The Israel Lobby and
What the Israel Lobby Really Is
How It Hurts the USA
What to Do About It
A Working Paper
Part II: The Genesis, Development and Future of the Lobby
“The history of Israel without the distraction of Israeli history”
I have met John Brady Kiesling twice, once at Princeton and once at Harvard. The USA lost an able diplomat when he resigned from the Foreign Service, [i] on February 24, 2003 in order to express his opposition to the impending attack on Iraq. Despite his apparently increasing frustration, which in not a few cases seems to related to the special relationship between the USA and the State of Israel, [ii] his book, entitled Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower is nothing if not diplomatic[iii] in its attempt to analyze the American practice of diplomacy objectively and to explain the logic of diplomacy for the world’s only superpower.
Some of his assessments require more justification than he provides. On p. 140, Kiesling writes:
One of the worst political deformations of Muslim elites, as of Greek elites until the 1990s, is the belief that unlimited American power absolves everyone else of moral responsibility. Few Muslims accept America’s legitimate argument that peace and justice in the Middle East depend first and foremost on the people who live there. America could have prevented Israel from colonizing the West Bank, but it did not. The CIA is an allegedly all-knowing intelligence service, so ignorance is no excuse. Therefore, America is an evil superpower, and evil must be resisted.
While the State of Israel and Zionism have caused some major political deformations of Muslim and Western elites, confused ideas about blame and responsibility hardly make the top ten among intellectual contortions. Kiesling’s position is forgivable but harder to defend after the destruction of Iraq because correct analysis of the real Middle East problem in the proper context of US politics requires knowledge of Jewish and Zionist politics beyond anything normally obtainable from academic studies in N. American, in European, or in any university system in the world today.
Kiesling’s inaccurate description of Israel as “a vibrant democracy” (p. 177) is excusable in a former student of the Classics and archeology because resisting the effects of the Zionist effort to obscure the true nature of the Israeli political system requires thorough familiarity with inter bellum Eastern European formal democracies of the class to which the State of Israel belongs.
Kiesling more than compensates for occasional questionable assertions with his willingness to reevaluate long held opinions belied by events. He confesses on pp. 107-108:
Most Greek bookstores carry Greek translations of all the latest books by Noam Chomsky, an American intellectual gifted at connecting all the dots of U.S. behavior into a tidy picture. In 2001 I assured Mr. Tegopoulos, the publisher of Athens’ most popular leftist newspaper, that his favorite American philosopher was clinically insane.” Chomsky, I said, had deduced a vast, invisible mechanism of systematic U.S. oppression and exploitation, one that was not true to human nature and could not have operated over decades without becoming visible to its employees. I reassured Tegopoulos that the U.S. foreign policy apparatus could not conspire its way effectively out of a paper bag.
I feel more charitably disposed toward Chomsky now. The Iraq War proved that the United States does have a small group of extremely intelligent, disciplined, highly competitive individuals competent enough to mobilize the U.S. bureaucracy around a single mission such as regime change in Iraq. Chomsky’s favorite conspirators, the former Troskyites turned neoconservatives, might even have read Chomsky in their youth. Certainly they made the same mistake he did. They confused mastery over the U.S. bureaucratic system with U.S. power to triumph over the real world.
I can empathize. I used to be highly sympathetic both to the American Jewish community and also to the State of Israel until Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories as well as the policies of the second Bush administration forced me to reevaluate my original assumptions and to study issues relating to the Middle East in more detail.
Despite Kiesling’s statement above, describing Neoconservatives as Chomsky’s favorite conspirators is questionable. They do not even figure Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians with the exception of Richard Perle, who receives brief mention on p. 450 of the updated edition.
Just as Chomsky would probably criticize Kiesling’s apparent belief in a well-defined objective US national interest, I have to criticize Chomsky’s analysis of the relationship between the United States and the State of Israel as well as common assumptions that Americans make about Jews and Israel.
For the record, I knew a good number of the current generation of Neocons in their youth at Harvard and elsewhere, and I have to laugh at the attempt to identify them or the previous generation with Trotskyitism or Schachtmanism although I will concede that Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Jabotinsky are rather similar[iv] and that in general the first generation of Trotskyites and Revisionist Jabotinskian Zionists tend to come from the same rather narrow range of backgrounds.
Depiction of Neoconservatives as leftists turned right represents a way of distracting from the true nature of Neoconservatism as an ideology of Jewish special interest. (See The Real Origins of Neocons and All in the Neocon Family., [v])
Yet, Kiesling’s resignation letter more than compensates for some minor foibles in interpretation by posing a question that clarifies the dilemma in the USA and the world finds itself:
Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
Zionism reached its final form in the late Czarist state and imprinted on Russian imperialism as the normal behavior of a Great Power. Neocons steeped in Zionist ideology and holding some of the most powerful positions in the US government have almost reflexively proposed policy in conformance with the belief that the normal behavior of a Superpower like the USA must follow the example of the imaginary brutality of the Czarist Empire of Zionist narrative.[vi]
Americans should be feel reassured that there exist US diplomats with the knowledge base to make the connection between Neocon foreign policy and the Romanovs. They should be distressed that one such diplomat felt compelled as a man of integrity[vii] to resign from the Foreign Service in the lead-up to the Second Iraq War despite the habits of two decades of loyal service to the USA. Because of such strength of character, I dedicate The Israel Lobby and American Society to John Brady Kiesling.
What is a Zionist? A Jew who takes the money of a second Jew in order to send a third Jew to Palestine.
This quip has appeared in discussions of Zionism for about 75 years (including recently in the Mondoweiss blog) and hides the facts by putting them in plain view with a sarcastic description that can apply to the colonial office of any imperial state that uses some portion of tax revenue to send settlers to live in a foreign colony. In other words, the goal of Zionism was not so much the establishment of a settlement or state in Palestine as it was of creating an Empire. In the context of the last decades of the nineteenth century, the idea was hardly unreasonable. The newly consolidated German and Italian states felt cheated or left out and fairly quickly sought to enhance their status, wealth and power by acquiring foreign colonies. In the 1880s Eastern European Jews outnumbered Danes, who already had their own colonial Empire. While the Dutch built their physical countryside as they became wealthier and more powerful through enlargement and exploitation of their imperial possessions, Zionists never bothered with a physical territory but expanded and elaborated the organizational capabilities of their virtual colonial motherland as they became richer and more influential in parallel with the development of the Zionist settlement in Palestine.
Because discussing a colonial motherland in connection with Zionism seems oxymoronic by definition within the framework of Zionist ideology and possibly because mainstream academics simply do not take Jewish history and politics seriously enough, the development of this virtual state structure has escaped the attention of all historians and political scientists that have studied the history of Modern Israel and its relationship with the USA. Professors John Mearsheimer and Walt use the term Israel lobby but explain:
We use “Israel lobby” as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, p. 112.)
As with other special interest groups, the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely, and there will always be some borderline individuals or organizations whose position is hard to classify. (Ibid, p. 113.)
C. Wright Mills once wrote that the US “power elite” ruled by denying it held power. The Zionist elite follows this formula, but defends itself by accusing its adversaries of being “anti-Semites” and pursuing retributive measures that would please former Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) cannot be understood merely as the “Jewish Lobby” or even the AIPAC, as formidable as it is, with 150 full-time functionaries. The ZPC can best be understood as a complex network of interrelated formal and informal groupings, operating at the international, national, regional and local levels, and directly and systematically subordinated to the State of Israel, its power holders and key decision makers.” (p. 46.)
In some regards ZPC is better than Israel lobby, but Petras is incorrect in claiming that the ZPC is “subordinated to the State of Israel, its power holders and key decision makers.”
Neither of the two terms does justice to the history or political economy of the Zionist virtual colonial motherland, which this document names by combining combining Iud/aeus (Latin: Jew) with Pol/onia.to create the term Judonia in order to emphasize the analogy with the historical concept of Polonia during the time period when the Polish state had ceased to exist.
Judonia’s leadership is unique among imperial governments, for it has no need to compromise with or compensate for the exigencies of ruling an actual physical nation-state. Because Judonia’s colonialism and imperialism function in particularly pure forms, they would long ago have become the subjects of immense scholarly inquiry if only mainstream historians and political scientists took Jewish history and internal politics seriously.
Europe (Incl. Russia)
Africa, Middle East
North & South America
Table 1 A summary of the distribution of Jews throughout the world from 1800 to 1948 (1000s)
The Jews of Commonwealth Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska, 1505-1795) had lived in the center of a powerful state and constituted an economic elite with easy access to the rulers. In partitioned Poland they were a disenfranchised frustrated transnational elite of a vanished state. Without any relocation whatsoever, the members of this elite now inhabited territories, far less politically and economically significant, at the periphery of the Prussian, Austrian and Russian empires. While on the whole Jewish income was higher than that of their non-Jewish neighbors, it was nowhere near the levels to which many Jews aspired and felt they could achieve if granted access to the central imperial territories. Jews were subjected to various forms of exclusion and discrimination in all three states, and they felt humiliated.
A typical Jewish intellectual harboring such feelings was Peretz Smolenskin. He was a popular albeit not particularly successful writer. He was ostensibly responding to the pogroms following the targeted assassination of Czar Nicholas II by a Jewish-led terror squad (see Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry) with the essay “Let us search our Ways” (1881):
To our shame and sorrow we must admit that there is no peace and unity among us. We were weak within — therefore our strength was little in the day of evil. Would this have happened had we believed in our hearts that the ten million Jewish souls belonged to one nation? Every person in his right senses would reply: No! Why are we treated like this? Because we have sunk so low that our self-respect has died – because we have come to like charity flung at us in disgrace and contempt. (See The Zionist Idea, A Historical Analysis and Reader by Arthur Hertzberg, p. 150.)
Just as the founders of the Dutch or Honorable (British) East India Companies had no inkling that they were founding the Dutch and British Empires (as they were experimenting with the new financial instrument of the joint-stock corporation), Smolenskin shows no obvious consciousness of proposing an Empire for Eastern European Jews as he identifies the territory, manpower, and resources necessary to create a colony:
[English explorers] have established that the [Land of Israel] is very good and that, if cultivated with skill and diligence, it could support fourteen million people. Even if we assume some exaggeration (though in truth there is none) and that there is room for only half that number, Eretz Israel can nonetheless contain all those who might wish to take refuge there. Not all Jews will go there — only those who are destitute or persecuted will look for a place to which to emigrate. It would be enough if only one million of our brethren would go, for it would be a relief both to them and to those remaining in the lands of the dispersion. (Ibid, p. 152.)
Our Jewish philanthropists should therefore not tarry, if they really want to help their less fortunate brethren. They should hasten to buy land and let Jews settle on it to begin a new life. We can be sure that money will not be lacking, if only men of sufficient vision can be found to initiate this project in the right spirit, with a desire to help their people. In all countries there exist such Jews, many more than we know of, who strive to help their people with all their might and main. Only one thing is lacking — a united purpose. As soon as we succeed in achieving unity for this great work, fruition will not be long in coming. (Ibid, p. 153.)
Because of exclusion from governmental or profession employment by law or prejudice, Smolenskin and similar underemployed Jewish intellectuals were available as a pool of organizers for all sorts of political, reformist or radical politics. Members of the then numerically insignificant[ix] Zionist intelligentsia[x] developing in the 1880s would eventually become the original bureaucracy as well as the foreign and colonial office of Judonia that was coming into being. Like any other colonial bureaucracy few seem to have ever had any intention of relocating permanently to the Jewish settlement even if they publicly claimed otherwise.
If Smolenskin and fellow early Zionists showed any conscious realization that wealthy Western Jews had sufficient wealth in aggregate to found a low-budget colonial empire that did not have to distract itself with the maintenance of a physical colonial motherhood, they would count as some of the most astute practical political thinkers of the nineteenth century, but they like most political actors seem to have been sleepwalking through history and could not come up with the right marketing gimmick to shake money out of the pockets of western Jews.
The early colonial effort was only feasible
· because of historical developments that changed how Jews (and also non-Jews) related to their history and to scripture,
· because of the existing or developing non-Zionist communal infrastructure among British, French, German and Eastern European Jews,
· because of the appearance of a reformist non-Zionist intelligentsia that appears in the Russian Empire during the 1850s, and
· because of increasing wealth among Western European and North American Jewish communities.
Just as modern nations are imagined communities, modern empires are exploitive hierarchies ruled by a modern nation that dominates other national or population groups by means of force, various forms of compulsion, deceit and self-deception. (See Facts versus Delusions in Jewish History.)
Imperialism in the context of Zionism is unique and therefore worthy of study because of the exceptional levels of associated deceit and self-deception and because of the success of Zionists in piggybacking on or co-opting the force and power of the UK, the USA and France[xi] to defeat the native Palestinian and neighboring Arab populations.
The fundamental Zionist deceit and self-deception relates to the Hebrew Bible or Christian Old Testament.
Despite Zionist propaganda and ethnic Ashkenazi conceit, modern Jewry has no ancestral connection to ancient Israelite or Judahite populations. The Pentateuch (Torah, תּוֹרָה) is the founding story in a surviving remnant theology[xii] elaborated in literature that eventually became the canonical prophetic and hagiographic books of the Bible (Neviim, נביאים, and Ketuvim, כתובים). The Persian period Jerusalem elite used this material both to justify its rule over the native population and also to legitimize the status of the province of Yehud within the Persian Empire. (See Historiography of Pre-State Zionism.)
In The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, Michael Prior describes in detail how modern Christian and Jewish groups have used material from the Pentateuch in more recent forms of imperialism and colonialism. The concept of the Covenant of Israel has proven at least as efficacious as the sense imperial mission (or white man’s burden[xiii]) or the idea of mission civilatrice in creating the mindset of domination.
Covenantal and dispensationalist ideas are most persuasive to ignorant Christians and Jews, who have not read past the Pentateuch or who have not understood the Covenantal logic that continues in operation to this day.
Because of the spiritual failure of the Israelite, Ephraimite and Judahite kingdoms, Israelites and their descendants are forbidden from ever establishing an independent kingdom in the Land of Israel. The establishment Yehud as a province of the Persian Empire was an expression of God’s mercy of which the Persian Emperor Cyrus was the agent or anointed messiah [Second Isaiah 45:1].
In this new religious political framework, the piety of the host of Israel was no longer contingent on a primitive barter or exchange, and the later Biblical prophets exhorted the remnants of the House of Israel to serve God out of love and gratitude.
Zionism represents a fundamental rejection of this Biblical Theology that is intrinsic to modern Judaism and Christianity.
The most important secondary Zionist deceit and self-deception relates to the Christian Bible, extra-biblical Jewish scripture and Greco-Roman literature.
Despite propaganda and ethnic Ashkenazi conceit, modern Jewry has practically no ancestral connection to Judeans of the Greco-Roman period.
In reality Zionist propaganda reinterprets and distorts the religious legacy that resulted from the following modifications or actions that the Hasmoneans, the Herodians and their successors undertook for their own political and economic purposes in association with their stewardship over Second Temple Judaism.
Despite Zionist and general Jewish denial or ignorance, the Khazar Empire created Medieval and consequently Modern Judaism.
The interaction between post-Bar Kochba Judaism and the pagan and then the Christian Roman Empire is complex. (See Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. by Seth Schwartz.) Eventually the academies of the Geonim managed to claim a degree of disputed intellectual and religious authority over Judean communities.
Developments within Judaism over the next three centuries are obscure, but the rising Khazar Empire needed a religion, a legal system, and a commercial organization in order to trade Slavic slaves with the Byzantine, Carolingian and Islamic Empires. There is evidence that Khazar funding gave the Geonic formulation of Judaism significant advantage over competing variants. In return the Geonim created a form of Judaism
Not only do the developments within Judaism in this early period have analogues with the Western legal and economic evolution described by Nathan Rosenberg and Luther Earle Birdzell in How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World, but the Jewish trading framework constructed during the early Medieval period was also an important input into the creation of the modern Western financial system. (See Les origines des juifs actuels and The Origins of Modern Jewry.)
The internal Medieval Jewish legal, political, economic system imposed a high degree of communal cohesiveness, provided mechanisms for strong control of social deviance, and was generally harsher and more coercive in its dealings with powerless non-Jews than with members of the Jewish community. For example, Sefer haMitzvot of Maimonides (twelfth century) identifies positive commands:
Modern Jewry inherited small but long lasting economic, educational, and social organizational advantages as a legacy from the Khazars and Medieval Judaism. In addition, Jews developed a tradition of employment in professions associated with the Medieval Slave trade like medicine, banking, tax farming and estate management while the mixed Slavo-Turkic, Balkan, and Southern Russian population ruled by the Khazars survived the Empire’s demise and eventually developed into the Eastern European Ashkenazi ethnic group. (See How to talk about Zionism, a new improved guide.)
Despite the popular depiction of Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi Jews as a poor oppressed population first of historic Poland and then of the Austrian, German, and Russian Empires, the advantages bequeathed by their Jewish forerunners made it possible for ethnic Ashkenazim to play a critical economic role within the Polish state and function as native collaborators within Austrian and German Poland. The Russian government had less use for ethnic Ashkenazim but recognized their economic value despite heavy ethnic Ashkenazi involvement in smuggling.
Ethnic Ashkenazim developed a sense of grievance as a result of the Chmielnicki Rebellion, and this feeling grew with the Russian Pogroms of 1881 and afterwards.
Lucy S. Dawidowicz describes the Chmielnicki Rebellion in The Golden Tradition, Jewish Life and Thought in Eastern Europe on p. 10.
The Ukraine had come under Polish rule in 1569 and had been subjected to a harsh policy of Polonization and Catholicization: the Eastern Orthodox Church was suppressed and the Ukrainian peasants enserfed to the Polish nobility. The rise of towns on the steppe where Cossack horsemen once rode wild horses and the increasingly powerful economic role of urban Jews mediating between the Polish nobility and the Ukrainian peasants compounded the political and religiocultural tensions. Bogdan Chmielnitsky (1593-1657), hetman of Zaporogian Cossacks, led a Cossak uprising to liberate the Ukraine from Poland. Chmielnitsky agitated against Poles and Jews: “You know the wrongs done us by the Poles and Yids, their leaseholders and beloved factors, the oppressions, the evil deeds and the impoverishment, you know and you remember.”
Chmielnitsky did not succeed in liberating the Ukraine, but in the subsequent decade of war and violence, interrupted only by brief intervals of negotiations among the Poles, Russians, Swedes, and Turks, the Cossacks with their murderous bands of peasants, called Haidamaks, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews, sacking and destroying hundreds of Jewish communities. That was the beginning of a series of blood-drenched encounters between Jews and Ukrainians that were to endure in Jewish historic memory. About one-tenth of the Jewish population remained in the Polish Ukraine, Volhynia, and Podolia. The other survivors emigrated into Lithuania, Poland proper, and to the Western European countries. In 1654, Chmielnitsky accepted Moscow’s protection, and finally in 1667, the Truce of Andrusovo split the Ukraine, with Kiev, its cultural center, and the left bank of the Dnieper going to Russia, and the right bank remaining with Poland.
In Yiddish Civilisation: The Rise and Fall of a Forgotten Nation (pp. 235-6), Paul Kriwaczek provides a very different perspective on the role of Jews in sixteenth and seventeenth century Ukraine, which was then part of Commonwealth Poland. (Please not that it is probably too harsh on Polish nobles and too considerate of wealthy Jewish estate managers.)
This Yiddish takeover of the wild and lawless Ukraine's economy could be expected to have involved much exploitation and corrupt abuse of monopoly. Jews tried hard to keep such businesses as the collection of customs dues and taxes to themselves. Surviving customs records from the 1580s are written in a mixture of Yiddish and Hebrew. The historian Shimon Dubnow quotes a resolution passed by the Jewish Lithuanian Council, the Vaad Medina Litoh, ruling body of the Jewish estate: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on which everything turns, since thereby Jews may exert control."
The alliance between ruthless Polish nobles and insecure Yiddish frontiersmen proved dangerous and destructive. The Jews now held a position that nothing in their background or religious law had properly prepared them for. They had been placed in authority over another people, of another social order, another culture and another religion, a people whom the magnates, the Jews' masters, regarded as racially inferior and fair game for callous exploitation. Tragically, shaking off the restraining influence of wiser counsels of the West, the repeated warnings of the rabbis of metropolitan Cracow, Posen and Lublin, the Yiddish businessmen who flocked to the colony came to regard the peasantry in a similar light.
In some histories of the Chmielnicki Rebellion, Chmielnicki offered ordinary Jews safe passage out of cities about to be attacked, but they rejected it under the influence of a religious elite co-opted by the wealthy merchants allied with the Polish gentry. In any case, Dawidowicz makes ridiculous claims about Jewish casualties, which in the soundest estimates probably number between 10-20,000. (Some scholars – usually Ukrainian – put the number as low as 4,000.)
Despite the claims about the severity of Czarist pogroms, the conscription crisis of 1850-4 probably represented the worst period for Russian Jewry before WWI.
Not only did the Russian government incorrectly conclude that the Jewish communities could supply more recruits, but it levied fines well beyond the resources of communities to pay.
In 1854 when Czar Nicholas I finally realized that the situation was intolerable, he abated both the fines and the levies of conscripts.
While conditions for Russian Jewry came nowhere near the persecution and oppression that Palestinians have suffered since the creation of the State of Israel, by the death of Nicholas in 1855, traditional Russian Jewish communal structures had shattered.
Michael Stanislawski summarizes the situation in his book Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews, The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1823-1855.
