuring speeches by prominent far-right figures (Yellow Vest Australia).
Pro-Israel Sentiments: While the ALA primarily focuses on anti-Islam rhetoric, its far-right stance often intersects with pro-Israel sentiments. The party has expressed support for Israel, aligning with broader right-wing narratives that frame Israel as a bastion of Western values in a region perceived as hostile. This alignment is indicative of a trend among far-right groups that often adopt pro-Israel positions to bolster their anti-Muslim agendas. The ALA's policies of a broader strategy to unite various right-wing factions against common perceived threats, including Iran and radical Islam (Australian Muslims Report)
Foreign Policy: The ALA's foreign policy stance aligns with broader anti-Islamic rhetoric, supporting hawkish policies that advocate for military intervention and sanctions against Iran. This stance reflects the influence of pro-Israel narratives on Australian foreign policy, consistent with the viewpoints of many pro-Israel groups. (Iran and Islamophobia).
PEGIDA a Pan-European Organization
Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (PEGIDA) is a far-right, anti-Islam movement that originated in Germany in 2014. Founded in Dresden by Lutz Bachmann, it has since gained traction across Europe, promoting a nationalist agenda that opposes immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. PEGIDA's rallies have attracted significant media attention and have often been accompanied by counter-protests (Wikipedia: PEGIDA).
Anti-Islam Movement and Social impact: Promotes nationalism, anti-Muslim immigration, positioning themselves as defenders of European Culture.Mainstreams anti-Muslim rhetoric (Middle East Institute). Their core message revolves around fears of "Islamization," This narrative contributes to an environment of fear and hostility towards Muslim communities (Middle East Institute: Iran's Unconventional Alliance Network, Deutsche Welle: German Issues in a Nutshell - PEGIDA).
Media Strategy: PEGIDA's regular marches in Dresden and other cities have attracted both attention and controversy, often covered extensively by the media. PEGIDA employs social media to circulate its messages and organize events, ensuring wider reach and influence over public discourse (Deutsche Welle).
Pro-Israel Sentiments: Supporters often express admiration for Israel,While PEGIDA does not explicitly identify as pro-Israel, its supporters frequently express admiration for Israel as a bastion against Islamic extremism (Countering Islamophobia Industry: Carter Center). (Cambridge University Press: Taking the Race Out of Master Race, Institute for Palestine Studies: Deciphering Germany's Pro-Israel Consensus).
Foreign Policy: While PEGIDA primarily focuses on domestic issues related to immigration and Islam, its supporters often adopt hawkish views regarding foreign policy, particularly concerning Iran. The movement's rhetoric aligns with broader far-right sentiments that view Iran as a significant threat, (The Islamophobia and Israel Lobby Industries: Overlapping Interconnection and Anti-Racist Policy Recommendations: Carter Center).
Both the Australian Liberty Alliance and PEGIDA exemplify how far-right movements outside the U.S. can intersect with pro-Israel sentiments while promoting anti-Muslim narratives, contributing to an environment where Islamophobia flourishes alongside support for aggressive foreign policies against perceived threats like Iran.
Another international movement with its roots in Europe:
Identitarian Movement: Génération Identitaire in France and Generazione Identitaria in Italy. The American Identity Movement in the United States recently renamed Identity Evropa
A far-right, nationalist movement that originated in France in the early 2000s. It promotes a concept of "ethnic identity" and opposes immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries.
Anti-Islam Focus: The Identitarian Movement emphasizes the preservation of European culture and identity, often framing Islam as a threat to these values. Their campaigns frequently target mosques and Islamic cultural centers, portraying them as symbols of an encroaching Islamic presence in Europe (Wikipedia: Identitarian Movement).
Pro-Israel Sentiments: Some factions within the Identitarian Movement express support for Israel, viewing it as a front line in the battle against radical Islam. This alignment reflects a broader trend among far-right groups that adopt pro-Israel positions to bolster their anti-Muslim agendas (Middle East Monitor).
Media On the movement
**The Guardian: The** far-right movement stokes fears of a ‘great replacement’ and has branches around the world. After the New Zealand massacre, it’s under growing scrutiny
The Guardian: Austria Considers Dissolving Far-Right identitarian Movement: Chancellor confirms financial link between Identitarian Movement and attack suspect
European far right transformed into another version of Israeli regime
Abascal’s sentiment was echoed by other far-right leaders, such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marion Marechal in France. The latter stated [6] that recognizing the state of Palestine would equate to recognizing “an Islamist state, with all the dangers that this could represent for Israel and for the West in general.” A major meeting point between Israel’s Datim and Europe’s far-right is their mutual hatred for Muslims and Islam. Soon after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, Netanyahu saw a strategic opportunity to link his country’s war on the Palestinian people to the so-called "war on terrorism." (Jewish Currents)
These far-right groups and philanthropists use media and financial influence to shape public opinion and policy, fostering environments where Islamophobia and pro-Israel sentiments are normalized.