Although the autonomous Jewish community persisted in fact as well as in law, it lost much of its former elan as the traditionalists and the enlightened, the rich and the poor, all increasingly looked to new sources of allegiance, organization, and power. [p. 186]
Fairly quickly, Russian Jewish thinking divided into assimilationist, orthodox, Yiddishist, radical revolutionary, and Zionist intellectual currents. While there were some hybrid groups, the Jewish tendency to bind together in the face of common threats was severely weakened by the end of Nicholas' reign.[xvi]
After the police investigating the assassination of Czar Nicholas II by Narodnaya Volya (Народная Воля, Popular Will) arrested the Russian Jewish revolutionary Gessya Gelfman (Hessya Helfman) as one of the plotters, awareness of increasing Jewish radicalism in the Russian Empire created a reaction of hostility and violence.
The 1883 capture, arrest and trial of Narodnaya Volya leader Vera Figner, who was also Jewish, created more anti-Jewish suspicions and hostiliy, to which Russian Jews responded with both increasing radicalism and also emigration.
Because the Czarist government viewed disorder and unorganized violence as a threat to itself, its reaction to the pogroms tended toward excessive brutality and probably caused more anti-Jewish hostility, which in turn created more Jewish radicalism.
The Czarist government became even more suspicious of non-Russians including (or sometimes especially) the most Russianized, who were often Jewish. Exclusion of Russianized Czarist subjects from positions of authority within the government increased revolutionary tendencies among all non-Russians within the empire.[xvii]
Stanislawski points out on p. 7 that “a patrimonial state such as Imperial Russia, discrimination was the rule rather than the exception and hence entirely relative. He also claims (p. 5): “By the time of Nicholas II, treatment of the Jews was indeed unique and anomalous.”
The meaning is unclear. By the time of Nicholas II, the government was aware of a dangerous radical faction among the Jewish population. Within the Czarist framework the normal Czarist response would probably have involved internal exile, expulsion from the Empire as the Circassians suffered during the 1850s and 1860 (see Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East by Ehud R. Toledano) or something worse, but Russian Jews were too valuable, and Jewish groups had the ability to put pressure on the Czarist government.
While the Russian government was improvising, Jews like probably most Imperial subjects felt victimized, and such feelings probably helped provide an alternative basis for Russian Jewish solidarity as the traditional autonomous Jewish religious communal structure broke down.
The situation was extremely volatile, and despite everything Russian Jews like practically all Jews throughout Europe had more money, better health, more education, and more effective communal organizations that the peoples among whom they lived. In the right (or better the wrong) situation, the combination of anger and resources could occasion a tremendous amount of harm.
While this sense of grievance could increase Russian or Eastern European Jewish cohesiveness and possibly inspire short-term political action, creating a Jewish settlement in Palestine was a multigenerational effort requiring action by Jews outside of Eastern Europe. In another time period religion could perhaps have inspired the necessary long-term unity and focus, but traditional religion was breaking down throughout European Jews in general while the process of ethnicization – still continuing to this day – has become a mainstay of popular Jewish support of Zionist imperialism.
[See The Pity of It All, A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1943, by Amos Elon, The Jewish Response to German Culture, From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, edited by Jehuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg, Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry, and Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation.]
Because the center of gravity for world Jewry from the sixteenth century onward was Eastern Europea, the Eastern European process that transformed Eastern European religion into confessionalism and then into ethnic nationalism had reverberations throughout practically all Jewish communities even though the changes were typically strongest in Eastern Europe.
Gershom Scholem discusses the pervasiveness of Zohar-based mysticism within Jewish communities in the seventeenth century in Schabbatai Zwi: Der mystische Messias (Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676) and numerous other works. (See also Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism or Die jüdische Mystik in ihren Hauptströmungen) The stresses of this time period led to a concretization of ideas that had been hitherto abstract or spiritual concepts for both Christians and Jews. John Freely recounts Nathan of Gaza’s attempt during a visit to Rome to bring Talmudic prophetic passages into contemporary political effect in order to start the Messianic redemption. (See The Lost Messiah, In Search of the Mystical Rabbi Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 155-170.)
With the collapse of the messianic movements of Shabbetai Tzvi and Jacob Frank during the slow disintegration of Commonwealth Poland, many ideas of European Jewish mysticism cross over from learned religious discourse into popular Jewish culture generally in a distorted or debased sense. Galut or exile, which for the most part had served as an abstract notion of deterritorialized Rabbinic Judaism to describe the alienation of man from God, became a palpable aspect of Jewish life even though prayers like the tenth benediction of the Amidah prayer refer not to the Medieval and Modern Jewish Diaspora (tәfutzah) but to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles (galuyyot[eynu]).
As the Polish state slowly dissolved and Poland ceased to be Poland any longer from the Jewish standpoint, ethnic Ashkenazim began to feel that they were in exile in their Polish homeland without having relocated, and they found it a lot easier to contemplate emigration to Western Europe, to the Americas, to the Central Russian provinces or to Palestine. A similar feeling probably facilitated the Greek Bulgarian Turkish population exchanges in the aftermath of WW 1 as old imperial states were replaced by newer more ethnically oriented states and traditional territories began to feel alien while new ethnic centers exerted a pull on communities living outside the new boundaries.[xviii]
Because Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish leaders assumed that leaving homes and villages was similarly easy for all populations, they dreamed especially during the 1930s but even to this day of reaching some sort of final agreement with Palestinians by settling them in some other Arab country.
Because the cultural and ethnic centers for Palestinians are Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Nablus, Ramallah, and Hebron but not Baghdad, Basra, Najaf, Karbala, Ramadi, or Samara, Palestinians were never going to agree to transfer to Iraq or some other Arabic territory. (See Baksheesh Diplomacy, Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of world War II, by Rafael Medoff, pp. 61-62.)
A lot of Jewish mystical ideas of the special nature of the Jewish soul facilitated the development of racist ideas among Jewish communities especially in Eastern and Central Europe. This type of religion-inspired racism is not specific to Judaism and may represent the influence of or a reaction to Christian belief that only Christian souls are saved because the Sufi-influenced pre-Kabala mysticism of Arab Jews had far different concerns (see The Treatise of the Pool: al-Maqāla al-Ĥawđiyya by `Obadyāh Maimonides). The Christian concept of salvation and its mystical ramifications have played a major part in the development of European völkisch and color-based racism.
Here is a description of fairly typical example of early twentieth century Jewish racism from The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 by Amos Elon, p. 225:
If the position of Germany’s Jews was not perfect, it was certainly bearable – at least for the well-to-do – and even quite hopeful in the eyes of the intelligentsia. Intermarriage became common, increasing from 8.4 percent in 1901 to 29.86 percent in 1915. Felix Theilhaber, a Zionist doctor in Munich, hysterically warned in 1911 that intermarriage and sinking birthrates – the result of modern women’s uppityness, he lamented – would bring about the complete disappearance of German Jewry by 1950. According to Theilhaber, marriage among Jews had in the past been a “national-religious” institution, designed to “serve the preservation of the family and the nation”; now, however, it was increasingly “based purely on erotic attraction,” as among Gentiles. Theilhaber decried the recent decline of what he called “racial consciousness” among Jews. Philosophies could be abjured at will, he announced. “Blood” was more permanent.
Theilhaber traveled from one German Jewish community to another speaking out against “racial mixing” through intermarriage. Kafka attended a speech in which Theilhaber warned of the biological damage caused by racial mixing: children of mixed marriages were likely to be decadent or morally depraved, and they often ended up as the worst anti-Semites. However preposterous, Theilhaber’s stereotypes must be read in historical context. The vocabulary of sociobiology and “race” was then an integral part of civilized public discourse. More remarkable was the lack of response to Theilhaber’s tirades. Intermarriage continued to flourish. In Breslau, a less “multicultural” city than Berlin, intermarriage rose from 11 percent in 1890 to 52 percent during the First World War, suggesting that integration was even more advanced in the provinces than was commonly thought.
Despite Elon’s attempt to belittle the significance of Theilhaber’s type of thinking among German Jews, such racism has persisted and expanded among Jews. Theilhaber differs very little from Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse.
While the idea seems strange today, during the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth century, various progressive leaders and movements incorporated into their ideologies racist ideas very similar to those of people like Theilhaber and Wisse.
In addition, some probably more specifically Jewish kabalistic concepts
facilitated the transfer of Jewish allegiance from traditional religious observance to new political movements
Rabbi Yisroel (Israel) ben Eliezer (רבי ישראל בן אליעזר, the Baal Shem Tov or Besht) in Eastern Europe and Moses Mendelssohn in Germany are two contemporary early reformers, who were both apparently inwardly directed.
The Besht founded the Hassidic movement. The conflicts between the Hassidim and their opponents contributed to the breakdown of Rabbinic authority in Eastern Europe.
While Mendelssohn’s proposed reforms of aspects of Jewish religious practice and education were quite minor, he provided the important example of a German Jew fully engaged in the larger German society as a German and possibly created the model of a national German for Protestants and Catholics as well as for Jews. By treating gentile scholarship as important as Jewish learning, Mendelssohn’s efforts undermined Rabbinic authority albeit unintentially.
Although Mendelssohn is considered both the father of the Haskalah (השכלה, Jewish Enlightenment) and of the Reform movement, he was personally fully observant. The earliest phases of the Eastern European Haskalah were probably true to Mendelssohn’s vision In contrast the German Reform movement attempted to make fundamental changes in Jewish Religion.
Mendelssohn’s successors reformed Jewish education by deemphasizing the Talmud, and consequentially, treated the Book of Leviticus as relatively unimportant even though and perhaps because traditional Jewish education focused on this Biblical text as an introduction to Talmud. Jewish education reformers brough Jewish Bible study more into conformity with the developing German concept of a Prussian Israel that served as the model for the Hohenzollern kaisers.
This pattern of Jewish education persists to this day in Israel. Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen write in Jews and Muslims in the Arab World, Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, p. 262:
As in the case of culling useful texts from the Talmud, the secular curriculum removed portions dealing with rituals and ceremonies associated with religious worship. Leviticus, a text that deals largely with the priestly code and rituals, was thereby nearly excised from the curriculum. Secular schools retained only those few sections that deal with celebrating the sabbatical and jubilee years and similar topics that could be interpreted, by modern Israelis, as ethical legislation protecting the rights of workers. The study of the Bible thereby corresponded to that of the Talmud in which similar sections from the tractate of civil jurisprudence were selected.
As Haskalah moved East, a complex interaction developed among Hassidim, their opponents the Mitnagdim, and Russian governmental incoherence, incompetence and brutality. Often the Hassidim and the Mitnagdim banded together against the Maskilim (Enlighteners), and Professor Stanislawski provides evidence that at least one important Eastern Europe traditional religious leader, Yizhak ben Haim of Volozhin was not unsympathetic to the early phase of Haskalah.
As the severely troubled Russian Empire tried to reform itself, a subset of Russian Jews, influenced by the “Germans” tried to bring reform to the whole Russian Jewish population (see Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation) while at the same time the Russian government attempted to impose its own form of reform on its Jewish population generally on the basis of some severe misconceptions.
According to Michael Stanislawski in Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews, The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1823-1855, (pp. 108-109),
By the beginning of the 1850s, therefore, the new power of the maskilim was matched, for the first time, with the security of numbers. From a handful of disjointed individuals clustered in tiny enclaves on the borders of the Pale or in insulated anonymity in the largest cities, the maskilim grew to a well-coordinated movement of several hundred adherents, preaching their gospel to thousands of committed students throughout the [Jewish] Pale [of settlement].
From this new coherence and potency there emerged a new self-consciousness, or rather, a manifest reaffirmation of self-perception. As one of their most articulate spokesmen explained, even the youngest maskilim now sensed their mission. Every student in the state schools
regarded himself as no less than a future reformer, a new Mendelssohn, and therefore, in the quiet worked out a plan of action which he jealously guarded from his friends. [They] were thoroughly convinced that they were going to bring about a complete revolution in the world view of the Jewish people, and they impatiently awaited their moment of action. They were like military commanders standing at the ready for the approaching enemy attack, waiting only for the moment when they will be able to display the wonders of their courage and to distinguish themselves for their fatherland [i.e., the Russian Empire].
This new sense of mission and power, this rejection of traditional society combined with a dedication to its restructuring on a new basis, transformed the maskilim from an amorphous set of intellectuals into a full-fledged intelligentsia. As Isaiah Berlin has taught, there is a fundamental difference between the concept of an intelligentsia and the notion of intellectuals. The former
thought of themselves as united by something more than mere interest in ideas; they conceived of themselves as being a dedicated order, almost a secular priesthood, devoted to the spreading of a specific attitude to life, something like a gospel.
Thus, we can date the emergence of a coherent Russian-Jewish intelligentsia to the latter part of the rule of Nicholas I, in large part as a response to the stimulus provided by the Russian government itself.
Not only was the emerging intelligentsia a competitor to traditional Jewish scholarly and economic communal elites, but in the provinces of Chernigov and New Russia, which were only opened up to Jewish settlement in the late eighteenth century, there were no traditional Jewish elites of any importance and the Russian government relaxed restrictions on Jewish participation in the local government in order to make relocation more attractive and to compensate for a dearth of persons qualfied to be officials in the region. (See The Jews of Odessa: A Cultural History, 1794-1881, by Steven J. Zipperstein.) As a result, internal and external pressures conspired to evolve the Russian Jewish religious community into an ethnic and even into a politically sophisticated ethno-national community albeit only in the Russian Empire, which ruled over many ethnic and ethno-national groups in various stages of development.
In Western Europe the emancipation of Jews contributed to the breakdown of Jewish religious identity despite the best efforts of Modern Orthodox leaders like Samson Raphael Hirsch of Frankfurt, who founded the movement for Torah im Derech Eretz (Hebrew תורה עם דרך ארץ - Torah with "the way of the land") in order to combat Reform Judaism, secularizing assimilation, and conversion to Christianity. His movement may have made it easier for German Jews like Martin Buber to combine the most extreme sorts of German blood and soil nationalism with immersion in neo-Hassidic mysticism as he did at the beginning of WWI. (While he later renounced the German nationalism, Buber’s obsession with blood in the racial sense persisted and played a role in his thinking throughout his life.)
Figure 2 Periodized Chart of Jewish Emancipation
Martin Buber’s success in introducing a sort of völkisch-oriented Neo-Hassidic Zionism to German Jews may have resulted from the Ostjuden-ization of Central and Western European Jews as Emancipation pulled Russian Jews westward.
Shulamit Volkov discusses “The Dynamics of Dissimilation: Ostjuden and German Jews” in The Jewish Response to German Culture, From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, edited by Jeuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg (pp. 192-211). She writes on p. 211 about the creation of the development of an inchoate transnational ethnic identity:
In a letter to his parents in June 1916, Franz Rosenzweig wrote:
One does not write more illogically about the Ostjuden than about the Westjuden; it is only that in the case of the Ostjuden it all seems to come at once, but if one could conceive of the whole literature about the Westjuden written – let’s say in the last twenty years, as condensed into one single year, so that literature too would turn out to be, as our Eastern-Jewish grand- and great-grandfathers would have called it, a nice Bilbul. There is no Ostjudenfrage, there is only a Judenfrage – and even that doesn’t really exist. By the way, imagine only that all that German fear of the Ostjuden were to be directed not at the Ostjuden as such, but at these same people as future Westjuden (well, your kind.)
A generation of Jews who were relatively free from the anxiety of social climbing was beginning to look inward. These were the years of Freud and the great Jewish cultural critics, the time of the inflow of Jews into the membership and leadership of the Social Democratic party, and of the emergence of Zionism. The constant handling of the Ostjudenfrage – the confrontation with the parvenus – served well the purposes of this reassessment. Recognizing the foreigners as a reflection of oneself was essential for the entire process. It is not by chance that the Viennese Jews took such an important part in it. After all, Vienna was the real capital of Galicia, constantly refilled with new Eastern immigrants.
As an aspect of this process of reconsideration, Ostjuden were beginning to be looked upon with a different eye – not by everyone, not everywhere, but surely by a significant, articulate, and outspoken minority. “It is a fact that not only I,” wrote Gershom Scholem in his memoirs, “but many, many of my contemporaries felt this pull toward the Ostjuden.” This was to a large measure, no doubt, a matter of a generational conflict, as Scholem indeed hastened to add, but it may have also been something else: an expression of a new sense of self. Jews were beginning to accept the heterogeneity of their communality and to acknowledge the positive potential of this pluralism. It was for many of them a matter of reaching the limits of assimilation and promptly halting at the brink. From that point one could only turn backward and inward, seeking a new definition for one’s identity, and often also a new self-respect.
By Central and Eastern European standards, ostjüdisch culture differed strongly in terms of male-female relations from that of neighboring non-Jewish populations as well as from historical norms among Jews belonging to other ethnic groups. Eastern European Jews had a propensity for early marriage followed by a sequence of divorce and fairly rapid remarriage. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as non-Ashkenazi Jews tended to view such behavior as promiscuous. (See Late Marriage [in Hebrew, חתונה מאוחרת]).
In addition, Eastern European Jewish women were often breadwinners and as a result of Jewish educational reforms associated with the Haskalah often had superior knowledge of gentile culture than Jewish men or non-Jewish women did. Gentiles and assimilated Jews tended to view Jewish men – especially when Eastern European Jewish – as less virile than gentile males.
Not only did emancipation make far more non-Jews much more aware of the differences between non-Jews and Ostjuden and thereby thwart one of the major goals of emancipation by creating a stronger sense of otherness on both sides of the Jewish-Gentile divide, but the enhanced perception of Jewish difference in matters of gender mores also interacted with the ongoing process of the emancipation of women to create a separate sexually-charged non-religious identity for Jews in Central and Eastern Europe while at the very same time internal Jewish conflicts over the unfair treatment of Jewish women tended to weaken rabbinic authority.[xx]
In a sort of foreshadowing of contemporary criticism of Islam with regard to women’s issues like the hijab, an “official declaration [from German courts in the first decade of the twentieth century] to the effect that Jewish law ran counter to good German morals sent tremors through both liberal and Orthodox Jewry.”
[See Between Kant and Kabbalah, An Introduction to Isaac Breuer's Philosophy of Judaism, by Alan L. Mittlemen, p. 142,[xxi] and The Oppression of Orthodox Jewish Women]
As the legal controversy created doubt about Jewish religion among Jews, it strengthened a sort of defensive Jewish identity when critics of Jewish law showed evidence of anti-Semitism.
The dialogue between German Jews and German non-Jews about Jewish sexuality probably reached its highpoint in 1903 with the publication of Geschlecht und Charakter by the Austrian Jewish philosopher and culture critic Otto Weininger, who committed suicide after presenting his analysis of the feminine aspects of the character of the Jewish male and of the Jewish race in Chapter XIII Das Judentum (Judaism or Jewry).[xxii]
[See Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence by Sander L. Gilman for a succinct introduction to (i.e., nineteenth century) concepts of race and sexuality.]
As if to underscore such perceptions of Jewish sexual ambiguity, Jewish women because of cultural and educational advantages tended in the early twentieth century to take leading roles perceived as masculine in general politics.
[See The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 by Amos Elon.]
Not only did the participation of Jewish women increase the disproportionate size of the Jewish voice in Central and Eastern European politics, but they also dominated the leadership of the feminist movement then as they do now. (Note that Rosa Luxemburg is typical of a cohort of politically active Jewish women at the beginning of the twentieth century.)
In parallel with such general political activities, Jews have taken the leading role in a homosexual regenderization program that has challenged traditional religion and culture among Jews and non-Jews while it has served as a club to demonize Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
Not only has the increasing prominence of the issue of sexuality associated with the emancipation of women and concomitant regenderization activism sharpened the boundaries of Jewish secular identity, but it also seems to have validated a sense of superior secular Jewish ethics as a replacement for belief in God who made the Covenant with Israel. A similar phenomenon also exists among Islamists, who like Sayed Qutb disdain the West because of a perception of Western sexual license and also among Orientalists of past generations, who associated Arabs and Muslims with hedonism.
In the post WWII period the organized American Jewish community, wealthy Jewish donors and the State of Israel have each for their own purposes fostered such feelings of Jewish uniqueness and superiority through the development of special Holocaust or Israel study materials at the pre-college level and of “scholarly” think tanks or academic institutes to study the Holocaust or the ME from a Zionist viewpoint.
Such institutions serve as the main source of knowledge about Jews, Judaism, Zionism, the State of Israel, and the ME with resulting distortion of American Jewish and non-Jewish discourse on
In addition to influencing American foreign policy, this ongoing indoctrination effort has strongly affected American Judaism. At this point, except for small groups of religious anti-Zionists, Jewish religion in the USA barely exists in any living form, for it has been cannibalized by an ethnic fundamentalist cult consisting of:
· Ethnic narcissism,
· Holocaust obsession, and
· Worship of the state of Israel.
All the remains of the traditional Jewish communal consciousness is a very dangerous form of politicized ethnic fundamentalism, which judges good and evil in all situations by benefit to “the Jews.” As a result, not only does Judonia – as it exists in America – suffer none of the doubts that plagued the British Empire from the end of the nineteenth century until the collapse after WWII, but by creating a system of Holocaust commemoration and observance to play the role of a secular American religion, Judonia has also inured Americans to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Somali suffering that has resulted from Neoconservative policies. Judonia selects worthy genocides on the basis of benefit to the Jewish people as defined by Zionist ideology. (See Monsters: Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power.)
Maintaining the infrastructure of Holocaust memorials, Holocaust study programs, Zionist think tanks, and Israel studies programs is fairly costly, but the organized Jewish community is extremely wealthy. J. J. Goldberg, who is the son of Arthur Goldberg (see USHMM: National Thought Control), writes In Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (1996), pp. 38-39:
As straightforward as the national politics of America Jews may seem, the politics within the Jewish community are something else again. The inner workings of the Jewish organizational world are arcane, Byzantine, and convoluted, so much so that even seasoned insiders often feel lost without a compass. The authoritative American Jewish Year Book lists about three hundred national Jewish organizations and close to two hundred local federations of Jewish charities. Their combined budget – counting synagogue dues, Sunday school tuition, and Medicare payments to Jewish hospitals – totals somewhere upwards of $6 billion per year. That is more than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations. Indeed the precise total has never even been calculated.