"The Islamophobia and Israel Lobby Industries: Overlapping Interconnection and Anti-Racist Policy Recommendations" by Rabab Abdulhadi
To bolster the claim I would like to outline an academic paper on the subject.
Rabab Abdulhadi's work, titled "The Islamophobia and Israel Lobby Industries: Overlapping Interconnection and Anti-Racist Policy Recommendations," explores the intricate relationship between the Islamophobia industry and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. The paper is part of a broader discussion on how these two entities intersect and influence public policy, societal attitudes, and the treatment of Muslim communities.
Interconnection of Islamophobia and the Israel Lobby:
Abdulhadi argues that there is a significant overlap between the Islamophobia industry and pro-Israel lobbying efforts. This connection is characterized by shared funding sources, ideological alignments, and mutual goals that often manifest in anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies that support Israeli state interests.
The paper highlights how both industries work to delegitimize Palestinian rights and promote narratives that frame Muslims as threats to national security and Western values.
Impact on Policy and Society:
The influence of the Israel lobby extends into various sectors, including academia, media, and politics, where it shapes narratives that contribute to Islamophobia. This results in policies that not only marginalize Muslim communities but also suppress dissent regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Abdulhadi discusses how these dynamics create an environment where anti-Muslim sentiments are normalized, leading to increased discrimination and violence against Muslim individuals and communities.
Abdulhadi emphasizes the importance of solidarity among various marginalized groups in combating the intertwined forces of Islamophobia and pro-Israel lobbying. She advocates for a collective approach to resist oppressive policies and narratives that harm both Muslim and Palestinian communities.
Abdulhadi's work thus represents a crucial contribution to the field, offering a theoretical framework that synthesizes the study of Islamophobia with broader discourses on lobbying, foreign policy, and social justice. It provides a foundation for future research exploring the intricate relationships between domestic policy, international relations, and the perpetuation of discriminatory ideologies.
Abdulhadi, R. (2018). The Islamophobia and Israel Lobby Industries: Overlapping Interconnection and Anti-Racist Policy Recommendations. In Countering the Islamophobia industry toward more effective strategies: symposium report and analysis (pp. 14-22). Atlanta, GA: The Carter Centre. Carter Center PDF
To Wrap this Segment: British journalist and author Yvonne Ridley, Laments the Zionism Embrace of Fascism.
A Faustian Bargain? Zionism's Far-Right Alliances at Holocaust Memorial Day
British journalist and author Yvonne Ridley addressed the topic of Zionism's connections with far-right movements after she was privileged to give a speech at a Holocaust Memorial Day.
Ridley began by expressing her bewilderment at certain alliances:
The Irony of Bedfellows
Ridley's opening salvo encapsulates the crux of this paradoxical situation:
"In such a politically-charged atmosphere, it is baffling that some Zionist organisations have links with far-right groups who fuel hatred against Jews."
The juxtaposition of Zionist organizations, ostensibly defenders of Jewish interests, with groups historically associated with anti-Semitism, presents a confounding scenario.
Exposing the Underbelly:
Mick Napier, co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC), provides a scathing indictment of these alliances. He points to the alleged activities of pro-Israel activist Sammy Stein:
"[Stein] works on behalf of the Israeli Embassy to defend Israeli mass murder, torture, sexual abuse of Palestinian women and children and every manner of Israeli crime. Stein was caught in flagrante recently with neo-Nazi Max Dunbar."
Napier's unforgiving stance is further elucidated in his comparison to other public figures caught in compromising situations:
"Like Trump caught boasting of his serial sexual assaults, or the Israeli Chief Military Rabbi endorsing rape of Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers in time of war, the glare of publicity on such practices usually prompts a public apology or retreat, but few take seriously such retreats [made] under pressure."
This stark commentary illuminates the troubling nature of these associations and the often tepid responses to their exposure.
The Netanyahu Factor: Embracing the Far-Right
The piece then pivots to the actions of the Israeli leadership, specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's engagement with controversial European figures:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had no such qualms at all about meeting Italy's Deputy Premier Matteo Salvini, who is on record as expressing admiration for his country's former Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini."
This unapologetic alignment with far-right European leaders like Salvini, Hungary's Viktor Orban, and Poland's Mateusz Morawiecki has not gone unnoticed. Historian Moshe Zimmermann offers a chilling interpretation of these alliances:
"The new European fascists, who hate Muslims, love Netanyahu because of what he has done to the Palestinians."
A Historical Precedent: Herzl's Pragmatic Prophecy
The article draws a historical parallel, citing Theodor Herzl, the progenitor of political Zionism:
"The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies."
This quote, jarring in its pragmatism, seems to have set a precedent for the current political manoeuvrings. Napier's analysis of this strategy is particularly incisive:
Israel certainly has hooked up with some of the world’s most odious anti-Semites since the State was founded on Palestinian land in 1948. Such links would, no doubt, have had the blessing of Theodor Herzl, the godfather of political Zionism.
Yet we are not completely done, with Tommy Robinson, the story unfolds and invites critical thinking to ponder further.
The case of Tommy Robinson and the ADL
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a prominent Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States, founded in 1913 to combat antisemitism and promote civil rights. Over the years, the ADL has taken stances on various issues, including those related to extremism, hate groups, and anti-Muslim sentiments, when it comes to Zionism and Israel, they have always resorted to wielding Antisemitism as Cudgel and the shield, as we discussed before. Libel of Antisemitism as a cudgel crying wolf,instilling the chilling effect on others exploring the memory of the Holocaust. Cloaking and defending the Zionist , the Zionist state a aka Israel, the their lobby in the veneer of a marginalized group, the victim.
ADL's Opposition to Tommy Robinson
In November 2018, ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, urging them to deny Tommy Robinson's visa application to enter the United States. In his letter, Greenblatt cited several reasons for this request:
Incitement Against Muslims and Immigrants: Robinson's history of incitement against these groups was highlighted as a significant concern.
Illegal Actions: Greenblatt referenced Robinson's prior attempt to enter the U.S. using someone else's passport in 2013, which had resulted in a ban from entering the country due to a drug-related conviction (ADL: Letter to Mike Pompeo).
Extremist Associations: The ADL pointed out Robinson's long-standing involvement with British anti-Muslim groups and his popularity among white supremacist movements in the U.S. (Southern Poverty Law Center: Jewish Defense League).
Membership in Extremist Groups: Robinson's past membership in the British National Party (BNP), described as a neo-Nazi party by ADL's Marilyn Mayo, was also noted.
Did ADL Denounce Robinson's Financiers?
The ADL chief pointed to a number of Robinson’s transgressions: his long history of involvement with British anti-Muslim groups, his popularity with America’s white-supremacist movement. Notably, Robinson was a member of the fascist British National Party from 2004 to 2005. The party, said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow with the ADL’s Center for Extremism, is “really a neo-Nazi party.” (Times Of Israel)
While the ADL has been vocal about condemning Tommy Robinson and his activities, it has not specifically denounced his financiers or enablers who are associated with pro-Israel and Zionist organizations. This includes:
Middle East Forum (MEF): Reportedly spent around $60,000 on Robinson’s legal fees and demonstrations (Georgetown University: David Horowitz Freedom Center).
David Horowitz Freedom Center: A far-right think tank that has defended Robinson and facilitated his interactions with U.S. politicians (Middle East Eye: Tommy Robinson's Return).
Robert Shillman: A billionaire known for his contributions to Israeli institutions who financed a fellowship for Robinson in 2017.
Gatestone Institute: An Israel-focused think tank that has published supportive articles about Robinson but does not have publicly known direct funding ties.
Analysis of ADL's History of Double Standards
https://droptheadl.org/
The ADL has faced criticism for perceived double standards in its approach to different forms of extremism:
Focus on Right-Wing Extremism: While the ADL actively monitors and condemns right-wing extremism, including figures like Robinson, it has been accused of downplaying or overlooking extremist actions from other groups when they align with its broader political agenda.
Criticism of Anti-Zionism: The ADL often conflates criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism, which some argue detracts from addressing genuine antisemitic incidents while silencing legitimate discourse on Palestinian rights.
Selective Advocacy: Critics have pointed out that while the ADL vigorously opposes anti-Muslim sentiment and figures like Robinson, it does not apply the same level of scrutiny to pro-Israel advocates who may also engage in inflammatory rhetoric against Muslims or Palestinians.
Internal Divisions: Reports indicate that there are internal divisions within the ADL regarding its stance on issues like BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) against Israel, revealing complexities in its approach to advocacy that may not always align with its stated mission to combat hate.
Media on ADL
Jewish Currents: The ADL's Antisemitism Findings Explained: The organization’s annual audit found a worrisome surge in incidents—but experts say some of its numbers lack context.
Georgetown University: David Horowitz Freedom Center: • The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled Horowitz as the "godfather of the anti-Muslim movement" and accused FrontPage Magazine of financing radical anti-Muslim extremism.
Anti-Defamation League's Double Standards in Advocacy
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has faced criticism for its double standards in addressing hate speech and discrimination, particularly concerning its advocacy for pro-Israel groups that have been linked to anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian sentiments.