Today, the budget is even larger, and this figure does not include many organizations and private individuals involved in Judonia activities separate from the organized Jewish community.
The assets of the 200 chief donors to Israel advocacy activities probably total somewhere between $100 billion to $250 billion,[xxiv] which is comparable to or larger than the GDP of the State of Israel. If the megadonors are treated as constituting practically the entire economy of Judonia, and if Judonia’s GDP (= consumption + gross investment + Judonia’s spending + [exports − imports]) is calculated from the total resources they own or control, the size of Judonia’s economy as measured by its GDP is probably an order of magnitude larger at approximately $2 trillion dollars.
Judonia’s economic power has developed over a long time period that starts in the pre-Judonia period as early as the beginning of the Middle Ages when the Jewish involvement in trading Slavic slaves and luxury goods gave the Jewish community small economic advantages over other populations despite various religious restrictions. Over time small advantages compound.
While the wars of the Reformation impoverished a large section of German Jewry just as it ruined many German Christians, the Jewish upper economic classes had been poised to profiteer from financing both sides in the wars and in outfitting the soldiers. In addition, the movement of German Jews Eastward meant that they extended their economic activities into collapsing Poland, which remained a cash cow even as it collapsed or because it was collapsing in a sort of foreshadowing of disaster capitalism. (See The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein.)
The Napoleonic Wars and continuing dissolution of the Polish state created
This last development brought a pattern already existing in Poland for several centuries westward to the German territories.
Not only did German and Austrian policy in their Polish territories (or more accurately Polish colonies) create tremendous opportunities for Polish Jews as native collaborators, but both states attempted to exclude all but the most economically useful Polish Jews from settling in central German-speaking territories while erratic government attempts to restrict Jewish family size and marriage among native German and Austrian Jews tended to drive younger sons or less wealthy German and Austrian Jews westward to France, the UK, and the USA. In all cases, these Jewish immigrants had tremendous advantages over most natives and other immigrants to these three countries because Jews often brought their own capital to their new homes and generally still connected into some sort of family or supra-family support network in the old country.
In the USA before the Civil War, German and Austrian Jewish immigrants with some knowledge of European estate management and the Polish arenda system profited immensely while they helped to make the economics of Southern Slavery financially sound. While it is difficult to determine whether Yankee or NY German Jewish investors were more significant to the Southern economy, the foundations of NY Jewish investment and commercial banking lie in slavery.[xxvi]
Meanwhile, Eastern European Jewish immigrants brought westward aforementioned much more aggressive Polish business practices than those to which German Jews or Christians were accustomed. For example, Jewish domination of the wholesale cattle trade and associated exploitive practices often expressed themselves as middle market restraint of trade and angered German Christian butchers to no end especially because Jewish butchers were favored in various forms of vertical collusion. As a result, not only did Saxon Christian butchers become important organizers of anti-Semitic political activity in Germany, but in “On the Jewish Question” Marx simply described the reality that the Saxon butchers and other non-Jewish German interest groups faced because of the transformation of German and to a lesser extent Austrian Jews into a highly aggressive entrepreneurial class as an inadvertent consequence of state policy:
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.
Modifications in German regulatory law could have controlled or limited the offensive business practices, but the alliance of German aristocratic political might and German Jewish economic clout conspired to prevent change. Columbia Professor Fritz Stern describes this relationship at a personal level in Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire. (The book is disappointing because it focuses on personal relations and fails to discuss the effect of ethnicity on the economics of German state.)
The marriage of the children of Bismarck and his Jewish banker personified the ultimate conjunction of money and power in Imperial German political life.
Political power and Jewish wealth established a pattern of collaboration and mutual protection at the expense of the bourgeoisie that persists today as the recent bailout of Bear Stearns shows. (See Fed's Bear Stearns Move Breaks New Ground : NPR.) Amos Elon describes similar special treatment on pp. 211-212 of The Pity of It All:
In October 1873, a stock market crash changed this state of affairs in one blow. The economy had heated to the boiling point, a result of billions in French war reparation payments. The crash affected the entire Continent and came in the wake of feverish speculation in several European countries by reckless promoters with close political connections. Although the various governments had been warned of these machinations, they had done little to restrain them. The bubble burst first in Austria. From there the panic spread to Germany and the rest of Europe. In Germany alone, tens of thousands of middle-class and aristocratic families lost everything. The crash provoked a wave of anti-Semitic agitation unlike anything Germany – or France – had seen since the Crusades or the Black Death. Jews were said to be “inferior” and “immoral”; their successes over the preceding two or three decades were due entirely to devious, even criminal manipulations. It was not an accident that so many stockbrokers happened to be Jews. At whose expense had they been enriching themselves?
Nine months earlier, in a sensational speech in the Reichstag, the Jewish liberal Eduard Lasker had sounded a first dire warning. Lasker exposed the ruthless activities of Bethel Henry Strousberg, a Prussian railroad tycoon and converted Jew, revealing Strousberg’s notorious system, of winning government concessions by lining the pockets of parliamentarians and high officials. Strousberg had played a major role in the German economy for years. “That fellow will one day soon be emperor of Germany,” Engles had written Marx in September 1869. “Wherever you go, everyone speaks only of Strousberg. His enormous industrial and railroad holdings collapsed even before the general crash. For the sake of his aristocratic partners – who included the Silesian dukes of Ujest and Ratibor, the Prussian count Lehndorff-Steinort, and a Prince Wilhelm zu Putbus (soon dubbed Kaputbus) – Bismarck, with Bleichröder’s assistance, made a last-minute effort to stave off their bankruptcy with state funds. In his characteristic style, Bismarck told the French ambassador:
2 dukes, 1 general, half a dozen ladies in waiting, twice that many chamberlains, 100 owners of coffeehouses and all the cabmen of Berlin found themselves totally ruined. The emperor took pity on the dukes, thee aide de camp, the ladies in waiting and charged me with pulling them out of trouble I appealed to Bleichröder, who on condition of getting a title of nobility, which as a Jew he very much valued, agreed to rescue the duke of Ujest and General Count Lehndorff. Two dukes & an aide de camp saved – frankly this is worth the “von” we bestowed on the good Bleichröder.
For all intents of purpose Judonia’s financial structures and their relations to important external power brokers and power centers were fully in place in the 1870s before the 1881 pogroms, from which the beginning of the Zionist movement is usually dated.
Before the founding of the State of Israel there were two important post-1881 developments in the economy of Judonia:
While the New York German Jewish elite was important in the 1870s, it was nowhere near as exalted as the German Jewish elite and had competition from the investment banks founded by older non-Jewish merchant elites of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. A sort of ethnic competition or warfare divided the US investment banking industry. The conflict was particularly strong in the 1920s until Goldman Sachs discovered leverage. At this point determining how decisions were made is difficult. Top management could have made the choices, but then as now informal networks of Jewish financiers worked together to protect one another or share information and sometimes strategies. In any case, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jewish investment banks managed through the use of leverage and derivatives to cause the Great Crash while simultaneously they became disproportionately crash rich. Together the banking community advised the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to pursue of policy of contracting the money supply to transform the Great Crash into the Great Depression. Little actual persuasion was necessary to convince the Federal Reserve to pursue exactly the same policies it had followed successfully in 1924 and 1927.
The ultimate scope of the economic downturn was probably not anticipated. It lasted for the most part until the beginning of WWII in the USA (or 1946 by some analysts) even though Germany managed to achieve recovery by 1936. During the Great Depression the Jewish and non-Jewish investment banks acquired valuable equity and assets at fire sale prices, but Jewish institutions did distinctly better.
In combination with the Great Liquidation this result made the American sector dominant within the developing Judonian economy and made it possible for American Jews to displace the traditional American WASP elite by the twenty-first century.
Discussion or investigation in the USA about the reasons for the Great Crash and the Great Depression has rarely gone beyond identifying investment strategies that exacerbated the Crash and monetary policy that lengthened the Depression. In any case, not only was the type of forensic statistical analysis yet to be developed that could have helped elucidate the nature of the Great Depression, but McCarthyism seized the public’s attention in the late 1940s, and no one was willing to address the ethnic aspect of the finance industry after the mass killing of Jews during WWII became general knowledge.
Figure 3 1947 Anti-communist Comic Book cover
Reich decree 55/33 and attached letters between representatives of the German government and Zionist representatives constituted the Haavarah or Transfer Agreement. It became official on August 10, 1933, ended the Jewish boycott of Germany, and facilitated Zionist economic and infrastructure development in Palestine as well as the emigration of Jews from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Palestine. The agreement provided the Zionist movement in Palestine with tremendous infusion of cash that went to purchases from Germany. (See The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine by Edwin Black, pp. 249-250.)
Because the German Jewish financial elite was in the forefront of Jewish opposition to Zionism, the Liquidation removed an impediment to Zionist goals and probably made other wealthy Jews less hostile and more willing to work with Zionists and Zionist organizations. This effect was particularly important in the USA.
During the Liquidation descendants of Bleichröder and Bismarck made repeated application for Aryanization. Because the most important German Nazis officials often came from the German and Austrian petite bourgeoisie, which was often at least as hostile to the German aristocratic elite as it was to the German Jewish money elite, with whom the aristocrats were so entangled, refusal was practically reflex, and members of two of the most powerful and influential families in German history had no choice but to leave Germany for the USA and the UK.
In the nineteenth and twentieth century Jewish politics modernizes rapidly and develops a much more international apparently philanthropic character while at the same time it begins to make far more sophisticated use of the legal or political system. In other cases it begins to take a grass roots and occasionally conspiratorial form.
Jewish communal philanthropy has deep roots in the Bible and the Talmud.
Deuteronomy 22:4 commands the members of the community to help one another:
οὐκ ὄψῃ τὸν ὄνον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ἢ τὸν μόσχον αὐτοῦ πεπτωκότας ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ μὴ ὑπερίδῃς αὐτούς ἀνιστῶν ἀναστήσεις μετ' αὐτοῦ
לא־תראה את־חמור אחיך או שורו נפלים בדרך והתעלמת מהם הקם תקים עמו׃
Exodus 23:5 demands that such assistance even be extended to enemies:
ἐὰν δὲ ἴδῃς τὸ ὑποζύγιον τοῦ ἐχθροῦ σου πεπτωκὸς ὑπὸ τὸν γόμον αὐτοῦ οὐ παρελεύσῃ αὐτό ἀλλὰ συνεγερεῖς αὐτὸ μετ' αὐτοῦ
כי־תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו וחדלת מעזב לו עזב תעזב עמו׃
According to the Talmud (Bava Batra 8b) redeeming captives is a “great commandment” (mitzvah rabbah) upon the community to act upon its members.
In a particularly famous case during the Middle Ages Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Maharam) forbade Jewish communities from paying a ransom for his freedom because he feared that rulers would take advantage of the communal obligation.
The ransoming of captives is a sort of proto-insurance system that was particularly important for a community, whose income depended on long distance trade, and the Maharam acted to protect the system just as an insurance executive would try to avoid paying claims based in insurance fraud.
Jewish charity served Jewish business interests and many other purposes including providing a social welfare network for the community, providing a means of self-memorialization, influencing the community, manipulating non-Jews and of course sincerely expressing devotion to God.
As the Jewish financial elite became richer in parallel with the spread of Enlightenment, the members became much more involved in charity and social welfare as Jewish and Enlightenment ideals merged in their minds.
From the 1840s onward Jewish philanthropy becomes especially systematically international in addressing specifically Jewish causes célèbres.
The following cases of distressed Jewish individuals and communities became important foci of international non-Zionist Jewish activism that employed sophisticated fund-raising and media campaigns:
There were a few others, but the above four all had the same basic structure and gradually took on a sort of mythic meaning that has little connection to reality. International Jewish philanthropic efforts provided a regular international framework for some of the wealthiest Jews to interact outside of business, and the philanthropists looked for non-emergency situations, where their largesse and connections could be helpful.
Southwestern University Professor Lisa Moses Leff discusses the development of modern French Jewish philanthropy in her book Sacred Bonds of Solidarity: The Rise of Jewish Internationalism in Nineteenth Century France. It appears to contain useful information but contains a chapter “The Myth of Jewish Power” even though it generally makes more sense to discuss the myth of Jewish powerlessness or is probably more correct to discuss the conditions under which some Jews were able to exert a tremendous amount of financial or political power during the time period in question.
Vice-President Adolphe Crémieux (Isaac Moïse Crémieux) of Consistoire Central des Israélites de France" (Central Consistory of the Jews of France) is a typical powerful well-connected French Jewish politico of nineteenth century. As a Frog Prince,[xxviii] he attempted to intervene with the French government on behalf of Damascus Jews during 1840 and worked closely with the Cousinhood to pressure the Egyptian and Ottoman governments.
Alliance Israélite Universelle is an international Jewish organization based in France. It was founded in Paris in 1860 by Adolphe Crémieux, as a response to the Damascus affair, with the goal to protect human rights of Jews as citizens of countries where they live. The organization was created to combine the ideals of self-defense and self-sufficiency through education and professional development among Jews around the world.
In addition, the organization operates a number of Jewish day schools, and is responsible for the standardazation of the Ladino language.
In 1870, Charles Netter of the AIU received a tract of land from the Ottoman Empire as a gift and started an agricultural school Mikveh Israel, the first modern Jewish agricultural settlement which grew oranges.
During the Pre-1948 period in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine, the AIU ran anti-missionary schools to teach young Jews French and Hebrew to help create a more cohesive Jewish nation in Israel.
The AIU schools constitute the first attempt to create a uniform international Jewish school system. Because after 1900 many AIU teachers were Zionists, the AIU paid for Zionist indoctrination of Arab, Persian, and Spanish Jewish students from North Africa to Iran. In Farewell, Babylon: Coming of Age in Jewish Baghdad, author Naim Kattan mentioned his Zionist instructor at an AIU school in Baghdad.
Later as a member of the French government of national defense, Crémieux opportunistically acting at least partially for Jewish special interest used his position to manipulate France into an act of exceptional largess in the 1870 Décret Crémieux (Crémieux Decree), which conferred French citizenship on European colons and Ibero-Berber Jews in Algeria. In one fell swoop he turned Algerian Jews into native colaborators in a situation comparable to that of ethnic Ashkenazi Jews in Polish or Austrian Poland while at the same time Algeria as an integral part of France suddenly began to look a lot like Ireland within the UK of the same time period.
French Jewish philanthropy in Algeria ultimately created a French Algerian Jewish consciousness that benefited the State of Israel. During the Algerian War of Independence important French Algerian Jews whispered to French politicians that France and the State of Israel faced a common foe in Arab nationalism. Since Algerian Jews emigrated to France after Algerian independence, they have often served as a stealth pro-Judonia pressure group in French politics.
In the nineteenth century until Israeli statehood, international Jewish philanthropy probably constitutes an important international regime governing collaboration of organizations and individuals from the Americas through the territories of the Czarist Empire. It should not be surprising that the International Jewish Philanthropic Regime develops in parallel with the International Telegraphic Union (ITU), which was founded in 1865 and whose regulated technology was so important in Jewish aid efforts. Today, Jewish philanthropy serves as the social services sector of Judonia. When modern American Jewish (Judonian) rescue efforts conflict with Israel government desires or goals as has happened in the cases of Russian and Ethiopian Jews, eventually the State of Israel has acquiesced to policies defined by Judonia.
The media campaigns associated with Jewish philanthropy benefited from the disproportionate role that Jews played then as now in the newspaper industry, which itself was an outgrowth of the publishing industry, which had become so important to Jews because of the guaranteed market in Jewish religious books.
[Here are a selection of articles that discuss current journalistic biases that result from disproportionate Jewish influence: NY Times Panders Jewish Prejudice, Letter to the Editor: What is Really Left Unsaid, Attack Journalist Swiftboats Ron Paul, Ron Paul Supporters Attack Islamophobe, Beware of Jews Flinging Slurs, Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine?, Harvard: Jews Better Than Muslims, Followup: Harvard -- Jews Better Than Muslims, Open Letter to the Globe Editorial Board, Battle waged in Boston over new mosque, Globe Covers Academic Best-Seller, El "problema" que tiene el Boston Globe con los musulmanes, Boston Globe Islam-Bashing: Complain!, The Boston Globe's Problem with Muslims, Falafel and Better Jewish-Muslim Relations, Letter to the Boston Globe: Dishonest American Genocide Discourse, The "Sale" of the Boston Herald, Open letter to the Boston Globe: A Lawsuit without Merit, Presidential Evil Not Presidential Courage, Time to interrogate Jacoby, and Public letter to the Boston Globe.]
Philanthropic politics has also been successful for manipulating non-Jewish politicians and groups especially when it has been applied to non-Jewish groups like African Americans.
In this particular case, the interplay between Jewish radicalism, the organized Jewish community and extremist Jabotinskian politics on issues of civil rights for African Americans has been complex but has nevertheless prevented the development of significant pro-Palestinian activism within the American black community and has even provided a means to involve African American community leaders in ongoing effort of Jewish Neoconservative Jabotinskians to incinerate the Sudan in an act of anti-genocide philanthropy.
[See 5th Question: Darfur, Israel-Incited "Genocide" in Darfur?, Followup: Israel-Incited "Genocide" in Darfur?, USHMM: National Thought Control, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Service -- Today, Profiteering from humanitarianism, and African Americans, Jews, and Islamophobia.]
Philanthropic politics in the context of the Dreyfus Affair proved to be the gimmick by which Eastern European Zionist leaders managed to get access to Western Jewish money. Professor Michael Stanislawski points out in Zionism and the Fin de Siècle, Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky, p. 13-14, that Herzl and other contemporaries reinterpreted the Dreyfus Affair to prove that West and East European Jews faced a common threat of anti-Semitism only after they became Zionists:
In the face of the seeming dissolution of the cosmopolitan dream, Herzl began to obsess over the future of the Jews. Typically, of course, he is said to have come to Zionism as a result of the Dreyfus Affair, a claim he himself made repeatedly in later years. But in an important 1993 study, the historian Jacques Kornberg carefully analyzed Herzl's reportage on the Dreyfus Affair from the beginning of the case to its end and demonstrated that Herzl's reactions to the first stages of the Affair, well into 1897, were entirely typical of those of other writers in Die Neue Freie Presse or other liberal (and often Jewish-owned) newspapers, and indeed of most Jews in France and else where. It was only after Herzl was a convinced Zionist, and the case itself was transformed in the late 1890s into a cause célèbre that he began to interpret it through Zionist lenses. Nordau also went through exactly the same stages in Dreyfusardism, to the extent that he, too, would later counterfactually insist that it was the Dreyfus Affair that made him a Zionist.
Even though the French military leadership was probably only interested in using anti-Jewish bigotry as a means to avoid admitting error, early Zionist marketing among Western Jews employed the Dreyfus Affair to create fear that they would soon be subject to pogroms and that they could only escape the danger by creating a Jewish settlement or state in Palestine (or possibly elsewhere -- see Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry).
Linking humanitarianism to self-interest is an exceptionally effective fund-raising technique and begins to motivate individuals among the Western and Central Jewish financial elite to give Judonia substance via
1. increasing funding of Zionist organizations,
2. British Jewish investments in Jewish settlement activities, and
3. Zionist Jewish political contributions to political parties to encourage pro-Zionist British foreign policy.
In other words, Judonia’s virtual state consolidation began when the Zionist intelligentsia uses the Dreyfus affair to unite themselves as a national bureaucracy with a subset of wealthy Western Jews as a governing plutocracy and with a (potential) mass following on the basis of Zionist nationalist politics. In fact, the development of anti-nationalist and non-nationalist politics among other wealthy Western Jews willing to fund their own political bureaucracies to serve their own constituencies facilitated Judonia’s development even if it hindered Zionist goals in Palestine, for the non- and anti-Zionists came to serve as a loyal opposition within Judonia and not as outsiders trying to defeat Judonia.
The Balfour Declaration represented the first major Zionist success. It took the form of a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild (Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), who was a leader of the Cousinhood.
Figure 4 Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild
Then, as fears of rising anti-Jewish feeling resulting from common gentile assumptions about the Jewish nature of the Bolshevism increased among the Cousinhood and among the German American Jewish elite (“Our Crowd”), the Cousinhood took direct charge of Zionist politics in the UK while philanthropy directed toward the Jewish settlement in Palestine became the hook to enmesh wealthy German American non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in Zionist politics after the British government took charge of Mandatory Palestine.
During the 1930s this philanthropic politics evolved into refugeeism, which sought to aid German, Austrian, and Czech Jewish communities under threat from the German Nazis. (See Baksheesh Diplomacy, Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of world War II.)
Various Jewish groups have applied refugeeist politics with varying degrees and kinds of legitimacy in order to justify bringing Ethiopian Jewish[xxix] communities to Israel while Neocons initially used the Russian Jewish Refusenik issue as a way of validating their Jewish credentials. (See The Real Origins of Neocons.)
Since the Holoexaleipsis (Nakba, Holoexaleipsis, Holocaust, Holosphage and Holodomor) Jewish philanthropic has served an additional purpose of distract from Zionist crimes against Palestinians.
As aggressive anti-Semitic politics develops in nineteenth Europe, Jewish philanthropic efforts begin to include an equally aggressive legal component.
The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany by R. S. Levy Describes in detail how German Jewish advocacy organizations like the Zentralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central Association of German citizens of Jewish faith) used the legal system
Levy argues that anti-Semitic politics was for all intents and purposes defeated by the 1920s. He is supported by available demographic statistics and by the behavior of the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, German Nazi Party), which went out of its way not to run as an anti-Semitic political party in 1932.
German Jews founded the Zentralverein (CV) in 1893, and German American Jews to some extent used it as the model for the American Jewish Committee (AJCommittee), founded in 1906 “to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples” according to the AJC website.
Both organizations were initially anti-Zionist, but they are early expressions of the materialization of Judonia as are the AJCommittee’s sister defense organizations, which are the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland founded 1897 was the original main German Zionist organization.
J.J. Goldberg attempts to contextualize the three official American Jewish defense organizations within the framework of American Jewish history in Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment on pp. 12-13:
Three main immigrant waves created American Jewry: Portuguese marranos in the colonial era, German Jews in the mid-nineteenth century, and Russian Jews in the early twentieth. Each wave consisted of Jews who wanted to escape the world they knew. They were fleeing both from the Jewish community and from the Gentile society surrounding it, Hertzberg wrote. “[T]hese immigrant Jews … felt betrayed by the societies, the governments, the rabbis, and the rich Jewish leaders who had cast them out, or, at the very least, had failed to find room for them…. They would not allow the very people who had betrayed them in Europe to exercise authority in America.”
To be sure, these immigrants recreated a Jewish community in America. But it was a Jewish community with a difference. This was a new world, where religion was disestablished. Churches had no legal hold over believers; likewise, the Jewish community had no hold over Jews. It was defanged. Over time, Jews developed a new mythology of an organized American Jewish community led by well-meaning bumblers.
No one ever summed up the mythic image of inept Jewish leadership better than the late author-activist Paul Jacobs. In his 1965 memoir Is Curly Jewish? He offered an imaginary crisis that captured the layperson’s picture of the three best-known Jewish agencies: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the American Jewish Congress.
“A fanciful way of describing the work of these groups,” Jacobs wrote, “is that some guy walks into the toilet of a ginmill on Third Avenue, New York, and while he’s standing at the urinal, he notices that someone has written ‘Screw the Jews’ on the toilet wall.” A quick phone call is made and “an ADL man rushes down to the bar” to dust the wall for fingerprints. The ADL checks the prints against its files of 2 million known anti-Semites, then publishes a photo of the wall in its next bulletin, saying it shows anti-Semitism is on the rise and “everyone should join B’nai B’rith.” Next to arrive would be the representative of the American Jewish Committee, who would look around, the announce plans for a major academic study of “anti-Semitic wall-writing since Pompeii.” AJC would also publish a booklet proving that a Jew had invented the martini, to be distributed in bars nationwide. Then the American Jewish Congress would arrive, thow up a picket line outside the bar, and petition the Supreme Court to bar the sale of liquor “to anyone making an anti-Semitic remark.”
The passage above contains several misconceptions but is typical of the effort to make present Jewish “defense” organizations specifically and Jews in general appear as harmless and insignificant in order to assuage gentile concerns and fears. Such self-camouflaging may be an historical practice
The public relations catastrophes associated with the aggressive “defense” operations of these three official Jewish communal organizations indicates that Judonia is hardly the most competent of empires and can make severe misjudgments leading to diminishing returns, disastrous outcomes, or blowback, but Judonia, as a sort of stealth virtual empire, does not have the sort of competition that the UK faced from other Great Powers during the nineteenth century, and the hyper-wealthy Jewish plutocrats lightly directing Judonian bureaucrats have no problem with abandoning one project or strategy in order to fund another with greater promise of return.
Sometimes the wealthiest Judonian leaders even sponsor public contests to find the best “philanthropic” causes, to wit, Charles Bronfman’s Competition for Jewish Communal Innovation. (See The Big Ideas Series: Introducing 13 Proposals for Jewish Communal Innovation [Phase One]., [xxxii]), but most of the time political communal entrepreneurs like Charles Jacobs or Roz Rothstein approach the mega-donors to Jewish causes with business plans in order to obtain funding to back new organizations or projects.
As a result, a lot of the nastier Jewish defense projects involving the court system have moved from the three traditional defense organizations to Israel Advocacy organizations like the David Project or StandWithUs while the ADL, AJCommittee, or AJCongress work on inciting Islamophobia, Arabophobia, or the incineration of Arab and Muslim countries on the basis of high-minded humanitarian anti-genocide principles.
[See Subjugating American Muslims to Israel, Harvard Supports Incinerating Arab Countries, Dissident Veteran for Peace: Against Zionist Censorship, Zionist attack on Pluto Press, Kovel Pulls No Punches, and Zionism, Penisism, and Joseph Massad.]
Likewise, when American Jews try to use the American legal system for political harassment of the Palestinian resistance, the plaintiffs appear to receive little support from the Israeli government while funding for the lawsuits appears to come almost entirely from non-Israeli or former Israeli Jewish “philanthropists.”
[See Palestinian Authority's US assets are frozen - The Boston Globe, Sderot sues Palestinian Authority for millions in rocket damages ..., BBC NEWS | Americas | Palestinian assets in US frozen, ISRAEL: ISRAELI FAMILY FILES LAWSUIT ON EU FOR PALESTINIAN ATTACK, State Dept. considers caving to pressure in terror lawsuit, and NJ man gets green light to pursue terror lawsuit | New Jersey ....]
The US legal system is particularly friendly to anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian legal action because of the disproportionate role that Jews play in the US judiciary.
Brandeis and Frankfurter argued that Zionism would make American Jews (particularly those of Eastern European origin) better citizens by resolving the “Jewish Question,” and in the 50s the establishment of the State of Israel may have encouraged the final abandonment of Yiddish identity with the result that American Jews seeking authenticity began to find it only in Israel while a whole plethora of marketing and publicity campaigns through schools, universities and the mass media seems to have encouraged a majority of American Jews to identify more strongly with the State of Israel than with their fellow non-Jewish American citizens.
An American Jew serving in the US regulatory and legal system or the IRS probably receives a continuous stream of hardcopy and email alerts every month about the threat that Arabs and Muslims and especially Arab and Muslim American citizens represents to the USA and to Jews.[xxxiii] International Hillel Society fundraising letters routinely libel Arab and Muslims Americans as terrorists or terrorism-supporters.
This constant din must be having an effect because discussing USA legal discrimination in terms of separate systems for Blacks and Whites is no longer adequate. Today American Jews, American non-Muslim non-Arab non-Jews, and American Muslims or Arabs are subject to very different justice systems with regard to the enforcement of 501(C) (3) IRS regulations, anti-terror laws, FEC rules, SEC rules, and OSI law, and the situation is particularly egregious with regard to anti-terrorism laws, for Zionists have been terrorizing the native population of Palestine for over a century. Yet, no US government official ever suggests enforcing the US legal code against Israeli Zionists or their supporters.
[See Jewish Dominance Ohio, Subversion KSG, Set Up for Another Holocaust, Zajanckauskas, Henss, Selective Prosecution and Equal Protection, Followup: Natalie Portman's Genocidal Racism ..., The Persecution of Sami Al-Arian, Video Is a Window Into a Terror Suspect’s Isolation, Public letter to the Boston Globe, AIPAC Traitor Trial Begins Soon, and Timeline of Zionist Crimes.]
As the primary loyalties of an ever increasing number of US government officials in the judiciary, the State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere prove to lie with Judonia or the State of Israel, the current situation in the USA is rather reminiscent of the British practice of “lending” colonial official to serve in the Indian princely-states or the Emirate of Transjordan in order to make sure that their nominally independent governments served British interests properly.
Because working strictly via the legal system is in general too limited for the needs of empire, Judonia also uses forms of grass roots mobilization and conspiratorial politics.
Early indoctrination in communal cohesiveness and control of deviant thought may have made it possible for the elite members of the Jewish community to mobilize a conspiracy against the interests of the majority of the Jews of Lemberg in Austrian Galicia to murder Reform Rabbi Abraham Kohn as Michael Stanislawski describes in A Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History. Such mobilization (generally but not always without murder) by (often self-defined) elite groups among Jews is fairly common in the nineteenth century even before nascent Judonia to mobilize Central and Eastern European Jews via extremist organic nationalist ideology associated with the political Zionism of Theodor Herzl and his colleagues.
The Jews of Odessa: A Cultural History, 1794-1881 by Steven J. Zipperstein p. 115, provides some interesting information difficult to find in English about pre-Zionist conspiratorial Jewish behavior in Belarus (see The Origins of the Zionist Lobby):
The faith of Russian Jewish intellectuals in the prospect of improvement in the political and civic standing of the Jews had already been challenged in the first part of Alexander II's reign, when in 1863 Polish rebellion led to increased hostility toward all non-Russian nationalities. To the surprise of his Jewish admirers, even the eminent liberal journalist, M. N. Katkov now began to air chauvinist sentiments. Suspicions of the patriotism of Russia's Jews grew common in this tense atmosphere. Therefore, when in 1868 the Christian convert Jacob Brafman charged that Jews constituted a distinct state within a state, he struck a particularly sensitive nerve in Jews and non-Jews alike.
Basing his observations on the minutes of the Kehillah of Minsk, Brafman argued that the Kehillot, though officially disbanded by the Russian authorities in 1844, still functioned as an invisible Jewish government. This invisible yet pervasive body affiliated with the ORPME [The Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment among Jews, Russian acronym] based in St. Petersburg, the English Brotherhood for the Assistance of Jewish Emigrants, and the Alliance Israelite Universelle -- collected taxes, imposed its own court system, and through seemingly innocuous fraternal organizations, made its powerful will known in the everyday lives of Jews. Even rules about clothing and food were determined by the ubiquitous and omnipotent organization. Brafman argued that Jewish isolationism arose from the "Talmudic municipal republic," or the Kehillah, rather than from the teachings of the Talmud, as Russian antisemites had previously assumed. Brafman thereby redirected Russian concerns about the integration of the Jews from the religious to the political sphere. The book's impact was profound. Within two years of its publication, the governor-general of Kiev warned in his annual report to St. Petersburg that the "cause of every last Jew is also the cause of the worldwide Jewish Kahal ... that powerful yet elusive association."
Gessen, Istoriia, 2:200-201; John D. Klier, "Iakov Brafman's Book of the Kahal and Its Enemies," paper presented at the Midwest Slavic Conference, May 4, 1980; Hans Rogger, "Government, Jews, Peasants," p. 17.
While the official disbanding makes it hard to know for sure, Stanislawski’s research indicates that despite Brafman’s claims the traditional communal mechanisms of control of social deviance were considerably weakened by the 1860s even if they did persist in secret. Over the next 100 years the power of such “grass roots” local organization probably waxed and waned in power according to circumstances.
American (and Russian) Jewish communities to this day will put a tremendous amount of energy into suppressing critical views of Zionism and often organize through entities within the Jewish Federation, which is at least partially a descendant of the traditional Kahal.
[See Lobby activities: It's just a fr*ggin' novel!, Seva Brodsky of Somerville comments on Steve Grossman's letter, Ghada Karmi's Boston College Talk, and The Battle for Divestment from Israeli Securities in Somerville ....]
Even Jewish political activism, organizing and fundraising unassociated with Israel or Zionism has become a tool for Judonia. Because “progressive” Jews have become indispensable for left of center politics in the USA,[xxxiv] AIPAC and other Israel advocacy and mainstream groups within the organized Jewish community (really Judonia) paralyzed anti-War activism by tainting anti-war efforts with anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism.
Jack Nelson proposes in Terror in the Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews that a conspiracy between the leaders of the Meridian Mississippi Jewish community and representatives of ADL to manipulate the FBI in committing extra-judicial murder. He writes on p. 264:
Maria Knowles, the secretary who typed up Scarbrough’s reports of meeting with the informants and worried that she had participated in a murder plot, lives in Meridian, where she serves as secretary of the Seventh-Day Adventist church and as a teachers’ assistant at the church’s school.
He adds on p. 265:
Jim Ingram retired from the FBI at age fifty in 1982 and succeeded Moore at the Deposit Guaranty National Bank. He lives in Jackson. In 1992 he was appointed Mississippi’s commissioner of public safety, the state’s top law enforcement post.
Ingram disagrees with his close friend Moore about what happened at Meridian. “It was an ambush, that’s what they meant to do,” Ingram told me. “No question about that. They meant to kill them out there that night.”
The techniques that the ADL learned in manipulating the US government into violating the law may have later proved useful in manipulating US government officials into facilitating conspiracy against the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. Agents of Judonia within the US government almost certainly have aided this ongoing project.
Jewish philanthropic, defense and other political or public activities have benefited since the early nineteenth century from extensive media gate keeping and facilitation in book publishing, the newspaper industry, entertainment and academics.
Because Jews then as now constituted a disproportionate component of the book buying public with specialized tastes, Jewish firms represented the major part of the industry. As Jews developed a taste for non-Jewish literature and as Jewish publisher branched out from religious literature, Jewish publishers quickly became the major content providers of nineteenth century Central and Eastern Europe and consequently became major players in the related news and entertainment industries.
As a result certain Jewish themes probably received disproportionate exposure in the media, but for most Europeans Jews were rather exotic and such subjects did fairly well with the general public. (See Opera, Liberalism, and Antisemitism in Nineteenth-Century France: The Politics of Halévy's La Juive.)
There was a good deal of criticism of distortion in news coverage as well as discrimination and favoritism in selecting writers, artists and performers, who were to succeed, but there was a good deal more heterogeneity in opinion and politics among the Jewish proprietors and investors in content-production before Judonia became powerful enough to enforce the discipline that exists today in the modern American media.
Pre-Zionist gate keeping and facilitation in academia is a special case.
Higher levels of education and involvement in publishing, journalism, and entertainment predisposed large numbers of European Jews to seek academic employment, but there were such high barriers against admission to the professorate that Jewish academics could not practice the same sorts of gate keeping and facilitation:
[See The Petition: Israel, Palestine, and a Tenure Battle at Barnard, <CORRECTION> Said, Abowd, Kovel, Elahi Attacked, WSU: Thought Control in Michigan, Fight Zionist Thought Control, Zionism, Penisism, and Joseph Massad, Jacob Lassner and Nadia Abu el Haj, Conspiracy Against Rights in NYC, Boycotts and Priniples of Academia, and Please sign petition to support Nadia Abu El Haj.]
When pre-Zionists Jewish academics sought to control university discourse perceived as Judeophobic, they relied on the Zentralverein and harassment by non-academic Jewish defense organizations.
Jewish professors and scholars responded to challenges to traditional Jewish self-understanding like Higher Textual Criticism or to the controversial proposals of Karaite scholar Abraham Firkovich with topic filtering or by creating the orthodoxies that have today become the basis for intellectual intimidation. At the same time wealthy Jewish philanthropists began to found new Jewish institutions to host the new generation Jewishly-correct researchers and academicians.
Figure 5 Karaite Scholar Abraham ben Shmuel Firkovich
Anthony Grafton's article "In Bernays, Scaliger, and Others," which is found in The Jewish Past Revisted: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians, discusses the German Jewish classicist Jacob Bernays, who was a very important 19th century scholar in the tradition of the religious historian Joseph Justus Scaliger. Grafton includes a significant reservation on pp. 34-35 about Bernays' work that applies to modern Jewish ethnoreligiously and Zionistically correct scholarship of academics like Alan Segal of Columbia, Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan, Jacob Lassner of Northwestern University, and Alexander Joffe formerly of Purchase College.
Most important of all, Bernays could not deal honestly with some of Scaliger's most radical and challenging theories about history and exegesis. Bernays insisted that he himself had no faith in biblical criticism. Historical readings of the Old Testament he dismissed as pseudo-scholarly profanations of a sacred text, based only on wild hypotheses. Scaliger had other views. He not only found but published (and refused to abridge the Egyptian dynasty lists that plunged the world of European historical learning into a century and more of crisis. Worse still, he speculated in radical ways about the gaps and defects of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Scaliger noted that the Masoretic text was relatively late: he dated it to around the time of Gamaliel, whose remark that masoret seyag la-torah (tradition is a fence to the law) he took as a reference to the Masoretic apparatus. And he insisted that even this well-preserved official text represented only a version of a lost original. Its language, Hebrew, was not -- = so Scaliger claimed -- a special, holy language, with which God had created the world and in which Adam had named the animals, but the ordinary tongue of ancient Assyria. Neither was its script original or sacred, since the Jews originally had used a different one, much like that of the Samaritans. Only after their return from the Babylonian exile did they transliterate the text into the square [Aramaic] characters used in extant manuscripts and the printed Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament, like the new, suggested Scaliger, incorporated many errors and showed some worrying gaps. The Masoretes, narrowly Jewish in culture and tradition, had known little or nothing about non-Jewish history. Their vocalizations of non-Hebrew names, for example, were often faulty; much less accurate, Scaliger thought, than those of the more cosmopolitan Alexandrian Jews who had translated the Septuagint. Finally, all texts of the Old Testament referred to stories and texts now lost, such as the story of the young man killed by Lamech, referred to -- but not recounted in Genesis.
The attempt to filter certain questions out of scholarly discussion continues even more aggressively today as indicated by the controversy over Barnard Professor Nadia Abu el-Haj, who had the audacity to be a scholar of Palestinian ancestry addressing topics in Jewish and Israel studies and who had the bad manners to challenge assumptions, e.g. on pp. 127-128 of Facts on the Ground, Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society:
It is important here to consider the issue of ethnicity in (Israeli) archaeological practice and the ways in which positivism and nationalism met on its terrain. What is it that makes an Israelite an Israelite?
That question was never posed in this Israelite settlement debate. There was no need to ask the question at all. The Israelites were a category of people known from the Bible who entered Palestine at a particular historical moment, (eventually) conquered the Canaanite city-states then regnant in the land, and ultimately built a nation-state of their own – the fore fathers of contemporary Israelis. The question is not who they were, but how to identify and locate them.
Stanislawski discusses one of the basic constructed orthodoxies of Jewish studies in theory only tangentially related to Zionism but deeply connected to Judonia in Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews, The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1823-1855 on p. 3:
Before we can study the history of the Jews in the Russia of Nicholas I, we must examine the legacy of interpretation bequeathed to us by the classic historians of Russian Jewry. With the luxury of hindsight it is possible to discern that this scholarship reflected the social and political circumstances of its authors as much as history itself. This is, of course, true to some extent of all history writing, but Russian-Jewish historiography was particularly conditioned by contemporary reality: apolitical objectivity was neither its hallmark nor even its pretended goal. On the contrary, all the major historians of Russian Jewry consciously and candidly wrote history as a political and national statement, hoping to redress the tragedies by chronicling their horrors and thereby to influence in the most direct fashion the political fate of the Jews. Many of the resultant works were issued as party publications or parliamentary briefs. Most were published by openly ideological presses or periodicals. While the ideologies involved ranged across a reasonably broad spectrum of political opinion, they were all united against one common enemy, the tsarist regime and its obvious anti-Semitic bent as exemplified by the governments of Alexander III and Nicholas II.
This exogenous stimulus to scholarship quite naturally had considerable effect on the assumptions, as well as the conclusions, of the scholars. To a large extent, their research was aimed at tracing the origins and background of contemporary attitudes and actions of the Russian authorities in regard to the Jews. This led, perhaps inevitably, to what now appears as an overidentification of the past with the present, a projection backward of the context of the government’s relations with the Jews.
Because so many non-Zionist groups including Yiddishists and anti-Semites had an interest in defining the Jewish people biologically (i.e., according to völkisch racist principles) or historically, most of the other basic orthodoxies associated associated with Zionism were already in place before 1881 and the founding of the first modern Zionist organizations like Hovevei Tzion and the emigration of the first groups of Biluim-Pioneers to Palestine.
Jon Entine’s book Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People provides a simplified basic introduction to this sort of material. In Discussion on Abraham's Children, the author provides a brief introduction to his ideas.[xxxvi] He even manages to include some of the traditional ethic Ashkenazi bigotries against oriental Jews and writes on p. 302 of his book:
Non-Ashkenazi Jews – Sephardim and Oriental Jews who have undergone more intermixing – do not have higher average IQ scores, nor are they more likely to be in high-achieving jobs.[xxxvii]
This belief in contamination of Jewish genetic stock and culture among Oriental Jews was common among nineteenth century ethnic Ashkenazim as Elliott Horowitz points out (pp 150-1) in “Jewish Life of Israel Abrahams” from The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians edited by David N. Myers and by David B. Ruderman:
An issue of even greater interest to Abrahams was that of distinctions between European and Oriental Jews. He claimed that there was “less warmth in the Oriental Jewish home, less of that tenderness,” which was once a common characteristic of all Jews but came eventually “to distinguish Western Jews from their gayer but more shallow brethren of the East.” Similarly, Abrahams felt it possible to detect “a feebler sense of responsibility in the mental attitude of an Oriental father to his offspring, just as one detects more volubility but less intensity of an Oriental father to his offspring, just as one detects more volubility but less intensity in the Oriental Jew’s prayers.”
Abrahams describes modern oriental Jewry as in some sense racially degenerate, and the pervasiveness of such ideas among nineteenth century ethnic Ashkenazim explains the general lack of interest of Zionist leaders in bringing oriental Jews into the Zionist movement until they realized that the State of Israel could not be adequately defended in the immediate aftermath of 1947-8 ethnic cleansing of the native population without an infusion of cannon fodder.
In the nineteenth century German and Eastern European Jews were among the strongest proponents of theories of racial revival through racial purity. Not only was the German Jewish culture critic and Zionist leader Max Nordau probably at least as important among German non-Jews as he was among Jews (see 'Do not have children if they won't be healthy!') in spreading ideas of racist eugenics, but many German Jewish academics were also important in the construction of the German people according to völkisch racist principles and put their ideas to Zionist use only when German non-Jewish racists excluded German Jews from membership in the German people.[xxxviii]
In other words, just as the financial system of Judonia was in place by the 1870s, likewise by the late nineteenth century the basic themes of Judonian educational material were already almost fully fleshed out. To a large extent Judonian academia could piggyback within the German, British or US university systems, but in those environments controlling discourse was not guaranteed, and eventually wealthy donors were funding new institutions like the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (later renamed the Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judensthums) in Berlin, Das Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar (Fränckelscher Stiftung) in Breslau, and the Jewish Theological Seminary, originally established by Spanish American Jews in New York City, in a prefiguration of the institutional network :
The Judonian academic system seems to benefit from a secularization of the Central and Eastern European Jewish tradition that conferred merit upon rich Jews for funding individual scholars and kolalim (collegia) to engage in Torah study as well as from the fear that American Jews can no longer control the subject matter taught at the Middle East studies departments of American universites. The new Israel studies departments currently being funded by wealthy Jewish donors at many American represent a new approach to creating Judonian departments within American universities. (See Jacob Lassner and Nadia Abu el Haj.)