ADL's Advocacy for Pro-Israel Groups
Internal Conflict Over Advocacy:
A Jewish Currents article discusses internal dissent within the ADL regarding its commitment to Zionism and Israel, suggesting that this focus may undermine its ability to build coalitions with other marginalized groups. The article notes that some staff members feel that the ADL's "absolutist language" regarding Israel is detrimental to its civil rights mission, indicating a tension between its dual roles as a civil rights organization and a pro-Israel advocate (Jewish Currents: ADL Staffers Dissented).
Criticism of Anti-BDS Movement:
The ADL has actively mobilized against the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which advocates for Palestinian rights. The organization has labeled BDS as antisemitic and has recommended actions against it, framing opposition to BDS as part of its broader mission to combat antisemitism (Wikipedia: Anti-Defamation League). This stance contributes to anti-Palestinian sentiment and undermines legitimate advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Response to Campus Activism:
In response to pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses, the ADL has suggested investigations into student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for potentially violating federal laws related to material support for terrorism. This action has been criticized as an attempt to suppress free speech and political activism related to Palestinian rights (The Intercept: ADL and Palestine). Such advocacy raises concerns about the ADL's role in fostering an environment hostile to discussions about Israel's policies. Particularly in this case they where operating in synchronicity, with other Pro-Israel lobby groups in instilling the chilling effect, stifling academic freedom, freedom of association in University Campuses.
Historical Context of Anti-Palestinian Advocacy:
The ADL has been implicated in shaping U.S. counterterrorism laws that disproportionately target Palestinian activism. A report highlighted how pro-Israel organizations, including the ADL, have historically influenced legislation that casts Palestinians in a negative light while promoting narratives that align with Israeli interests (The Intercept: ADL and Palestine). This historical context suggests a pattern of prioritizing pro-Israel advocacy over civil rights for Palestinians.
Public Statements on Anti-Zionism:
The ADL has consistently framed anti-Zionism as antisemitic, which has been criticized by various activists and scholars who argue that this conflation stifles legitimate discourse about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights (CNN: Wikipedia and ADL). This stance can alienate potential allies in civil rights movements who advocate for justice and equality.
Zionist lobby and the BNP Party: An outlier Case Study
ADL in its civil rights quest, “fighting hate wherever however they may manifest” condemns Tommy Robinson for his former association with the British National Party. Robinson since his grooming by the Zionist groups had distanced themselves from said British political party. The question arises why does this arm of the Zionist lobby, sideline BNP while fostering far-right narratives elsewhere?
Nick Griffin, the former leader of the British National Party (BNP), has made controversial claims regarding the influence of Zionist groups on the party's platform. He suggests that these groups have pressured the BNP to focus its criticisms primarily on Islam while steering clear of any scrutiny of the banking system, which the groups like ADL given his previous narrative, claim implies a connection between Jewish individuals and financial institutions.
In a 1997 publication, Griffin wrote about a perceived domination of the media and other sectors by Jewish figures, suggesting a conspiratorial view of Jewish influence. He stated, "I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter-day witch hysteria," reflecting his broader anti-Semitic sentiments
Zionist Influence on Far-Right Politics
Griffin's assertions reflect a longstanding belief among some far-right factions that Zionist organizations manipulate political discourse to serve their interests. He contends that these groups have sidelined the BNP due to its criticisms of the banking system and its perceived insufficient emphasis on anti-Islam rhetoric. This breaks the confluence, the a pattern where far-right movements in Europe, have found common ground with Zionist ideologies, primarily through shared anti-Muslim sentiments.
Nick Griffin Comments on the Anti-immigration aka 2024 Race Riot
Watch on Bitchute - The YouTube video was taken down.
According to Nick Griffin, recent protests in the UK reflect long-standing frustrations, particularly among the white working class, who viewed Brexit as a mandate for border control that was ultimately ignored by political elites. Griffin argues that various interests drive mass immigration, including capitalism's demand for cheap labor, politicians seeking votes, and alleged far-left agendas. He claims there's a coordinated effort to redirect nationalist sentiments specifically against Muslims, rather than addressing broader immigration issues. Griffin criticizes this narrow focus for ignoring problems with other immigrant groups. Additionally, he asserts that Zionist interests are influencing British politics and media, potentially limiting politicians' ability to oppose certain policies.
The following quote from Griffins previous speech post-fixed in the podcast highlights attempts to influence the British National Party's platform by external interests, specifically to focus criticism on Islam while avoiding criticism of the banking system.
"We were approached, I was approached. We were offered money from the United States and all they wanted was two things. They only wanted us to concentrate on Islam... and it only came with one other thing - they wanted us to drop our criticism of the banking system. Those were the only two things. We had to concentrate on talking about Muslims and we had to drop our criticism of the international banking system. And I refused and we refused. That was in about 2007 and all hell broke loose really from that time when systematically they try to take this party apart."