A century ago Jewish opinion was considerably more diverse and reflected some of the differences in opinion among the wealthy Jews that provided the money, but Zionist success has reinforced a political orthodoxy that has begun to consume non-Judonian and non-Zionist institutions like YIVO and dominate Jewish opinion throughout the world. (See Making YIVO a Zionist Organization and YIVO News No. 204 - Winter 2008)
Circa 1900 the situation throughout the Jewish political world was immensely different from that of today. Throughout Europe Jews played prominent roles in all sorts or radical movements from Marxism to fascism and various forms of politicized ethnic fundamentalism often to the distress of the wealthy Jewish elite (Claudia Koonz discusses ethnic fundamentalism in the German context in The Nazi Conscience.)
In North America and most of Europe where Jewish political parties did not generally exist, Jews participate in political parties or political elites across the political spectrum, but even though the majority of Eastern European Jews probably were probably assimilationist in orientation and preferred less ethnically oriented politics, a sizable number of Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim were heavily involved in five exclusively or predominantly Jewish transnational political elites:
[See Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry, The Real Origins of Neocons, All in the Neocon Family, Money Jews, Brain Jews, Politics, Press Self-Censorship about Jews, Francis Fukuyama and Islamo-Fascism, The Hitler and Nazi Slurs, USHMM: National Thought Control, Jewish Racist Bullies Imam Elahi, Backgrounder on Occult Mystical Zionism, Tohar HaNeshek in Jerusalam Attack, Followup: Natalie Portman's Genocidal Racism ..., and Zionism, Penisism, and Joseph Massad.]
Each political elite was associated with a number of political parties and mass followings.
The political and ethnic boundaries among Jewish elites as well as between Jewish and non-Jewish elites were often indistinct and permeable to some extent.
While the transnational Marxist political movement was disproportionately Jewish, it was not wholly Jewish but contained many Jewish cliques and sects throughout Europe and North America.
As a political elite, Yiddishists were committed to Yiddish cultural autonomy within a multicultural state. The Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund (Jewish Bund) was Marxist but belonged to Yiddishist politics just as did the earlier generation of non-Marxist Yiddish socialists. The Yiddishist political elite was for the most part politically active only in the territory of historic Poland, which spanned Russia, Germany, and Austria before World War I and even more states afterward.
Many Yiddish-speaking Jews tried to preserve Yiddish culture after they emigrated westward.
Lenin considered Marxist Yiddish speakers an important target population for recruitment into the Russian Communist Party and derided Bundists as Zionists that were afraid of the water. The Polish Agudas Yisroel Party (Yiddish pronunciation) was a Yiddish-speaking party that took part in Yiddishist politics in order to oppose to secular Yiddish culture. Because the Agudoh was also anti-Zionist, it could often find common grounds to work with the Jewish Bund and Jewish Marxists.[xxxix] After the founding of the State of Israel, the Israeli Agudat Yisrael Party (Hebrew Pronunciation) and various splinter parties have gradually moved toward Occult nationalism.[xl]
Despite the historical acceptance by European socialists of Labor Zionism as a genuine socialist movement, the Labor Zionist political elite belongs to the Eastern European political current that Eastern Europeans often called social patriotist. Hebrew University Professor Zeev Sternhell tries to argue in The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State that Zionists were nationalist socialists but not National Socialists (i.e. Nazis) or fascists because Labor Zionists were democratic at least among Jews.
Sternhell’s book is somewhat dishonest because it ignores the class of Eastern European fascist movements to which Labor Zionism belongs. In Eastern Europe and especially in regions of historic Poland, fascist ideology was never as reflexively anti-democratic as fascist movements in the West, and Eastern European fascism has generally preferred to operate within a formally democratic framework.
In Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France Sternhell argues on p. 212:
Yet, on the other hand, the revision of socialism by the French and Belgian socialist rebels itself developed into fascism for one essential reason – the same reason that underlay the move toward the extreme right of the generation of 1910. For the revolutionary syndicalists at the beginning of the century as for the exponents of the new socialism twenty years later, the proletariat had ceased to be a revolutionary force and Marxism no longer provided a suitable answer to the problems of the modern world. This loss of faith in the vitality and capacities of the proletariat, joined with an unhesitating denunciation of the essential principles of Marxism and social democracy, this desire to achieve quick results by utilizing the full force of political power but without undertaking structural changes, this need to come to terms with the existing social order because one has come to regard it as natural and immutable, this replacement of Marxism by a national socialism, and of the revolutionary impulse of Marxism by a planned, organized, rationalized system of economy, led, through a natural inner logic, to fascism. Thus in the thirties, fascism often appeared to be the only system of thought that answered to the logic of the twentieth century.
Where the above analysis does not apply to Labor Zionism is hard to discern. In any case, the Labor Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson plagiarized the Belgain fascist Henri de Man while another Zionist leader Vitaly Viktor Haim Arlosoroff openly renounced democratic principles if they were to apply to the native population of Palestine. In New history, old ideas Edward Said discusses the intellectual contortions through which Zionists put themselves to defend Zionism.
Zionist historiography calls Jabotinskians Revisionists or Maximalists. They are politicized ethnic fundamentalists, who believe in social Darwinism, free markets, biological determinism, and an essentialist primordialist form of extremist organic nationalism. Neoconservatism is the latest incarnation of the American branch of Jabotinskianism.
The Occult nationalist transnational political elite evinces the least intellectual development since the Shabtai Tzvi debacle. Jewish occult nationalist groups and parties include
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was part of this elite as is film critic Michael Medved.
Of all the transnational Jewish political elites Zionists offered the most to wealthy Western Jews with increasing capital resources while the Marxist transnational political elite promised the least.
Yet, there was a tremendous similarity among the first generation Jabotinskian Zionist and Jewish Marxist leaders and later events[xli] have indicated that some sort of Jewish identity has persisted among Soviet Ashkenazim even including those that remained members of the Soviet elite after
the founding of the State of Israel.
Despite membership in the former Soviet elite, Russian Jewish oligarchs hooked up with incredible alacrity with both the international organized Jewish community and with the Friedmanites (or Neoliberals), whose movement is in many regards the negative mirror image of that of the Marxism even to the point of being characterized by a mostly Jewish leadership with a mostly non-Jewish following. (See Re: Report: Finkelstein Lecture at MIT.)
Not only have Friedmanites as members of a predominantly Jewish movement proselytizing to non-Jews found it easy to collaborate with Jabotinskian Neoconservatives on the basis of shared principles and assumptions, but many Jabontinskian Neoconservaties are also Friedmanite Neoliberals.
The transnational Political Yiddishist elite did not take root successfully in the USA. Immigrant Eastern European Jews created a sort of shadow form of Yiddish socialism in the American labor movement, but it differed strongly from Eastern European Bundism.
Even though labor organizing in the USA had a strong color racist component, Yiddish American unionizing was not völkisch in the Eastern European sense, and the Jewish Daily Forward edited by Abraham Cahan to serve as the voice of Yiddish socialist labor openly ecouraged assimilation.
Yaacov Goldstein’s book Jewish Socialists in the United States: The Cahan Debate, 1925-1926 contains a transcript of a series of articles that appeared in the Forward after Cahan arrived in Palestine to tour the Jewish settlement and that continued after his return to New York City. In the introduction Goldstein writes (pp. vii-viii).
Following his study tour as he defined it, Cahan published a series of telegrams and articles in his paper which described, sympathetically, the national endeavor in Palestine in those days, the time of the fourth Aliya. This led to the development of a wide-ranging debate, initiated by Cahan, which persisted from late 1925 to mid-1926. Its participants were an entire echelon of high-ranking personalities in the Jewish workers’ movement in America. Essentially the debate centered on the position of Jewish socialists in America toward Zionism and Palestine, in light of the tragic circumstances of the Jews of eastern europe and the closure of the gates of America to immigration.
This debate is of major importance for research into the attitude of a community numbering hundreds of thousands to Zionism and Palestine in the years under review. It reflects the traditionally hostile Bundist positions, but also the notable difference between them and the veteran socialists who immigrated to America in the pre-Bund years. The debate highlights the uncertainties and the ideological crucible through which a segment of the Jewish socialists passed due to the volatile conditions endured by the Jewish people in those years – uncertainties which ultimately caused some modifications in their ideological, but chiefly practical position, and their adoption of a more positive approach to Zionism and Palestine. In this sense the debate constitutes a turning point, a shift toward affirmation of the national enterprise in Palestine by Cahan, the journal Forward and the group of leaders associated with it, but also by a group of activists among the leaders of the Jewish trade unions.
Figure 6 Forward endorsement of Roosevelt in Nov. 1, 1936 edition
If American Political Yiddishists had developed favorable attitudes toward Zionism because of uncertainties and volatile conditions that Jews faced in Central and Eastern Europe, there should be some substantial of similar changes amon other Political Yiddishist groups outside the USA. Instead diminished hostility toward Zionism among among non-socialist and even religious anti-Zionist Political Yiddishist American Jews suggests that the American environment was mediated their ideological transformation. [xlii]
Not only was Zionism marketed in America as a way for Jews to become better Americans, but during the same time period that the Cahan and the Forward turned Zionist, Weizman was using humanitarian arguments to persuade a significant number of non-Zionist members of the wealthy “Our Crowd” to join the Jewish Agency [for Palestine, Executive, American Section], which collaborated with the Zionist movement in the development of the Jewish National Home under the terms of the British Mandate for Palestine. (See Baksheesh Diplomacy, Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of world War II, pp. 15-16.)
“Our Crowd” and the Yiddishist elite belong to two separate strata of the American Jewish community. Spanish American Jews who constituted the oldest stratum of the American Jewish community played little direct role in the expansion of Judonia in America except for the founding of the aforementioned Jewish Theological Seminary as the first Judonian academic institution in the USA.
Spanish Jews arrived in the Americas mostly before the Revolutionary War. They were often connected to large family and trading networks. They probably came to the British colonies with more resources than other immigrants. They were often and probably disproportionately involved in the triangle trade. Several Spanish American Jews become noteworthy plantation owners in the slave states, and several Spanish American Jews played important roles in the Confederacy. The character of Rhett Butler from Gone with the Windmay have been loosely based on Judah Benjamin, who was Spanish American Jewish and served the Confederate States of America as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State successively.
The second stratum of Jewish immigration to the USA consisted mostly of German Jews with smaller Austrian and Swiss Jewish components. Like Spanish Jews the members of the second Jewish immigrant cohort were generally affiliated with family and business networks. They often benefited from the existence of Jewish communal institutions founded by Spanish American Jews.
German Jews generally entered the USA with some capital, which looked huge in contrasted to the resources that contemporary Irish immigrants brought along to the USA on fleeing the Potato Famines.
German Jewish immigrants often possessed expertise in peddling, commodity trading, wholesaling, retailing, and estate management. Such skills were directly applicable to the economy of the Old South, and several German American Jewish families used profits from trading in the southern USA to found important investment banks that continue to do business to this day.
Once they achieved riches and became “Our Crowd” – especially in New York idiomatic usage, wealthy German American Jews tended unlike moneyed Spanish American Jews to prefer to work behind the scenes and had a tendency to throw money at problems.
“Our Crowd” set up numerous Jewish communal organizations like B’nai B’rith, which is the world’s oldest continuously operated Jewish community service and welfare organization. While the founding of B’nai B’rith was an important example of German American (and Spanish American) Jewish altruism, the founders hoped that better social services for impoverished Jews would make the Jewish poor less of a threat to the status of elite Jews.
At a later period “Our Crowd” founded the initially anti-Zionist American Jewish Committee to struggle to improved conditions for ethnic Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe partially out of fear that Eastern European Jewish immigrants to the USA might threaten the status of German American Jews. (Nowadays, both B’nai B’rith and the AJCommittee are very vocally Zionist. In 2002 B’nai B’rith worked with AIPAC to create the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization 4 Israel.)
In addition to organizations specifically for Jews, the dominant universalistic and humanitarian ethos of “Our Crowd” required the establishment of institutions to benefit the larger society. Brandeis Professor Jonathan Sarna[xliii] writes on p. 308 of American Judaism: A History:
Jewish patricians loomed large in the financial, legal, political, and administrative work of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Urban league.
Such charity is part of Judonian foreign aid, and just as the USA expects a return at least in the form of good will, Jewish donors to African American causes expect American Black leaders to forego criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel.
When the NAACP was first founded, wealthy American Jews might have hoped that mainstreaming African Americans could provide a sort of elevator effect to move the Jewish elite upward in American society as a whole.[xliv]
Whether opportunistic or sincere, the universalistic humanitarian politics of “Our Crowd” played very well in the American press and especially in those papers owned or run by German American Jews, who immigrated to the USA with expertise in the heavily Jewish German publishing and newspaper industries.
As publishers of the New York Times, the German American Jewish Sulzberger family has tried to position the paper as the national journal of record while
· publicizing the good works of “Our Crowd”,
Nowadays, the Times has apparent given up any pretense to objective and honest reporting.
Not only does the paper give an op-ed column to Thomas Friedman, who was a major player in the Neocon effort to manipulate the USA into attacking Iraq, but it has hired William Kristol as a columnist. (See Conservative William Kristol becomes NY Times columnist | Politics | Reuters.)
Edward Rothstein, who often serves as a Jewish Zionist media gatekeeper at the New York Times, used the publication of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett as an excuse to equate Muslims protesting vicious anti-Islamic xenophobia with ants whose brains have been eaten by parasites. His February 20, 2006 article is entitled "History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims." (See History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims).
At this point, the NY Times plays a major propaganda role as Judonian journal of record.
The last and by far largest stratum of Jewish immigration to America (until Russian Refuseniks began to enter the USA as asylum seekers) consisted of ethnic Ashkenazim (the “Yids”) coming mostly from the Russian Empire but also from elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, “Our Crowd” viewed the Yids as a unlovely mass of primitives and put a lot of effort in trying to control and to reform their radicalism, religious practices, superstition, personal hygiene, and social behavior. (See Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation.)
In reality, the Yids divided themselves into two main categories, the Yiddish elite or sheyne Yidn and the Yiddish common people or proste Yidn. (See Money Jews, Brain Jews, Politics.) At that time period the Yiddish elite either in Eastern Europe or in America did not include a class geltyidn (Yiddish: moneyed Jews) equivalent to the Geldjuden (German: moneyed Jews), but the class of sheyne Yidn (Yiddish: beautiful or elite Jews) did include some very wealthy members. Kiev Jews are supposed to have quipped in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution that they obtained “tea from Wissotsky, sugar from Brodsky and law from Trotsky.”
Generally in comparison with the non-Jews among whom they lived, even proste Yidn were well off. They often brought a little capital with them to the USA. In addition, not only were they often members of family and communal networks, but they also benefited from the social service and welfare organizations established by German American Jews in contrast with immigrant groups like Sicilians, who probably had to deal with an exploitive padrone on arrival to the USA.
Eventually Yiddish Americans developed their own communal and official organizations like the American Jewish Congress, which was Zionist from the start. While German American Jews tried to exert influence through communal service organizations, ethnic Ashkenazim tended toward social and political aggressiveness, and the Anti-Defamation League, whose leadership included many Yiddish Americans tended to use coercive techniques in defending Jews even though the organization was part of the predominantly German Jewish B’nai B’rith.
A good number of Yiddish Americans, who generally had some connection to Eastern European cinema or theater (see Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry), fairly quickly managed to stake out Hollywood as an “empire of their own,” whose Yiddish elite became the “Hollywood Crowd.”
Sander Gilman points out in Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence on p. 178 that the “German Jewish ancestry of [the ’boy genius’ Irving Thalberg] was almost unique among the Eastern European Jews of Hollywood.”
Despite the wishes of Yiddish studio owners, Hollywood Yiddishkeyt often expressed itself during the 20s and 30s by presenting a positive image of communism and the Soviet Union. (See Re: Report: Finkelstein Lecture at MIT.) After the start of the Cold War, the Blacklist, and the Rosenberg Trial, Yiddish Hollywood discovered its love for Zionism, and since the 1950s the Hollywood Crowd has played an immense role in the Zionist indoctrination of America. Films like Rules of Engagement (2000) are as sinister as any German Nazi anti-Jewish production, and many members of the Hollywood Crowd deserve imprisonment for incitement to genocide of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians as well as related crimes against humanity at least as much as Otto Dietrich, who was the Third Reich Press Chief.
[See Ghada Karmi's Boston College Talk, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust by Jeffrey Herf, Zionist Film: Exodus - Terrorism is Good, Married to Another Man, Married to Another Woman, Zionist Film: Even Costa-Gavras Makes a Zionist Propaganda Film, and Zionist Film: Normalizing Jewish Dual Loyalties.]
A financial network, funding, a bureaucracy, media, a growing academic community, and potential settlers were a good start on consolidating Judonia, but the Zionism lacked an army and international cover for a program that amounted to the brutal theft of Palestine from the weak native population by wealthy, aggressive, organized European invaders. With sufficient funding, the Zionist bureaucracy could have hired mercenaries and trained its own army, but doing so would have been expensive, time consuming, and perceived as illegitimate. Getting a free ride by piggybacking on an existing imperial apparatus and infrastructure made a lot more sense, reduced risk, and could provide international legal cover.
The earliest phase of Judonia required a partner.
There were four sufficiently powerful imperial states where the local Jewish financial elite had enough influence to strike a deal:
While the United States in theory could have offered tremendous resources to the Zionist movement, mixed feelings among Americans about American imperialism as well resistance to Zionism among the German American Jewish elite and significant groups among Yiddish Americans made the USA unusable as the Judonian command and control center in the startup phase.
Not only was the German Jewish financial elite generally at least as hostile to Zionism as “Our Crowd,” to whom the Geldjuden had many ties of family and business, but Germany was also far less involved in extra-European international imperialism than was the USA and had an interest in propping up the Ottoman Empire as a potential ally against the Czar.
Although France was a major international imperial and colonial power, it supervised its colonies much too closely for Zionist purposes, and it would probably have undercut Zionist marketing and fundraising for the Zionists to collaborate with the French. French Jewry was ethnically heterogeneous and consisted of some very recent immigrant communities as well as some very ancient communities including those of Algeria. French Jews at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century were probably even more insistent on being nationally French than German Jews were on being nationally German.
While the fit between the British and the Zionists was less than perfect, proto-Zionist and Orientalist popular literature like
prepared the British public and leaders for involvement with Zionism.
While some of the Cousinhood viewed Zionism as a threat to their integration into British society, the Cousinhood like British Jewry in general was as diverse in opinions as it was in ethnic background, and pro-Zionist members of the Cousinhood could point out that national identity within the UK was not quite so monolithic or hegemonic as that of Germans or even that of Americans.
Bernard Lewis tells the following story among some subtle Islamophobic incitement in One on One: When defeat means liberation | Jerusalem Post., [xlv]):
No. When I joined the British army in 1940, I was interviewed by a sergeant who, while taking down all the relevant particulars, asked, "What is your race?"
Well, nowadays, I would say "white" or "Caucasian," but at the time, that wouldn't have occurred to me. In England, we never spoke about race. I knew what the Germans meant by it, however. So I asked the sergeant whether I should put "Jewish" in that category.
"Nah," he dismissed. "That's your religion, and we've already got that on another line."
At that point, I was completely mystified. "What, then," I asked, "am I supposed to put?"
"As far as the British army is concerned," he replied, "there are four races: English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. You are clearly English."
So, I went to war with documents that said that I was British by nationality, English by race and Jewish by religion.
The reluctance to impose a uniform identity within the British Isles may be related to the historic tendency within the British imperial system toward tolerance of individual ingenuity, initiative and autonomy that altogether provided the space for adventurers like the White Raja Sir James Brooke to establish his own kingdom. Zionist leaders generally assumed that similar freedom of action would be available for their goals.
The UK did not have nearly as large a population – either relatively or absolutely – of Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim with “radical tendencies” as either the USA or Germany, and the Cousinhood preferred that the situation remain unchanged. Zionism offered a way of maintaining the status quo.
The first step in the realization of Judonia as a virtual colonial motherland came when Arthur Balfour acting as British Foreign Secretary issued the Balfour Declaration to Lord Walter Rothschild.
The British government made the commitment because of
Those Jews willing to extend personal influence and large sums of money for the sake of the Zionist program became the first members of the leadership of Judonia.
Because Judonia has a competent, cost-effective, ideologically-driven bureaucracy among its staff, the leaders of Judonia rarely involve themselves in day-to-day issues, and Judonia is much more like a small, private, extremely exclusive club with about 400 members at preset than like a governing body.
The staff of club consists of all the people that work for the Israel-oriented Jewish communal, pro-Israel think tanks, divisions of think tanks, and specific Israel advocacy organizations as well as all the unofficial Jewish professional networks that enforce a pro-Israel discipline. It makes more sense to refer generally to the members and staff of Judonia than to leaders and officials or bureaucrats.
While the members are extremely rich, they are like the Krafts of Boston not particularly deep and often are not particularly knowledgeable about Zionism or foreign policy. The Zionist intelligentsia within the staff does the policy planning and organization that has eventually to brought Judonia so much power.