The Shift in Focus: Loosing the Zionist Support
The BNP, like other Far-Right groups historically known for its nationalist and anti-immigrant stance, has increasingly aligned itself with narratives that vilify Islam while downplaying other critical issues, such as economic inequality or systemic financial corruption. When the general agenda of the party shifted over to traditional critiques of capitalism or banking practices, the shadow clique, with more influence than the elected representatives on the policies that govern the state.
According to the document “The ideology of the British National Party” at university of Liege, citing, Bowyer, Benjamin. "Local Context and Extreme Right Support in England: The British National Party in the 2002 and 2003 Local Elections." Electoral Studies, vol. 27, 2008, pp. 609-621.
The BNP's party's transformation from an extreme-right group to a populist movement that framed its agenda around issues like immigration, cultural preservation, and opposition to political elite, current position is a hybrid of Extreme Right Parties (ERP) and populist families, making it easier for BNP leaders to participate in mainstream politics.The literature presents conflicting views on the BNP, describing it as both following the same path as its European counterparts and being an exception unable to move away from its marginal status, its extremist origins and ideology have continued to undermine its broader appeal.
Post October 7, BNP
Discussing the Quilliam Foundations facilitation of Tommy Robinson leaving the English Defence League), the BNPs Nick Griffin stated on Twitter:
Qulliam closely linked to Policy Exchange just another bit of neo-con/Zionist puppet play. Same paymasters just different tune for Tommy.
This is how CST, a Zionist organization describes BNP use of Zionist.
both the National Front and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, have shown, yet again, how their use of the word Zionist is basically the same as that found in Islamist and leftist anti-Israel circles. In doing so, they remind us of the need to get back to basics in challenging antisemitic aspects of anti-Zionism.
Nick Griffin when asked “Nick do you hate Jews?”, responds by saying know, and he takes the same view and positions taken by other Jewish individual like Ron Unz, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Benjamin Freedman, while the real haters of Jews are having a field day over the Israeli assault in Gaza, everything bad is about the Jews for them.
Zionism Exploitation of Identity Politics
In conclusion, Griffin's comments highlight a significant trend within far-right politics where anti-Islam narratives are prioritized, often at the expense of broader critiques of economic systems. This reflects not only a tactical alignment with Zionist interests but also an adaptation to contemporary political climates that favor divisive identity politics over comprehensive socio-economic critiques. Identify politics is the demagoguery that Zionism exploits and co-opts.
The Israel Lobby Man at the Helm: Israel is Stoking Region War
As we have seen major machination of the lobby has been pushing for war they did with Iraq and Syria, is Iran Next?
With the ultra-Right wing, Likud and Netanyahu at the helm is their mad dog doing their bidding. Tensions in the Middle East have reached a critical point following the assassination of key figures from Hezbollah and Hamas. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas' political bureau, and Fuad Shukr, a senior military adviser to Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, were both targeted in recent Israeli operations. These events have drawn significant international attention, with concerns mounting over the potential for increased conflict in the region.
Assassinated Figures:
Ismail Haniyeh: As a prominent leader within Hamas, Haniyeh's assassination has become a focal point in discussions about regional stability.
Fuad Shukr: A high-ranking official within Hezbollah, Shukr's death in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut marks a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict CNN, Al Jazeera.
Response from Iran and Hezbollah: Iran and Hezbollah have both vowed to retaliate against Israel for these assassinations. Iran has promised a "harsh and painful response" for the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, while Hezbollah confirmed the assassination of Fuad Shukr and has pledged a strong response ABC News, New York Times.
In his speech Hezbollah Leader: Hassan Nasrallah, declared that the response to the Israeli assassinations, retaliation is "inevitable" and that the conflict has entered a "new phase." Nasrallah emphasized that Hezbollah would respond "whatever the consequences" Al Jazeera, BBC.
Retaliation and Further Escalation: In retaliation its expected, Iran and Hezbollah would coordinated with Ansarallah Yemeni forces according to Hezbollah, forces in Yemen have demonstrated their capabilities by striking at the US embassy in Tel Aviv. This attack bypassed Israel's vaunted defenses, including the Iron Dome, resulting in one death and ten injuries NBC News, Wikipedia.
U.S. Response to Escalating Tensions: In response to the escalating tensions, rather than drawing red lines the United States has deployed naval battle groups to the region and is sending additional fighter jets and personnel to U.S. bases in the Middle East. Rather than pursuing diplomatic de-escalation, the war hawks in Washington have been intensifying their rhetoric against Iran, signaling a potential for further military engagement Reuters, The Guardian, BBC.
Netanyahu's Co-option of Ultra-Right Messianic Faction: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strategically aligned with ultra-right messianic factions to solidify his political base. This coalition has been instrumental in pushing for aggressive policies, including the continuation of the war in Gaza. The messianic elements within his government advocate for a broader regional conflict, aiming to annex territories and reshape the demographic landscape Haaretz, Haaretz.