Walter Rothschild was probably the first member of Judonia, and he was joined by others that helped make sure that the Balfour Declaration became British policy and international law through the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine even though the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire was not obvious in UK interests and angered British Muslim subjects.
While creating an ethnic conflict where there previously was none might have been a cynical way to create a need for British rule, the Mandatory authority could have functioned perfectly well or even more smoothly without a requirement to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine.
For all intents and purposes, the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine benefited only the Zionists because it provided the Zionists with the desired legal cover for the slow motion theft of Palestine from the native population.
The Cousinhood or Judonia took charge practically immediately with the appointment Sir Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner for Palestine, and the British government far more than Zionist efforts made the New Jewish Settlement (Yishuv Hadash) a reality.
Samuel worked hard to maintain a façade of neutrality between the native Palestinian population and the immigrant Eastern Europeans but was careful to make sure that Palestinians had practically no legal means either to impede the immigration Zionist settlers into Palestine or to hinder the purchase of property by Zionist groups and individuals for settlements.
The British far more than the Zionists created spoken and written Modern Israeli Hebrew (MIH).
Before Samuel brought Jewish education in Palestine in varying degrees under the authority of the mandatory government, the Zionist leadership had had little success with creating a Hebrew-speaking settler population in Palestine[xlvi] despite the consensus claim that the “[Hebrew] language revolution took place between 1906 and 1913.” (Language in Time of Revolution by Benjamin Harshav, p. 110.)
Yael Zerubavel describes the situation very differently in Recovered Roots, Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition,  pp. 30-31:
The attitude toward the exilic languages and the commitment to turn Hebrew into an everyday language was not uniform, however, even among the Zionists. The emergence of Hebrew as the Yishuv’s national language was a complex process that entailed a struggle on both ideological and practical grounds. The 1913 “Languages War” marked the success of the pro-Hebrew teachers and students, supported by the Socialist Zionist settlers of the Second Aliya, in abolishing the use of European languages in Jewish schools and establishing Hebrew as the main language of instruction. For most Jewish immigrants, Hebrew was not a native tongue but a newly acquired spoken language. While its vocabulary was rich in some areas, it was severely limited in others. The use of the language thus required an ongoing effort to find (or construct) appropriate words, idioms and concepts.
Harshav writes (pp. 111-112):
We must warn against over-optimistic estimates. For example, as the Jerusalem statistician Roberto Bacchi showed, in the census of 1916, about 40% of the Jews declared Hebrew as their main language (see Bacci 1956a, 1956b). But as we know, declarations are one thing and reality is something else. There was a consciousness of the need to speak Hebrew and pride in it as the great achievement of the Zionist entity, hence the respondents identified with Hebrew speech, especially for external, political purposes, and declared as they did. (What language could they declare: Arabic, which would indicate an even larger proportion of Arabs? Russian, the language of the enemy in World War II?[xlvii] The despised Yiddish, connoting Diaspora? The French they hardly knew? Nevertheless, 60% did declare such languages.
Harshav recognizes but underrates the British contribution on p. 85:
It is only after the world war, that is, under the orderly British Mandatory rule that recognized Hebrew as one of the three official languages in Palestine, that the Language Committee [of the Hebrew Teachers’ Association] published a journal Leshonenu: Our Language: A Journal for the Improvement of the Hebrew Language, and seriously launched its standardizing activities. Indeed, the glory of the earlier Language Committee can only be understood as a back-projection from the present-day prestigious Academy of the Hebrew Language (which had turned Leshonenu into a journal of research rather than “improvement.”)
[See The Emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew, Languages of Science in the Era of Nation-State-Formation: The Israeli Universities and their (Non)Participation in the Revival of Hebrew, and Hebrew after a century of RLS efforts.]
Figure 8 Sir Herbert Samuel
He managed to stabilize the situation in Palestine to the point that private business investing would return a profit as long as the UK was willing to bear all costs of security under the calculation that ruling Palestine was worth more politically than Britain lost in paying to suppress the Palestinians. The claim probably was not true even then, but agents of Judonia still continue to sell this sort of patent medicine – most recently in the case of the occupation of Iraq.
The members of Judonia during the twenties and thirties probably had no great dreams of conquest or empire. The British members of Judonia probably expected Palestine to become a successful imperial holding that would function profitably as a middleman between the West and the Orient. Palestine was the members’ private philanthropic effort that was probably even more satisfying than most because it was profitable.
The members of Judonia in the UK and the USA with the assistance of important Zionists like Weizman quickly used the hook of humanitarianism to encourage more extensive involvement of Felix Warburg[xlviii] and other important non-Zionists from “Our Crowd” and the Cousinhood in Zionist organizations like the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Palestine Economic Corporation, the Palestine Development Corporation, and the Palestine Endowment Funds. (See Baksheesh Diplomacy, p. 13.) As a result Judonia begins to appear less ideological and more administrative or governmental in attempting to direct policy for the greater good and not specifically for the benefit of Zionism or Zionists. The pattern of Zionist bureaucratic obedience to Judonian decisions was quickly established and continues to this day.
During the 30s because of the liquidation of German Jewry and the Haavarah Agreement, Judonian investments became far more profitable as the New Jewish Settlement expanded. The rogue British officer Orde Wingate trained Zionist fighters in terrorism and assassination techniques, and the Zionist leadership in Palestine began to feel stronger. The situation culminated in the intra-Judonia conflict over the the 1937 Peel Commission Partition Proposal, which was written in response to the 1936 Arab Rebellion with strong “encouragement” from the Zionist UK-based members of Judonia.
Medoff describes in Baksheesh Diplomacy, pp. 89-92, how Warburg under the influence of non- and anti-Zionists like the AJCommittee President Cyrus Adler and Maurice Karpf from the Jewish Agency became increasingly hostile to the proposed Zionist state in part because of probable deleterious economic effects that threatened to wipe out the value of all investments in Palestine.
In the end the Zionists and Judonia developed a formula with which practically everyone except the Jabotinskians could live. As with the Roadmap today, the Zionist leaders accepted the plan “in principle” but rejected the details.
Figure 9 Vladimir Jabotinsky
On April 30, 1937, Jabotinsky as leader and commander of the Irgun militia cabled the senior staff in Palestine:
This is my order under the prevailing conditions: if the riots are renewed and there is a tendency to attack Jews as well, do not hold back.
Jabotinsky testified before the Peel Commission in the British House of Lords on July 11, 1937 (Normal Portion by Mark Ellenson and The Mentor Who Shaped Begin's Thinking: Jabotinsky by Mark Bruzonsky):
It is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine also prefer to be the Arab state No. 4, or No. 6 -- that I understand. But when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus the claims of starvation.
The idea is that Palestine on both sides of the Jordan should hold the Arabs, their progeny, and many millions of Jews. What I do not deny is that in that process the Arabs of Palestine will necessarily become a minority in the country. I do deny that that is a hardship. It is not a hardship on any race, any nation, possessing so many national states now and so many more national states in the future. One fraction, one branch of that race, and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's state: Well, that is the case with all the mightiest nations in the world."
Jabotinsky’s testimony is fundamentally dishonest. Even if European Jews were under dire threat, the native population of Palestine had no greater obligation to turn over their country to European invaders than the people of Massachusetts would have had.
Not only was mass murder of the Jews absent from the German Nazi agenda in 1937, but the Zionists still had a good working relationship with the Nazis, and Walter Rinderle and Bernard Norling even note in The Nazi Impact on a German Village (p. 135) that:
[until] 1938 Jewish families in Lahr county [Germany] believed themselves to be well-integrated into their communities. In Lahr city they received permission to form an NSDAP "Party of Jewish Youth" in 1935, and in Offenburg Jewish founded their own group of patriotic War Veterans.
The real threat to Zionists came from outstanding offers from various Arab leaders to facilitate immigration of Jews into Arab countries if Zionist renounced the program to make Palestine into a Jewish state and from the attempt of the Mufti’s agents to start a discussion with non-Zionist members of Judonia in June, 1937 (Baksheesh Diplomacy, p. 82, Ghada Karmi's Boston College Talk).[xlix]
Because Zionist and non-Zionist members of Judonia disdained Jabotinksy for his overt völkisch racism and tendency toward violence even more than they despised the socialist (really fascist) politics of the Labor Zionists, Jabotinsky had no direct mechanism to stop the dialogue except by inciting a renewal of the Arab Rebellion with publicly reported inflammatory statements before Parliament in order to scorch any possibility of a negotiated non-Zionist solution to the conflict over Palestine.
The renewed violence may have helped Jabotinsky with grass roots fund-raising, which was for the most part his main occupation after the British forbade his return to Palestine in 1930 and he was cut off from the deep pockets of the Cousinhood and “Our Crowd.”
Because of this peripatetic effort, Jabotinsky left a legacy of a devoted cadre outside of Palestine.
The Jabotinskian movement survived Jabotinsky’s death in 1940, and his followers in the USA
Jabotinsky’s American followers included Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion, Nixon’s favorite Rabbi Baruch Korff, and Leo Strauss, who as a teenager had been a member of German Zionist groups connected with Jabotinsky.[li]
During the 30s Jabotinsky coupled his message with ever increasing emphasis on the free market probably in order to make his form of Zionism more attractive to Yiddish Americans with some extra money. Milton Friedman’s father, who immigrated to the USA from Hungary, belonged to this category before his business went under in the 1930s.
American entry into WWII and increasing awareness of the mass murder of Jews in Europe forced non-Zionist members of Judonia to reevaluate their ideas. “Our Crowd” with their strong family ties and German heritage could not help but commiserate with the anger, pain and resentment of the former Geldjuden of Germany and Austria. (In The Pity of It All, pp. 243-247, Amos Elon describes the shame and anguish of Willy Ritter Liebermann von Wahlendorf over the life that he had tried to live.)
Even though the belief has no connection to historical reality, after 1945 the members of Judonia as well as Jews in general began to assign increasing blame to the British and to the Palestinians for murder of European Jews.[lii]
The UK seemed to have outlived its usefulness as a partner for Judonia while the Soviet leadership (and probably especially the Soviet Ashkenazim in important government positions) saw a possible opportunity to drive the British from the Middle East. (See Re: Report: Finkelstein Lecture at MIT.)
While Zionist and formerly non-Zionist German-American Jewish members of Judonia publicly lobbied President Truman and secretly bought weapons and military hardware to ship to Palestine, grass roots Jabotinskians lobbied against reconstruction loans for the UK, and the Soviet Union “facilitated” the emigration of some Eastern European Jews to Palestine.[liii]
Palestine became an almost perfect model for the Shock Doctrine that Milton Friedman would develop at the University of Chicago where Leo Strauss had become a Professor in 1949 and later became a Neoconservative icon.
Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable. (Cited from The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, p. 140.)
There is hardly a better description of the Zionist enterprise, and once the crisis associated with driving out the British and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, who were surrogate German Nazis in the minds of most Jews of the time period, passed, the new Israeli government and members of Judonia took on
The consolidation tasks seems to have been left mostly to Israeli government officials and Zionist bureaucrats, but US and UK members of Judonia were heavily represented in funding the redemption and reforestation as humanitarian and charitable efforts with the same sense of righteousness with which many anti-regulation bankers and financiers supported Milton Friedman during the same time period.
Figure 10 Milton Friedman
Naomi Klein writes:
The movement that Milton Friedman launched in the 1950s is best understood as an attempt by multinational capital to recapture the highly profitable, lawless frontier that Adam Smith, the intellectual forefather of today’s neoliberals, so admired – but with a twist. Rather than journeying through Smith’s “savage and barbarous nations” where there was no Western law (no longer a practical option), this movement set out to systematically dismantle existing laws and regulations to re-create that earlier lawlessness. And where Smith’s colonists earned their record profits by seizing what he described as “waste lands” for “but a trifle,” today’s multinationals see government programs, public assets and everything that is not for sale as terrain to be conquered and seized – the post office, national parks, schools, social security, disaster relief and anything else that is publicly administered. [The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, pp. 241-242.]
In the above formulation, Friedman has created a movement for the negation of the exile (shəlilat hagalut) from the free market and seeks to return the free market capitalists oppressed by regulation to their ancient homeland.
Friedmanism almost certainly grows out of the epistemic culture (mentality or mindset) associated with the perfervid Zionism of the Jewish community in the area of Rahway, NJ where Friedman grew up. (See Facts on the Ground, pp. 101-105, for a discussion of the Zionist epistemic culture of Israeli archeologists.)
While lots of non-Jewish bankers and financiers also support Friedmanism, many do not. In contrast, the Zionist thought patterns in Friedman’s economic theory are so natural and reflexive for members of Judonia that practically all members were enmeshed in Friedman’s ideas, the only exceptions being those few with no important connections to banking and finance.
No member of Judonia seems to have lost money on any investments during the 1950s, and the members seem to have benefited very well from the theft of practically all Palestinian movable and immovable assets within the territory of the State of Israel. Nevertheless, the members would almost certainly have preferred less Zionist socialism (really fascism) and more free market in the State of Israel, but they still had a lot of visceral antipathy to the Jabotinskians, and the German reparations controversy did nothing to decrease the disdain.
In any case, not only did most of the Mandatory economic structures end up under Labor Zionist control, but a transformation to free market economics would also have rendered the new Zionist state far less attractive both to American Jews and also to European non-Jews inclined to progressive politics.
Friedmanism finally established a beachhead in the Israeli economy when Simcha Ehrlich became Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s finance minister.
For “Our Crowd” security first of all meant making sure the State of Israel functioned on a sound financial basis and had reliable cash flows, and Judonia was well represented in German reparations negotiations by the bureaucrats from the Jewish communal organizations dominated by “Our Crowd.”
For the members of Judonia, the second component of security was an atomic bomb. So far the best book on the subject is Israel and the Bomb by Avner Cohen. The key early Israeli atomic bomb makher was the German Jewish chemist David Bergman.
In August 1948 Ben Gurion appointed Bergmann head of the scientific department of the IDF. On 15 July 1951 Bergmann was made scientific adviser to the minister of defense, and in early 1952 was appointed director of research of the newly created Devision of Research and Infrastructure (Agaf Mechkar Ve’tichun, or EMET) of the Ministry of Defense. … In June 1952 the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) was quietly established with Bergmann as its head. He held these three posts until his final resignation in April 1966. [p.15]
Bergman also shared Ben Gurion’s conviction that the Holocaust justified Israel in taking any steps to ensure its survival. “I am convinced,” Peres cited him as saying, “that the State of Israel needs a defense research program of its own, so that we shall never again be as lambs led to the slaughter.” Bergman elaborated on this theme in a 1966 letter to Meir Ya’ari, the leader of the left-wing MAPAM, who opposed nuclear weapons. After writing that the spread of nuclear weapons was unavoidable and that many countries, including Arabs, would achieve nuclear capability, he said:
I was surprised that a man like you…is prepared to close his eyes and assume that reality is how we would all like to see it. There is no person in this country who does not fear a nuclear war and there is no man in this country who does not hope that, despite it all, logic will rule in the world of tomorrow. But we are not permitted to exchange precise knowledge and realistic evaluations for hopes and illusions. I cannot forget that the Holocaust came on the Jewish people as a surprise. The Jewish people cannot allow themselves such an illusion for a second time. [pp. 15-16]
Finding a partner for building a bomb was not much different from finding a partner for establishing a colonial settlement.
Cohen writes on p. 49:
The circumstances contributing to the development of the relationship [between Israel and France] were both geopolitical and domestic. By 1955-56 the situation in France’s North African colonies was deteriorating, and the French military establishment viewed Nasser as the force behind the Algerian rebellion, which was becoming uncontrollable. A militarily strong Israel, capable of threatening Nasser was now in France’s interest.
The warming of the French-Israeli relationship after September 1955 was not only the result of geopolitics, but was also driven by domestic, economic, and even personal forces. With the help of the French ambassador in Israel, Pierre Gilbert, Peres formed a pro-Israel coalition combining pro-Jewish and socialist sentiments with nationalistic interests in the expansion of the French aerospace and nuclear industries. Peres also took advantage of the structural weaknesses of the Fourth Republic. Recognizing the fragmentation of France’s policy-making, organs, Peres developed a close relationship with the French defense and interior (intelligence) ministers, bypassing the pro-Arab Quai d’Orsay bureaucracy. As Sylvia Crosbie puts it:
With the executive paralyzed by a domineering legislature, which was in turn immobilized by its own failings, there was widespread freedom of action at various levels of the bureaucracy. This enabled a relatively small group of individuals in the defense establishment and related ministries to cooperate intimately with Israel without any formal arrangement, sometimes in opposition to official government policy. Acting independently and often autonomously, they were in essence conducting their own foreign relations directly with the Israel Defense Ministry.
Peres arranged to obtain French weapons through unconventional channels, using these channels to explore whether France would assist Israel in pursuing nuclear weapons. That France itself was still undecided about the acquisition of its own nuclear weapons, and that the pronuclear camp advanced its case stealthily and incrementally, made it easier for Peres to advance Israel’s nuclear objective. Defense Minister Maurice Bourges-Maunoury, a supporter of French nuclear weapons, understood Peres’s vision just as he understood the need to keep the two countries’ nuclear plans opaque. [pp. 49-50]
Yet, Cohen does not really provide a clear understanding of activities taking place in France, the UK and the USA during Israel and Judonia’s quest for an Israeli atomic bomb. Cohen neglects to mention that Bergmann’s CEA (Commissariat à l’energie atomique) counterpart Bertrand Goldschmidt was Jewish.[liv] Were Sayanim, the Frog Princes, members of Judonia, or staff of Judonia pressuring, manipulating or taking advantage of the French government?
Professor Joel Kovel mentions in Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, p. 2:
While reading Seymour Hersh’s largely forgotten book about the development of Israel’s nuclear bomb I was struct by an off-handed sentence that the “CIA had even been tipped off about the fact that Israel was raising large sums of money for Dimona from the American Jewish community.”
The article Where Did AIPAC Come From? by Grant Smith identifies the connection between AIPAC and the Jewish Agency [for Israel] Executive American Section, whose US based board of directors consisted for the most part of members or staff of Judonia. (Baksheesh Diplomacy investigates the connection between the predecessor Jewish Agency [for Palestine Executive American Section] and “Our Crowd.”)
AIPAC’s creation seems to have resulted from concerns that the conviction of the Rosenbergs might draw Congressional attention to Israel’s nuclear ambition and nuclear espionage and strengthen the feeling or charges associated with the Rosenberg Case that American Jews were disloyal to the USA. (American Accused of Spying for Israel describes a recent case.)
Not only was shaping the Congressional view of Israel a primary concern for the State of Israel and Judonia during the 1950s, but American and Israeli Jewish leaders were obsessed with the image of Israel in American and world discourse. By the late 50s and early 60s the Israeli government and Judonia began an attempt to manipulate success in the film and print journalism industries with effects that still remain to this day. (Haim Saban may be a result of this sort of manipulation.)
During the late 50s and 60s, the Israeli government and Judonian staff were placing articles in newspapers while members of Judonia were contracting authors to write books (like Exodus), in movies (e.g., Solomon and Sheba[lv]) to indoctrinate the American public in Zionist ideology, and funding journalistic entrepreneurs with the right attitudes.[lvi]
In addition to this economic and media manipulation members of Judonia start endowing professorships and establishing university institutes in Middle East and Jewish Studies with the expectation that Zionist academics would be able to stake out these areas of US academia for the permanent exclusive use of Judonia. Because reality no longer meets this expectation, Judonian staff members like David Horowitz are running a campaign to marginalize non-Zionist academics by accusing them of opposing academic freedom among other sins.
In general Judonia and the State of Israel successfully created a structure for Gramscian hegemonic blocking in the USA of any non-Zionist controlled discussion of Israel, the Middle East, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but the behind-the-scenes, subtle string-pulling and quietly manipulative techniques of “Our Crowd” showed signs of ultimate failure because of the conflicts
The tension with Johnson arose because he expected support for his Vietnam policy in return for backing Israel in the 1967 War (Anti-War: 1960s versus 2000s) and for preventing too hard a look into the attack on the USS Liberty. (See Money Jews, Brain Jews, Politics.)
Even before the Nixon administration took office, Israel advocates – against all the traditions of “Our Crowd” – had already opened up a public attack on state department Arabists. While the degree of Richard Nixon’s sympathy for Jews was debatable, some senior members of the incoming administration were almost certainly sympathetic to the anti-Arabist argument. (See Those Arabists In the State Department; Those Arabists in State and THE "ARABISTS" FUNCTION.)
The Nixon Administration is a table of some of the important members in the Nixon administration, who have become major players during George W. Bush’s presidency. (The creator of the table has only a superficial understanding of the history of Neoconservatism.)
Richard Nixon brought Henry Kissinger and Milton Friedman into his administration right from the start.
As National Security Advisor, Kissinger, who was a German Jewish refugee from the Third Reich, approached foreign policy from the standpoint of Realpolitik as do John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
Nixon appointed Milton Friedman to the Gates Commission in March 1969, met with Friedman regularly, and appointed Friedman’s friends and colleagues like George Shultz and Donald Rumsfeld to high administration positions. (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, p. 132-133.)
Friedman’s Zionism-for-Capitalists economic theory dovetailed both with Kissinger’s power politics and US corporate greed
· because it provided the logic to wage economic warfare against Allende and
· because the proposed sell-off of the state-owned corporations of developing countries to private sector US owners (in a sort of anti-Marxist withering of the state) promised a quick infusion of cash to local elites in order to inspire “free market coups” like that of Pinochet in Chile.
These new neocolonial revenue streams coming to the USA would prove to benefit business and investment sectors, whose domination by “Our Crowd” and by a developing class of wealthy Yiddish Americans or geltyidn was increasing rapidly because of covert ethnic networks whose members protect one another and share insider information.