Reasons for Continuing the War in Gaza: Netanyahu's continuation of the war in Gaza is seen by some analysts as a means to serve his personal interests, including holding onto power and avoiding legal consequences. Critics argue that the ongoing conflict distracts from domestic issues and legal challenges facing Netanyahu, allowing him to maintain political support and avoid potential jail time Axios, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera.
Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu's only goal is to set the region on fire
David Hearst, the editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye, discusses the extent to which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has advanced in creating the conditions for a regional war involving the US, Israel, Iran and the resistance movements.
Iran's Ceasefire Talks and Iran Takes the Morally High Road
With US intelligence suggesting for days that Iran’s retaliation against Israel is “IMMINENT,” Iran has practically handed the world a blueprint to stop itself: a ceasefire deal on Thursday.
Iran is currently at a pivotal moment regarding its potential military response to Israel, with ceasefire talks scheduled to begin on Thursday in either Egypt or Qatar. This decision is seen mainly to relieve the besieged under Genocide Gaza population.
A senior Iranian official has warned that if the ceasefire negotiations fail or if Iran perceives delays from Israel, it is prepared to launch an attack. While Israel has not confirmed its involvement in the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Iran holds it responsible.
Experts suggest that a successful ceasefire could lead to a more restrained response from Iran, as it seeks to avoid escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. This situation highlights the delicate balance of international pressure on Iran and its own strategic interests.
For more information, see the article from The Independent.
Meir Litvak, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Alliance Center for Iranian Studies, believes that while Iran would prioritize its own interests over supporting its ally Hamas, it is also keen to avoid escalating the situation into a full-scale war.
"Netanyahu Wants Open-Ended War": Palestinian Journalist & Former Israeli Negotiator on Gaza Ceasefire
Democracy now discuss ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas with Palestinian writer Amjad Iraqi and former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy. Despite apparent divisions among Israeli leadership over the terms of an acceptable deal — if such a deal even exists — all of the Israeli proposals are "united by an assumption that Israel is going to be maintaining overarching control of the Gaza Strip," says Iraqi. Meanwhile, in the United States, what Levy calls "the Biden administration's slavish devotion to running cover" for Israel's genocidal assault is threatening the Democratic Party's attempt to hold onto executive power after the upcoming presidential election.
U.S. Backing Of Israel, & Erosion Of Perceived Rules-Based Order
"There is a price to pay here not just in the US because the international norms that are being violated are going to haunt us and have implications around the world for years to come. Israel is not the only bad actor; it's not the first bad actor—others do bad things in the world—but the extent of what has been done over these last months and the extent of America preventing accountability... we are going to be living globally with the consequences of the trampling of these norms for a long time, I'm afraid."
In his remarks, former Israeli Negotiator Daniel Levy highlights the dangerous long-term consequences of current policies in Gaza and the broader Middle East conflict, emphasizing that the international community will not escape the ripple effects of these actions. Levy underscores that violations of international norms, facilitated by the U.S. backing of Israeli policies, will have lasting global repercussions. Violation of major humanitarian treaties with live streamed Genocide, starvation being used as a weapon of war and the erosion of accountability for war crimes suggest that the consequences of current actions may shape global geopolitics for years.
Israel ever growing bellicose stance
As Biden administration in Washington claims there is no war, Israel conflict spreads to 16 nations. (The Intercept)
Pager Walkie Talkie Attack: The attack on the Pager Walkie Talkie is indicative of the increasing hostilities between Israel and Iranian proxies in the region. Following this incident, there have been retaliatory threats from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which have vowed to respond to Israeli actions, particularly after the assassination of key figures within their ranks (Al Jazeera).
Bombings in Lebanon and Syria: Israel's airstrikes in Lebanon and Syria have intensified, targeting Hezbollah positions and Iranian military assets. These actions have been met with warnings from Iran and its allies about potential retaliation, contributing to a cycle of violence that risks spiraling into a broader conflict (Anadolu Agency).
Amid Israel-Hezbollah strikes, Lebanon says only US can stop fighting: Hebolla Apeals for U.S intervention to stop escalation.
Israel's offensive since Monday morning has killed 569 people, including 50 children, and wounded 1,835 in Lebanon, Health Minister Firass Abiad told Al Jazeera Mubasher TV. (Reuters)Israel Bombed Lebanon Today, Killing Hundreds. The U.S. Is Sending More Bombs: Weapons used in earlier Israeli strikes into Lebanon that have killed civilians have been found to be U.S.-made. (The Intercept)
“It’s easier to stop sending the Israel government weapons to conduct its genocidal wars than it is to evacuate every American in Lebanon,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., on X on Monday, captioning a tweet from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, urging American citizens to leave the country
In recent months, an Israeli settler organization, Uri Tzafon — the name invokes a biblical verse and translates to “Awaken, O North” — said that settling Lebanon is necessary to “grant true and stable security to northern Israel” and expand Israel closer toward its biblical borders, according to Jewish Currents.
The Rules-Based Order
As Israel continues military actions that many observers label as war crimes and potential genocide. Recent reports from international bodies, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations, have highlighted these issues, raising serious concerns about the breakdown of international institutions and the rules-based order. See my post on ICJ and ICC.rulings.
Escalation of Violence and Accusations of War Crimes in International Area
ICJ Ruling on Probable Genocide: On January 26, 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling acknowledging plausible grounds for allegations that Israel's actions in Gaza could amount to genocide. The court ordered Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, including killings and incitement to genocide, while also ensuring humanitarian aid reaches those affected in Gaza (Chatham House). However, unlike its previous ruling against Russia, the ICJ did not mandate an immediate ceasefire.
International Criminal Court Findings: The ICC has indicated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both Israeli forces and Hamas have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The prosecutor's office has documented systematic attacks against civilians, including starvation as a method of warfare employed by Israel, which constitutes collective punishment (ICC Statement).
UN Reports on Human Rights Violations: A recent UN report accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes since the onset of hostilities on October 7, 2023. The report detailed instances of extermination, torture, and gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys by Israeli forces, while also condemning Hamas for its brutal attacks on civilians (BBC).
Anatomy of Genocide: UN Special Rapporteur reports have described the situation in Gaza as "an anatomy of genocide," suggesting that Israel's military actions are not just retaliatory but part of a broader strategy to eliminate Palestinian identity and presence (Al Jazeera). This perspective aligns with findings from the ICC regarding systematic attacks against civilians.
ICJ Advisory Opinion: The ICJ is set to issue an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences of Israel's occupation policies. This ruling is expected to address issues related to apartheid and persecution against Palestinians, highlighting the broader implications of Israel's military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (Human Rights Watch).
ICJ Ruling a Probable Genocide: Comparison with ICJ Ruling Against Russia. Is U.S influence at Play
Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine on March 16, 2022, the ICJ ordered Russia to "immediately suspend" its military operations in Ukraine (Opinio Juris). The judges expressed deep concern over the humanitarian tragedy resulting from Russia's invasion and emphasized that military actions raised serious issues under international law (European Parliament). Judge Joan Donoghue noted that "the court is fully aware of the magnitude of the humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine," indicating a more urgent response to clear breaches of international law.
Was U.S. Pressure at Play?
The differences in these rulings may suggest varying levels of geopolitical influence at play. In the case of Ukraine, there was a unified international response against Russian aggression, likely bolstered by significant U.S. political pressure. Conversely, the situation regarding Israel is more complex, with many Western nations, including the U.S., historically providing unwavering support for Israel despite allegations of human rights violations. This inconsistency raises questions about whether similar political dynamics influenced the ICJ's more cautious approach in the case against Israel.
Biden Administration's Response
The Biden administration has been criticized for moving red lines regarding its support for Israel, often refraining from condemning Israeli actions that violate international law. This perceived complicity raises questions about the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy in promoting human rights and adherence to international norms. Critics argue that unconditional support for Israel undermines the credibility of Western powers in advocating for justice in conflict zones (Human Rights Watch).
Breakdown of International Institutions
The ongoing conflict has exposed significant weaknesses in international institutions tasked with maintaining peace and enforcing human rights. The ICC and UN have faced challenges in holding powerful states accountable, leading to accusations of bias and ineffectiveness. The lack of decisive action against Israel's military operations contributes to a perception that international law is selectively applied, further eroding trust in these institutions (Atlantic Council).
Impact of Pro-Israel Lobbying
The influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in shaping U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated. These groups often advocate for a hawkish stance towards Iran and support military actions that align with Israeli interests. This lobbying has significant implications for how Western powers respond to conflicts involving Israel and its adversaries (CAGE). The alignment of military strategies between the U.S. and Israel suggests a coordinated approach that prioritizes military solutions over diplomatic negotiations.
Finally there can more to be said unraveled revealed. but this post needs to be warped up. and for that I will list some excellent Documentaries on the Pro-Israel Lobby in U.S, in civil society, public discourse and politics.
'Israelism': Indoctrination and Jewish Identity
This documentary delves deep into the indoctrination process that takes place with a focus on the American Jewish community through the eyes of its two protagonists Simone Zimmerman and Eitan.
Two young American Jews - Simone Zimmerman and Eitan - are raised to defend the state of Israel at all costs. Eitan joins the Israeli military. Simone supports Israel on ‘the other battlefield:’ America’s college campuses. When they witness Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinian people with their own eyes, they are horrified and heartbroken.