In general, application of Friedman’s economic theory corresponds so closely with the arenda system and with the history of Jewish exploitation in the Ukraine that it could be considered to be an expression of an epistemic culture associated not merely with Zionist politics but with Zionist politics hybridized with traditional Yiddish economics.
Because the Friedmanite profiteers are so far away from the modern equivalent of potentially enraged Cossacks or ethnically cleansed Palestinians, Friedmanism is a far superior as a form of theft or brutal exploitation than either Zionism today or the arenda system in the seventeenth century Ukraine.
The counter-Marxist Friedmanist concept of withering away the state by selling off its functions to private enterprise worked well with Nixon’s southern strategy because it was a way for the Republican party to promise racially anxious whites a theoretically weaker federal government less inclined in the future to engage in civil rights activism like the 1970 decision of the IRS to remove the tax-exempt contribution status of Bob Jones University on account of the school’s rules against interracial dating.
Irving Kristol realized that the ideological mix that permeated the Nixon admistration was compatible with the first generation Neoconservatism that had developed out of American Jabotinskianism for the following reasons.
1. Southern white racist evangelical desire for Christian prayer in school, racial segregation, and subordination of women despite Supreme Court decisions paralleled very closely the Zionist rejection of increasing international criticism[lvii] of the basic ideology and practices of the State of Israel including the concept of a Jewish state, denial of Palestinian rights, and waging a demographic war against Palestinians.
2. Forcefully confronting the Communists in Vietnam was the same as forcefully confronting the Arabs in the Middle East. And
3. Friedmanism could hardly have been more of better fit with Jabotinsky’s own free market ideas.
In addition, both Kristols seem to have had personal connections with Baruch Korff,
· who in the early 70s lived in Taunton, MA,
· who had been an important American Jabotinskian leader during the 1940s,
· who developed a close personal relationship with Nixon during the 1968 campaign, and
· who as an outspoken defender of Richard Nixon after 1973 became known as Nixon’s Rabbi. (See j. - Baruch Korff, `Nixon's rabbi' and activist, dies of cancer at 81.)
Politics and personal relations brought Irving Kristol and his son Bill to back Richard Nixon and his Vietnam policy during the 1972 presidential campaign. (See Neoconservatives, Then and Now, [lviii] and On the Political Stupidity of the Jews.)
As details of the Watergate scandal became public, prominent members of the Jewish community expressed discomfort with Irving Kristol’s and Baruch Korff’s continuing support for Nixon.
Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, called [Rabbi Korff] an "apologist for rampant immorality" and suggested that many people in the Jewish community were embarrassed by his actions and statements.
Despite such reservations, younger Neocons managed to validate themselves within the Jewish community by championing Russian refuseniks. Even though the campaign provided at best mixed benefit for Russian Jews, who generally had higher incomes and higher status jobs than any other group in the Soviet Union, it was spun as a tremendous success, and Neocons benefited both by sharpening their skills in manipulating the US government and also by establishing strong anti-Soviet credentials. (See The Real Origins of Neocons.)
The backing of Neocons and older Jabotinskians seems to have been meaningful to Nixon and the sort of gesture that LBJ always wanted but never received. After some apparent reluctance on the part of Kissinger, who might have been playacting to establish his dominance in relation to the Israeli government, the USA launched the largest resupply effort in its history during the October 1973 War.
When the Arab oil producers reacted by imposing an embargo, the Kristols and their fellow Neocons, responded by discovering that “US security interests” required Friedmanist privatization of Arab oil companies so that they would be run solely for profit with no possible future use as a political weapon. No other rational interpretation of Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security is possible because some future ruler of Iraq could easily be even worse than Saddam Hussein by whatever criteria are current at that time. In this sense, the Second Iraq War probably was all about the political threat oil represents to Israel and not about any compelling American security requirement except in the minds of those that cannot distinguish American and Israeli interests.
Even though the American Neocons were no longer close to presidential power during the Camp David negotiations, they were busy. Not only was Black Sunday released as the first truly Neoconservative feature film, but Begin while not precisely a Neocon was an original Jabotinskian, and he negotiated $3 billion in yearly aid, which initially was half for purchasing US weapons systems and half in unaccounted cash grants.
The Israeli government promptly began to use the cash grants to develop a homeland security industry consisting of interlocking companies based in the USA and Israel. As a result, the State of Israel eventually was able to buy weapons systems from Israeli-funded US companies as required under the terms of US military aid. Yet all benefits from such purchases accrue to the State of Israel or Judonia.
Not only do such US or Israel-based Israeli government-subsidized businesses have a substantial advantage over native American businesses thanks to US cash grants, but in effect a lot a good portion of US aid to Israel thus passes back to the USA through a web of interlocking family and business relations and is used and even leveraged to influence US politics at the national level.
Those openly or covertly Israeli companies benefiting from US government largess have reaped tremendous profits to the benefit of Judonia as part of the homeland security bubble described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, pp. 283-307. (See also BUSINESS; The Military-Technological Complex Is Thriving in Israel ....)
As the Bob Jones vs. USA case wended through US courts, the anger of Southern white evangelicals increased and culminated in the establishment of the Moral Majority PAC coalition that gave Reagan two-thirds of the evangelical vote. Reagan reciprocated with verbal support for states rights, but it is hard to identify any acts the Reagan administration took to materialize a states rights policy.
The Israeli government now dominated by Jabotinskians targeted the Moral Majority as a possible source of pro-Israel activism in the USA and established a program of tours and indoctrination in an effort to reap the harvest that Jabotinski and his supporters had planted in the USA during the 20s, 30s and 40s.
The pro-Israel support of the Moral Majority is a sort of prefiguration of the Israel advocacy of John Hagee and Christians United for Israel.
After Philip Habib’s temporary return to service to negotiate an end to the Israeli siege of Beirut in 1982, it is hard to identify any important rising Arabists in the US State Department, which while not a wholly owned subsidiary of Judonia was becoming heavily infiltrated.[lix]
The Iran Contra operation, which involved Neocons and Friedmanites in close collaboration, represented the marriage or total integration of aggressive Neocon ideas for transforming the Middle East with free market aggression against non-capitalist Latin American states.
By the end of the Reagan administration both the World Bank and also the IMF were transformed into aggressive mechanism of Friedmanite intimidation and control not so much for the USA but for US corporate and banking interests that during the Reagan administration had become even more Jewish and Zionist thanks in good measure to Israeli governmental manipulation of the US economy with the new funding and investment orientation that resulted from the Camp David Accords.
No longer would Judonia simply have one settler colony but it would develop new purely revenue generating virtual colonies through the acquisition of formerly state-owned corporations of developing countries whose markets were forced open to Western and in a steadily increasing number of cases to Judonian investment.
Paul Wolfowitz’ desire to lead the World Bank after architecting policy to disintegrate Iraq with the Second Iraq War makes perfect sense as a way for Judonia to maintain total control over one of the most important Arab counties.
The combination of Christian apocalyptic evangelical Zionism, integrated Friedmanite Neoconservative ideological aggressiveness, pressure for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict because of the first intifada, the collapse of the Soviet Block and the Soviet Union, and the Internet Bubble created a world-historical moment that cannot even be categorized.
Yet within the very exclusive membership of Judonia the real shocker came from the November 1990 release of the National Jewish Population Survey sponsored by the Council of Jewish Federations, for the document possibly erroneously put the Jewish intermarriage rate at 52%. (See Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (1996), pp. 66-67.)
More than any other event since 1948 (including the 1973 October War – the new threat was considered more grave), this report seems to have aroused the wealthiest second and sometimes third generation members of Judonia and given them a strong consciousness of a new mission.
In the context of the First Intifada and new access to Russian Jews, the members responded with increased funding for Jewish communal organizations to develop Holocaust- and Israel-focused programs in cooperation with the Israeli educational bureaucracy to strengthen ethnic identity. As a result, the organized Jewish community, which in most localities has extensive political influence and tremendous resources for mass mobilization, began to reflect the ideological orientation of the large donors far more than that of the majority of community members, and far more Jewish communal organizations adopted a strong Israel orientation. At the same time, the remuneration for employees of the Zionist communal organizations seems to have increased, and there are new special rewards for promising employees and those pleasing to Judonia. (See Scamming Americans Robbing Palestinians and Followup: Scamming Americans Robbing Palestinians.)
The completion of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) on April 22, 1993 was timely for this new educational program, which overlapped with the Oslo process, to which Neocons objected and which worsened conditions for Palestinians.
President Carter probably supported the creation of a USHMM in order to improve relations with the Jewish community angered by his sympathy with Palestinian suffering. Within the Jewish community, the project indicated that the Jabotinskian Holocaust-based narrative and justification for the Zionism as expressed in the ending of Schindler’s List had triumphed over the Constructive Zionist narrative that was associated with pre-Begin pre-Likud Israeli governments and that was immortalized in a very preachy way in the movie Exodus.
Fairly quickly after its opening the USHMM became a propaganda tool to drown out Palestinian suffering in American discourse. (See USHMM: National Thought Control and Arun Gandhi and Sholem Aleichem.)
In addition, massive Holocaust marketing effort managed to distract from revelations of heavy communist Jewish involvement in mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in association with the Bolshevik Revolution and the consolidation of the Soviet Union from WW I through the 1930s. Because law and politics have precluded the USHMM from incorporating this new historical data and information in USHMM exhibits and programs, the USHMM no longer maintains the semblance of presenting history but functions solely to spread Jewish and Zionist mythology at US taxpayer expense even as the American Jewish community became even wealthier as a result of the Internet Bubble.
Because of unfamiliarity with Internet-based corporations, many investors had difficulty in judging their true value, and Wall Street seems to have been induced into a feeding frenzy, in which IPOs took place because new Internet companies showed even one quarter of profitability. It will require some serious forensic statistics and accounting to be sure, but Israel-associated venture funds and Jewish networks in investment banking seem to have conspired to make sure that Zionistically-correct entrepreneurs benefited in the unprecedented investment environment. As the Internet bubble created steadily increasing real estate prices throughout the USA, Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) and Collateralized Debt Options (CDOs) constructed out of subprime mortgages became the foundation of a secondary bubble, which seems to have involved heavy market manipulation to make sure that investors with proper Zionist credentials profited.
Meanwhile under the careful watch of Lawrence Summers and his Russian American Jewish colleague Andrei Shleifer, Friedmanite free-market privatization of the Russian Federations state economy created yet more Jewish and Zionist wealth.
Naomi Klein thinks it was a mistake that Russian state corporations ended up in the hands of Russian oligarchs, all but one of whom was Jewish, but there is reason to suspect otherwise.
Not only was Lawrence Summers undergoing a transformation into super-Jew as a result of a midlife crisis, but a similar pattern has also been discernable in the Egyptian Infitah (opening up to foreign investment).
Dr. A`laa el-Zayat used to teach occasionally as a visiting professor at the Harvard Medical School and apparently was a close friend of Egyptian Presidents Jamal Abul-Nasir and Hosni Mubarak. Through the Egyptian Jewish community, to which the Zayat family covertly belonged as crypto-Jews, he may have had a connection to Harvard Professor Nadav Safran, who worked with both Israeli and American intelligence.[lx] During the 80s Dr. el-Zayat and his son Ahmed had a close relationship with the Bostoner Rebbe, who appears to have arranged the marriage of Ahmed’s sister to a Lakewood Yeshiva bokher of Syrian Jewish background. (See Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book - Forward.com" and Zayat's great colt doing more than schooling horses.)
Through the Rebbe the Zayat family developed a close relationship with the Newton Jews, who form an intellectual and financial center within Judonia. As the Egyptian economy opened up Ahmed and his brother bought al-Ahram beverage, found funding within the American Jewish community, and eventually put together a $1.33 billion dollar sale to a Bronfman subsidiary. In this way Bronfmans have acquired a foothold in the Egyptian economy while keeping the money within the tribe.
The Zayats do not seem to be the only Egyptians with the strategy of linking up with Judonia for the sake of financial success or financial advancement. In Salata Baladi or Afrangi? Columbia Professor Joseph Massad reviews the film Salata Baladi, which is a documentary about the director’s part Jewish Egyptian family and an Egypt that no longer exists. Massad writes:
As a friend of mine, an Egyptian woman academic who works on questions of cosmopolitanism in Egypt and who also saw the film in New York, remarked, there is very little nostalgia that the film or the director registers for a time when many Egyptians were communists, national liberationists, socialists, and everything in between (Hala Halim's forthcoming book addresses these exact issues). But this kind of diversity, it seems, the film and the director do not miss at all. Only the diversity of the non-Muslim and the foreign communities, including Greeks, Italians, Syrian Arab Christians, European Jews, and Arab Jews is missed by the contemporary cosmopolitans who live in Cairo and Alexandria. One wonders if the European funders of the film would have been interested in a film of nostalgia for Arab or Egyptian communism, of which both of Nadia's parents were part. But then the Ford Foundation, which contributed funds to the New York based ArteEast film festival (organized by Israeli scholar Livia Alexander) that screened Salata Baladi in New York might not have funded it either. When I saw the film in the middle of last November at Columbia University, where I teach, Nadia Kamel introduced it. She stood there and declared to her American audience (which included many Americans of Egyptian Jewish background and a number of officers from the Ford Foundation): "I come from a country full of taboos."
The audacity of that statement is not to be underestimated. In a post-9/11 New York city and a post- 9/11 Columbia University where taboos on free speech and academic freedom are part of everyday life, for Nadia Kamel to complain to her audience and enjoin them to sympathise with her plight against the taboos of her country borders on the obscene. This is not to say that Egypt does not have taboos, it is to say that playing native informant to a Western audience, most of whom, like Nadia Kamel, only recognise Egypt's taboos but not America's, is not a courageous act. Exploiting the sad and touching story of Naila Kamel to push an ideological agenda that the United States and Israel have been pushing for years against the will of most Egyptians is hardly a progressive or democratic enterprise either. This is most pronounced in the director's attempt to attack the anti- normalisation campaign with Israel, rather than Israel itself, as the party responsible for her mother's sadness and yearning for her cousin. Kamel's screening the film in East Jerusalem and Ramallah more recently, where it sparked much controversy, demonstrates that there are many kindred spirits to Nadia Kamel who live there and who look to benefit from normalisation under Occupation. What this documentary film is able to prove, however, is not that most Egyptians come from origins that are "salata baladi," as that is hardly unknown to Egyptians, but that the ideological positions the film wants to push is nothing short of salata afrangi, made up exclusively of Western neoliberal ingredients.
Massad’s description of the film opens the question whether Kamel is simply a more sophisticated version of Nonie Darwish and has created a film of the sort that Jewish Zionists would want to watch so that Kamel could work her Jewish connection in order to attract funding from the Hollywood Crowd.
With increasing wealth, Judonia’s support staff and institutions proliferate both in the USA, in Europe, and in Israel. With the publication of papers like the 1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Defense of the Realm, the Neocons revealed their true nature as the American branch of a seamless transnational Jabotinskian political elite.
This time period seems to mark the first glimmerings within awareness within Judonia that Judonia constitutes a virtual state with its own empire. The tip off comes from the Holocaust extortion racket that Norman Finkelstein describes in The Holocaust Industry and that has appearance of the Roman-style extraction of tribute from weaker states. In addition, the concomitant erection of Holocaust Memorials throughout the USA and the world looks like the dedication of temples to Roman Emperors and Gods through the Roman Empire by subject populations in order to demonstrate their loyalty and subordination to their rulers.
By the end of the Clinton administration Judonia had created such a state of intimidation and dependency in US national politicians both afraid of offending pro-Israel groups and also desperate for Jewish funding to run political campaigns that by normal definitions the USA today is a client state of Judonia.
The Neocons and associated media organizations have tried to depict George W. Bush as Churchillian but in his subservience to Ariel Sharon he only managed to look like an inferior imitation of Marshal Pétain or Vidkun Quisling.
When Bush took office, his main concern seemed to be realizing the Friedmanite “dictatorship of the anti-proletariat,” which is the hyper-wealthy class whose Jewishness and Zionism had increased tremendously during the Clinton administration.
Then came 9/11 came. Maybe the US government had forewarning. Maybe it did not. Maybe some US government security group thought the goal was an ordinary hi-jacking and helped in order to get more information on the terrorist leadership. Maybe nothing of the sort happened. Maybe the Russian FSB staged the attack to bring the USA onboard with the Russian “War Against Terror.” All the speculation is irrelevant. Judonia through its agents and collaborators in the US government and also through its own sophisticate media apparatus put into effect a sophisticated marketing campaign that Judonian staff like Daniel Pipes had been fine tuning for years to convince American Jews and non-Jews that the USA and Israel were fighting a common war against terror.
Keeping the majority of American Jews, who are neither members nor staff of Judonia, on board with the War on Terror has been a particularly important part of the project because so many are in important gatekeeper and facilitator positions inside and outside government. Yet, as the members of Judonia, who number about 300-400 today, have become richer, greedier, and more powerful, their interests have diverged to the point of practically no points of contact whatsoever with practically all members of the American Jewish community except for those functioning as the staff of Judonia.
Extremist Israel advocacy groups like the David Project have developed training programs and then attempt to place graduates throughout mainstream Jewish communal organizations as well as in critical positions in media and in academia or even in primary and secondary education. The organization seems to have developed a more sophisticated version of the techniques that Abba Hillel Silver used to Zionize reform Judaism in the 1940s along Jabotinskian parameters. (See Abba Hillel Silver and American Zionism, edited by Mark A. Raider, Jonathan D. Sarna, Ronald W. Zweig, pp. 26-28.)
The originally German American Jewish AJCommittee, which is in the final stage of extremist Zionization with an ongoing take-over by recent Russian American Jewish immigrants, has adopted a policy of controlling intellectual deviance among American Jews via intimidation. (See Updating "The AJC attacks".)
At this point Judonia has managed to co-opt almost all mainstream Jewish communal organizations except for the Workmen’s Circle, which opposed the David Project during the Roxbury Mosque controversy.
[See Muslim, Jewish leaders see fresh start - The Boston Globe, Subjugating American Muslims to Israel, Removing an Islamophobe's soapbox, Singing HaTikvah while inciting a disastrous US invasion, Poisoning Human Rights Discourse, Letter from the Islamic Society of Boston, Open Letter to the Globe Editorial Board, The Passion of Roxbury, Report on Robert Spencer and the Boston Anti-Islamic Controversy, Battle waged in Boston over new mosque, Emails show pro-Israel anti-Mosque Campaign in Boston, Web of Zionist enmeshment, and Anti-Mosque complaint was a hate crime.]
The Neocons have brought a comparable Israelization of the American legal system since 9/11 in terms of
In public discussion, Ambassador Kiesling has tried to explain the phenomenon as a form of clientitis, which is characterized by a desire to view Israeli behavior as correct, proper, or even admirable.
Yet the Ambassadors’s discussion “Bush’s public, brutally inept repudiation of the International Criminal Court (ICC)” suggests otherwise. (See Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower, p. 11.)
Kiesling writes on pp. 11-12:
America’s position was a disgraceful one: the U.S. Congress had embraced a pressure group of cynical populists with a Goebbelsian lie that UN black helicopters were poised to take away America’s freedom. Taking a page form the rhetoric of friends like Slobodan Miloševic, the ex-ruler of Serbia, Congress decided to demonstrate the virility of its concern for “national sovereignty” by passing a law to shield America’s future war criminals from legal scrutiny by the international community.
I was diplomatic about it. I reassured the Greeks that America was not endorsing war crimes. The ICC treaty made clear that each country has the right and responsibility for trying its own war criminals, with the ICC acting when the criminal’s home state failed to act. America had a track record of punishing war criminals, its own as well as others’. America remained firmly committed to bringing all such criminals to justice. Still, Greece and the EU needed to find a way to accommodate U.S. concerns, or the United States would walk away from its international peacekeeping commitments and cut off military assistance to all but key allies.
Personally, however, I was certain that America’s pusillanimity on the ICC was stupid and immoral. Americans benefited handsomely from international law because the United States had written much of it. Now the United States was hacking away at the moral and political foundations of its own creation. Why would anyone else accept international law as a legitimate argument for self-restraint when the United States would not? America’s alternative to law and diplomacy was the ugly threat of U.S. military might, but the U.S. military – unlike the president and Congress – at least understood how expensive an alternative it was.
The ICC threat to U.S. citizens was far-fetched. To eliminate that threat, my colleagues and I dutifully squandered diplomatic capital bullying or bribing states to sign symbolic agreements. In Greece, the effect of Congress’s American Service Member Protective Act was to make our service members less safe than before. The odds were always remote that any of the hundreds of uniformed Americans at our base in Souda Bay would ever be accused of being international war criminals. It was certain, however, that each year young, frisky American military personnel would be arrested by Greek authorities for brawls, traffic accidents, or misunderstandings with shopkeepers. We had just negotiated a sensible new status-of-forces agreement that waived criminal jurisdiction for such incidents back to the U.S. military justice system except in cases of “major political importance” to Greece. Furious at our ICC stance, the Greek foreign and justice ministries ruled that almost every fistfight by a U.S. service member was a crime of sufficient political importance to require trial by Greek court. Greek jails have improved, but the average American seaman would be better off taking his chances with the ICC.
The Bush administration Neocons that supported the repudiation of the ICC were never concerned about US servicemen, whom they have casually viewed as cannon fodder to make the Middle East safe for Israel. The Neocons were acting as staff members of Judonia to protect Jewish Americans or Israeli Jewish Americans (and of course Jewish Neocons) that had committed international crimes while they served in the IDF.
Not only does the Israeli military have no hesitation about perpetrating crimes against humanity when the victims are Arabs or non-Jewish Americans defending Palestinians as Rachel Corrie was when the IDF brutally murdered her, but the legal system of the State of Israel is demonstrably dysfunctional in dealing with crimes committed against Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and non-Jews in general.