They join the movement of young American Jews battling the old guard over Israel’s centrality in American Judaism, and demanding freedom for the Palestinian people. Their stories reveal a generational divide in the American Jewish community as more young Jews question the narratives their synagogues and Hebrew school teachers fed them as children. (Israelism The Film)
How A Former Zionist SAW THROUGH Israel’s Propaganda
Katie talks to Jewish American filmmakers Erin Axelman and Sam Eilertsen and Jewish American activist Simone Zimmerman as they discuss their controversial and frequently banned documentary "Israelism" about the way young Jews are rejecting zionism. In this clip they share how they went from Zionist to critic of Israel.
'Israelism': How deep do indoctrination and Israeli army glorification go? | Talk to Al Jazeera
As the film faces opposition from groups trying to cancel its screenings, its main protagonist, Simone Zimmerman, and its co-director and producer, Erin Axelman, talk to Al Jazeera.
In discussing the growing divide within the Jewish community, Erin Axelman addresses a critical aspect highlighted by the documentary Israelism: the fracturing of Jewish opinions on Israel, particularly across generational and geographical lines. Axelman says, "The pro-Israel right in America has long perpetuated the myth that we are united on Israel, and for many decades, they’ve succeeded. But the reality is the opposite—our community is deeply polarized and divided."
He cites a 2021 poll showing that 25% of American Jews believe Israel is an apartheid state. That figure jumps to around 40% among younger Jews under 40. Axelman adds, "If 40% of young Jews think Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, I think we’re probably already at the point where 50% of young American Jews realize something is deeply wrong with how Israel has treated the Palestinian people."
Axelman believes this divide may already represent a majority among younger Jews, highlighting the stark contrast between generations.
Jewish Electorate Institute: New poll: 25% of U.S. Jews think Israel is an apartheid state
See: Stories of American Jewish transformation in relation to Israel-Palestine
The Lobby: An Investigative Documentary By Al-Jazeera Exposes Israel's Influences on UK Politics
Watch the Documentary - YouTube
The Documentary released in 2017 captures undercover footage conversations that so damning, and controversial that a Israeli diplomat and British Civil servant was forced to resign.
Following the broadcast, pro-Israel media attacked Al Jazeera, accusing the series of being anti-Semitic, infringing on privacy, and showing bias in favor of Palestinians
Complaints were lodged with Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, which is responsible for ensuring fairness and balance in broadcasting.
After a nine-month investigation, Ofcom fully vindicated Al Jazeera, rejecting all complaints and affirming the broadcaster’s adherence to required standards.
Finally on a end note, it cannot be business as usual when a Genocide is live streamed i front of our eye, if not now when is the time to act, The Zionist Project, like the apartheid south Africa, could not last, Unless we rise in unison to oppose and expose the lies, the double standards, the inhumanity matted out to Palestinians over the last 75+ years finally manifesting itself as undeniable Genocide, we would not be doing just by our humanity. Never-Again means Never-Again for Everyone.
The skies over Gaza weep ash and blood, a grim testament to humanity's capacity for cruelty. We stand at the precipice of history, watching in real-time as the shadows of past atrocities stretch their tendrils into our present. The Zionist project, that insidious ideology that has poisoned minds and justified unspeakable horrors for over seven decades, now bares its teeth in a genocidal frenzy that can no longer be denied or ignored. This is not a distant conflict on foreign shores. It is a referendum on our collective conscience, broadcast in high definition to every corner of the globe. The cries of Palestinian children, buried beneath the rubble of their homes, echo through our screens and demand a response. How will we answer? The apartheid regime of South Africa once seemed an immovable monolith, its foundations built on the same toxic blend of racial supremacy and colonial entitlement that fuels the Zionist dream. Yet it crumbled, brought low by the relentless tide of global solidarity and moral outrage. So too must the edifice of Zionist oppression be dismantled, brick by blood-stained brick. But this transformation will not come through passive observation or toothless condemnation. It requires us to rise, to lock arms across continents and cultures, to amplify the voices of the oppressed until they drown out the lies and double-speak of those who would justify genocide. For 75 years, the Palestinian people have endured a slow-motion catastrophe. Now, as that tragedy accelerates into unthinkable brutality, we face a moment of reckoning. "Never again," we promised after the horrors of the 20th century. Those words ring hollow if they apply only to some, if we allow the descendants of victims to become victimizers while we stand idly by. Never again means never again for everyone – for the child in Gaza, for the family in the West Bank, for every human being denied their basic dignity and right to exist. The time for action is not tomorrow, not after the next atrocity, not when it's convenient. It is now. In this moment, as bombs fall and lives are extinguished, our humanity hangs in the balance. Will we rise to meet this dark hour with the full force of our collective conscience? Or will we let the light of justice flicker and die, smothered by indifference and fear? The choice is ours. Let us make it one that future generations will look back on with pride, not shame. Let us be the ones who said: "No more. Not in our name. Not while we draw breath." For in the end, it is not just Gaza that will be liberated by our actions, but our own souls.