In a show of relative power in the US-Israel alliance, the State of Israel has even refused to extradite Jewish American criminals back to the USA even in cases when the crime took place in the US. (See Sheibein Can’t Be Extradited.)
The Neocon Jabotinskians and Neoliberal Friedmanites have run the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and occupation to a large extent on Judonian principles by using proxies and contractors or mercenaries so beloved of Neocon pundit Max Boot. (See Killing Muslims Under Humanitarian Cover and Harvard Supports Incinerating Arab Countries.)
If the US and other states can be hollowed out and virtualized by privatizing normal government functions and services like the military, Judonia as the most highly developed virtual state will be first among equals. Because many groups within the organized Jewish community have long supplied social services, the members of Judonia could even profit by turning some of the service-providing groups into for-profit corporations.
Mercenary organizations like Blackwater have strong similarities to native fighters like the Gurkhas, who were favored by the British Empire, which established a special Gurkha regiment just as the Russian Empire established special units for Polish nobles, who also had a strong, unique military tradition.
Because Blackwater management and staff consists of fanatically pro-Israel Christian Zionists, members of Judonia probably invested in the organization, and when Judonian staff within the government put Blackwater on government payroll in Iraq, the opportunity to enrich Judonia was almost certainly an incentive.
Judonian use of Christian Zionists is not confined to native auxiliaries. Not only does the new Christian Zionist politics focus almost exclusively on pro-Israel activities in contrast with the earlier Moral Majority movement, which had political concerns beyond Israel, but John Hagee and his colleagues among the Christian Zionist leadership look very much like a native collaborator elite rewarded by Judonia for its effort in influencing American political parties or the US government (RJC and CUFI Incite Islamophobia).
The followers of the new Christian Zionist leadership act like the Kafiris in The Man Who Would be King by Rudyard Kipling and have religious beliefs with more similarity to the Tanna Island Cargo Cult than anything resembling a recognizable form of Christianity.
A part of the Zionist intelligentsia mostly of Jabotinskian orientation seems to be trying to integrate the new Christian Zionist movement more officially within Judonia because by Jabotinskian standards these Christian Zionists are more reliable than large sections of the Jewish community, but large sections of the American Jewish community have qualms about Hagee and his associates.
[See israelinsider: Views: Should Jews fear Christian Zionists?, Support of Christian Zionists makes some Jews uneasy - Cleveland ..., Christian Zionists lobby for US attack on Iran, Standing with Israel, In Praise of Christian Zionists, URJ - Christian Zionism? Is it good for North American Jews and ..., Bibi: Christian Zionists our top friends | Jerusalem Post, and Christians, Jews in Holy Land alliance - CNN.com.]
The argument for inclusion focuses on the benefits that Christian Zionist bring in terms of lobbying Congress at a time when progressive Jews are aiding anti-Israel and anti-Semitic forces and an attempt to render permanent the opportunistic temporary scare-mongering that Neocons and their allies have been using to manipulate American and Jewish politics. (See Updating "The AJC attacks" or AJC Attack on Progressive Jews.)
Neocons and Judonia in general incited hysteria after 9/11 to create an exacerbation of the temporary shock and trauma in order to facilitate changes in the US legal system and tax code, but the Neocons following Strauss’s political philosophy[lxi] sought and still seek a permanent remake of American and American (and American Jewish) society to create a new shared moral and political perception that would embrace Israel and exclude Arabs, Muslims, and any critics of Israel with the fervor of Hagee’s Christian Zionism and with the strength of moral conviction that possessed Israel in the first decades of its existence.
Such an America would have the strength to defend itself from Arab and Islamic infiltration in the form of Arab and Muslim American citizens just as Israel did right after the “War of Independence” when the Israeli Army shot a lot of desperately poor and unarmed Arabs as infiltrators for trying to return to reclaim their property, to tend their flocks, or to harvest their fields.
In the course of the Neoconservative remaking of American society, the USA has begun to look like Islamophobia central with the legal attack on Islamic charities, Arab investments, persecution of Palestinian activists, efforts to expel Islamic scholars, the political campaign to demonize Barak Obama as a Muslim, (Obama versus the Israel Lobby and Followup: Obama vs. Israel Lobby), and the attempt of Jewish leaders to impose a test of loyalty to Israel before American Muslims can fully participate in American politics.
Because of Judonian and Israeli government manipulation of the US economy, this Islamophobia has now become a threat to all Americans.
Lowering taxes and printing money to wage the “War on Terror” created economic conditions that threatened rampant inflation, to which Greenspan and Bernanke responded by gradually raising interest rates.
If the Neocon Friedmanite plan of privatizing the Iraqi economy, then the Lebanese, the Sudanese, and Iranian economies after a sequence of wars, interventions and regime changes, the new neocolonial revenue streams could have generated real growth that would have raised housing values. Instead the program went awry in each country, and Bernanke raised the prime while housing values stagnated. As a result Bernanke triggered the collapse of the subprime market and has plunged the USA into recession or possibly even into depression at the same time the dollar’s value has steadily eroded.
To save the economy the USA needs genuine growth, which is practically impossible to achieve as long as the USA is burning money in the Iraq occupation. Bailouts of Wall Street Banks like Bear Stearns help three nondisjoint groups consisting of
Not only do such monetary giveaways to the rich and powerful provide no benefit for the vast majority of Americans, but they also represent a reprise of the aforementioned financial rescues of members of the German aristocracy during the Long Depression that started in 1873.
At this point, Gulf Arabs and the Chinese government have as much interest in saving the US economy as ordinary Americans because the Arabs are dollar rich while the Chinese hold a tremendous amount of US debt. Yet because of
Arab investors and the Chinese government are reluctant to put up the necessary money and make the needed efforts to save the US economy even though they would almost certainly come out ahead and protect the value of their current holdings.
Is the foregoing analysis credible or simply yet another conspiracy theory on the model of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?
Figure 11 First London English Edition (1920)
Conspiracy theories are social political phenomenologies comparable to the Bohr theory of the atom. They are usually wrong in many details but are used to understand connections among people and events when important information is missing or when the proper framework is not available for analysis.
Imperial Judonia does not result from a conspiracy even if at times members and staff may act conspiratorially. It has come into being as a result of social and political evolution over a long time period, and in many regards does not look all that different from sixteenth or seventeenth century Eastern European Ethnic Ashkenazi society, which was dominated by a wealthy often not particularly learned or philosophically deep merchant elite that was supported by and intermarried with a rabbinical intellectual class that maintained the continuity and ethos of the community.
Of all the separate intellectual currents into which the nineteenth century Russia Jewish intelligentsia divided itself, only the Zionists had an intrinsic role for Jewish wealth to play, and the key difference between the Zionist intelligentsia and the medieval Rabbinic elite lay in the conceptualization of the yetzer hara` (the inclination to evil), which the Rabbis considered extremely dangerous and only controllable as long as the Rabbis imposed strict control over the community. In contrast, the Zionists viewed Jews as perfectable under a Zionist regime just as Soviet Jews and non-Jews viewed man as perfectable under a Soviet regime. The Zionists sought the New Man of the Zionist revolution while the Soviets wanted to create the New Soviet Man and the Jewish Section of the Soviet Communist Party worked particularly hard to make sure that Soviet Jews would meet the definition. (See האדם החדש של המהפכה הציונית: השומר הצעיר ושורשיו האירופיים by Rina Peled,  רינה פלד, Attacking Shohat: Falsifying Jewish History, and Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation.)
To achieve their ends, the Medieval Rabbis tried to train themselves and the Jewish communities in self-control while the Zionists and the generally very Jewish Soviet intelligentsia sought to aggrandize themselves, their leaders, and their states. The Labor Zionist and the Soviet elite did not prove flexible and adaptable enough to keep power. Jabotinskian and Occult Zionists not only adapted their ideologies but also managed to achieve transnational capabilities of the sort that the Soviets only dreamed.
Are Jews really capable of the sort of brutal force, subversion, and dishonesty necessary to create and sustain Imperial Judonia?
To believe that Jews could not be mass murderers, genocidaires, or ethnic cleansers is itself a form of racism that assumes Jews are superior to other people. (See Stalin's Jews by Sever Plocker.) Any Jew or supporter of the State of Israel that refuses to admit the possibility that Jews could develop their own Nazism as brutal as German Nazism is simply a bigot with whom rational discussion is simply not impossible.
A more correct question would ask whether the historical conditions arose that could lead Jews to undertake the sort of brutal force, subversion, and dishonesty necessary to create and sustain Imperial Judonia.
Indeed, there was a tremendous amount of anger among nineteenth century Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim. (See Arun Gandhi and Sholem Aleichem.) It may have resulted from the policies of Czar Nicholas I. Yet, because Jewish accounts of the Chmielnicki Rebellion contain ever more inflated Jewish casualty figures as the Rebellion recedes into history, there is reason to speculate that disappointment with the failure of Commonwealth Poland to crush the rebels successfully is probably the real source of the anger. In any case, the existence of the anger and the associated willingness to commit violent acts is more important than identifying the origin of the modern Jewish propensity to violence.
From the middle of the nineteenth century, Russian ethnic Ashkenazim become more and more involved in radicalism, terrorism, and assassination.
Jews were prominent in the ranks of the early Soviet governments, and the anti-Semitic expression “Judeo-Bolshevism” is not without foundation. When the Pale of Settlement was suddenly opened, masses of Jews left the obsolete and class-negative shtetl (only the classes of proletarians and peasants had voting rights) and went inside Central Russia, studied in the universities, and filled the new governmental network, which needed a loyal intelligentsia. Many of them changed their names, intermarried with Russians, or behaved like Russians in every respect. Solzhenitsyn blamed the Jews for organizing soviet concentration camps (the “Gulag”) and identified several Jews among the leaders of the Soviet secret police in the early years. But Jews were equally prominent in the top echelons of many other areas of the young soviet regime: the administration, the party, education, medicine, Russian literature, physics, the sciences, the collectivization of the villages and the industrialization of Russia, and also – with particular vengeance – among those purges and liquidated by the regime. Even in World War II, their prominent position as industrial engineers and factory managers was visible (as witnessed by the Jewish names in Stalin’s “Decrees” commending heroes of the rear in the war effort). The same is true of the leftist movement in the world, including the leadership of the Soviet revolutions in Bavaria[[lxii]] and Hungary in 1919; such figures as Joffe (1883-1927; conducted the peace talks at Brest) and Borodin (Gruzenberg, 1884 – 1951; advisor to Sun Yat-Sen); or Karl Radek (Sobelson, 1885-1939), who carried out Stalin’s policies in Germany, helping Hitler’s rise to power. All were liquidated by Stalin.
[See also The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine (2004), The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine, and Nakba education vs Holocaust disinformation for Americans.]
Harshav’s passage is subtly dishonest. It suggests that Soviet Jews did well until Stalin started to liquidate them. In fact, Stalin had lots of people killed, who were in the vast majority non-Jews.
After the purges of the 1930s, the upper ranks of the Soviet Communist Party were probably more not less Jewish. After the Soviet recognition of the State of Israel, doubts appear to have increased at the highest level of the party about the true loyalties of many Soviet Jews and many Jews were purged, but the most reliable Soviet Jews remained in leadership positions in lesser but disproportionate numbers, and until the execution of the Rosenberg’s the Soviet Union like the State of Israel to this day seems to have had little difficulty in recruiting foreign Jews for subversion or espionage. (See The Americans' Vanunu., [lxiii])
I asked IAS Mathematics Professor and former Harvard Fellow Vladimir Voevodsky about discrimination against Soviet Jews. He laughed at me and then told me that his division at Moscow State University had about 200 hundred members of whom only two truly had no Jewish ancestry. Of the rest, only two were Jewish by nationality on their Soviet papers, and Voevodsky seems to have been reporting hardly an unusual situation in Soviet Union.
Lies have been part of the genetics of Jewish politics, activism, and self-defense organizations for over a century.
For the record, while individual Soviet officials may have been hostile to Jews, the Soviets collectively were not anti-Jewish even if they were anti-Judaism in the context of general hostility to religion and even if they were exceptionally anti-Zionist possibly as a result of the historical competition between Communists and Zionists for membership in Czarist times. In addition the Soviet government had real problems with any sort of nationalist activities that strayed from strict Soviet parameters.
The Refusenik Movement was just one of the many scams associated with Judonia.
Imperial Judonia represents a grave threat to America and to the whole human race. It has the ability to manipulate the governments of the USA, Canada, the UK, and most of Europe. By manipulating the US economy, the World Bank, and the IMF, it has developed tremendous wealth.
The staff of Judonia is willing to use any form of violence, any form of subversion, and any lie to increase Judonian wealth and power for the good of the Jewish people and to make the world safe for Israel. Israeli security effectively requires the subjugation of the human race, which started with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, continued with the impoverishment of the populations of the southern cone of Latin America as well as the looting of SE Asian and the former Soviet States all in the name of freedom. Then the depredations of Judonia became even worse to include the immurement of Palestinians as well as the incineration, dismantlement, and cluster-bombing of Arab and Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Somalia), along with support for a coup in Venezuela (Venezuela coup linked to Bush team | World news | The Observer) likewise in the name of freedom and with incitement to attack other Arab and Muslim countries (the Sudan, Pakistan, and Iran) also in the name of freedom.
NEU Professor M. Shahid Alam writes (M. Shahid Alam: The Clash Thesis: a Failing Ideology?):
Americans are also asking, the President informs us, "why do they hate us?" His answer is clearly stated. "They hate what we see right here in this chamber a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." It is not clear anymore if 'they' points to al-Qaida, the Arabs or all Muslims.
It is hardly surprising that Arabs, Muslims and increasing numbers of other peoples hate American freedoms that amount to free fire zones and free market exploitation, and as long as Judonia controls the US government, we Americans have no genuine freedom.
Because Judonia was unable to loot the Arab world under the cover of free markets, the American taxpayer is already being exploited to bailout Wall Street Banks. Once Judonian assets are fully and securely globalized, the staff and members of Judonia would probably welcome the collapse of the US economy because it would hurt the Chinese and the Gulf Arabs.
The section Fighting Back to Save America in Judonia Rising Working Paper Part 1 (pdf) or Judonia Rising Working Paper Part 1 provides some suggestions for actions against Judonia, and there are some exploitable fault lines within Judonia as this document has indicated, but so much of the US government has been compromised – including the executive and practically the entire Congress – that Judonia may have achieved permanent domination over the USA.
Judonia’s only real weakness comes from the system that Judonia has constructed
Only Americans deny to any significant degree that Israel is a murderous terrorist state that is founded in genocide and that casually commits crimes against humanity as a matter of state policy.
As gas prices rise over the summer, Americans may become more open to hearing the truth, and then the members, staff and organizations of Judonia will become vulnerable to accusations of giving material support to terrorism and of inciting genocide.
If Jews and Jewish organizations do not receive exactly the same treatment as Muslims and Muslim organizations accused of giving material support to terrorism, Jewish officials like Mukasey and Chertoff will be vulnerable to accusations of enforcing one set of laws for Jews and another for non-Jews.[lxiv]
Generally, unequal prosecution amounts to obstruction of justice or to some other related form of official malfeasance. Jewish officials and collaborators engaging in obstruction of justice and related official malfeasance in the service of Judonia will themselves become prosecutable or at least summarily dismissible.
A public discussion of Jewish racism and conspiracy should make it possible to ask whether non-Jews can suggest the sort of treatment for the Jewish state that Jewish officials are willing to recommend for non-Jewish states.
Because the State of Israel is the keystone of the subversive influence that the Zionist intelligentsia of Judonia have over America,
· abolishing the Jewish state as the Iraqi state has been effectively dismantled by the occupation
would almost certainly improve the security of the USA, give Americans their country back, and make it possible to take Judonia apart and seize assets to serve
If Americans do not take action to neutralize Judonia very soon, the next generation of security technology may give Judonia permanent unassailable domination over the USA.
[i] U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
by John Brady Kiesling
The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.
Embassy of the United States of America
February 24, 2003
The Honorable Colin Powell
Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
John Brady Kiesling
U.S. Embassy Athens.
[ii] In my opinion Kiesling’s harshest comment about Israel and implicitly about the Israel lobby occurs on p. 181:
A Syrian democracy project embarked on purely as a short-term tactical program to ease the president’s conscience over imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to break the OPEC oil cartel, to wrong-foot the Democratic Party, or to eliminate any lingering military pressure on Israel from its neighbors would be disastrous to its alleged beneficiaries. Innocent democrats who trusted the United States would die painfully in the civil war that followed U.S. loss of interest. Therefore, America’s motives for ousting the Assad dynasty had better be clear, firm, and bipartisan, not (for example) a ploy to bathe Syria in fire and blood so that Israel can hang onto the Golan Heights for ever.
In point of fact, Bush probably could find bipartisan support to bathe Syria in fire and blood so that Israel can hang onto the Golan Heights forever, but Kiesling’s real point is fairly obvious.
[iii] Kiesling’s most carefully phrased criticism of the Bush administration occurs on p. 235:
But if the United States were insane enough to threaten Canada with preemptive attack in the way Vice President Cheney threatened Iran in his January 2005 MSNBC television interview, it would change Canada’s security calculation. The threat would create a powerful Canadian political movement to build a credible nuclear deterrent to U.S. aggression.
Kiesling never actually claims that Cheney or U.S. Iran policy is insane.
[iv] Jabotinsky’s family was not nearly as wealthy as Trotsky’s, but Trotsky’s father was illiterate. Both families were non-religious and spoke Russian or Ukrainian but not Yiddish. Trotsky’s father sent his son to study in Odessa where Jabotinsky’s family lived.
What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family -- an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.
Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel. Let's start with one of the founding fathers of the extended neocon clan: Irving Kristol. His extensive resume includes waging culture wars for the CIA against the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War and calling for an American "imperial" role during the Vietnam War. Papa Kristol, who has been credited with defining the major themes of neoconservative thought, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative powerhouse on her own. Her studies of the Victorian era in Britain helped inspire the men who sold Bush on the idea of "compassionate conservatism."
The son of this proud couple is none other that William Kristol, the crown prince of the neoconservative clique and editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance.
Irving Kristol's most prominent disciple is Richard Perle, who was until Thursday the Defense Policy Board chairman, is also a "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, which is housed in the same building as PNAC. Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago.
Perle's own protege is Douglas Feith, who is now Wolfowitz's deputy for policy and is widely known for his right-wing Likud position. And why not? His father, Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist Dalck Feith, was once a follower of the great revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his native Poland back in the 1930s. The two Feiths were honored together in 1997 by the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).
The AEI has long been a major nexus for such inter-familial relationships. A long-time collaborator with Perle, Michael Ledeen is married to Barbara Ledeen, a founder and director of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum (IWF), who is currently a major player in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and another neo-con power couple -- David and Meyrav Wurmser -- co-authored a 1996 memorandum for Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu outlining how to break the Oslo peace process and invade Iraq as the first step to transforming the Middle East.
Though she doesn't focus much on foreign-policy issues, Lynne Cheney also hangs her hat at AEI. Her husband Dick Cheney recently chose Victoria Nuland to become his next deputy national security adviser. Nuland, as it turns out, is married to Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol's main comrade-in-arms and the co-founder of PNAC.
Bob's father, Donald Kagan, is a Yale historian who converted from a liberal Democrat to a staunch neocon in the 1970s. On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Donald and his other son, Frederick, published "While America Sleeps," a clarion call to increase defense spending. Since then, the three Kagan men have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy.
And which infamous ex-Reaganite do the Kagans and another leading neocon family have in common? None other than Iran-contra veteran Elliott Abrams.
Now the director of Near Eastern Affairs in Bush's National Security Council, Abrams worked closely with Bob Kagan back in the Reagan era. He is also the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, long-time editor of the influential conservative Jewish publication Commentary, and his wife, Midge Decter, a fearsome polemicist in her own right.
Podhoretz, like Kristol Sr., helped invent neo-conservatism in the late 1960s. He and Decter created a formidable political team as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger in 1980, when they worked with Donald Rumsfeld to pound the last nail into the coffin of detente and promote the rise of Ronald Reagan. In addition to being Abrams' father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz is also the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Murdoch-owned New York Post and frequent guest on the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel.
As editor of Commentary, Norman offered writing space to rising stars of the neocon movement for more than 30 years. His proteges include former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Pipes, who was Ronald Reagan's top advisor on the "Evil Empire," as the president liked to call the Soviet Union. His son, Daniel Pipes, has also made a career out of battling "evil," which in his case is Islam. And to tie it all up neatly, in 2002, Podhoretz received the highest honor bestowed by the AEI: the Irving Kristol award.
This list of intricate, overlapping connections is hardly exhaustive or perhaps even surprising. But it helps reveal an important fact. Contrary to appearances, the neocons do not constitute a powerful mass political movement. They are instead a small, tightly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy.
[vi] Many senior Czarist officials were all too aware that the Empire teetered on the edge of an abyss and were desperately trying to reform the state before it was too late.
[vii] Kiesling also talks rationally about Iran (and about information supplied by the State of Israel) on pp. 232-233:
After the Iraq weapons of mass destruction fiasco it behooves the United States to be skeptical of the information and disinformation provided by Iranian exiles and Israel. In 2003, by the time I resigned, the evidence of Iranian weapons programs available at the ordinary secret level was no more specific than it had been in 1996. In 2005 the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, at least as leaked to the press, was that it would still take Iran another five to ten years to have a bomb, unless the international community intervened one way or another. Russia (which sold Iran its nuclear reactor at Bushehr) and Pakistan (which secretly sold Iran uranium enrichment centrifuge technology) are oddly complacent about a nuclear-armed Shiite theocracy on their doorsteps.
With the Russian empire truncated and Iraq in ruins, it would be reasonable for Iranian politicians to conclude that nuclear weapons are too expensive a luxury to be justified by the security threats Iran now faces. Such rationality, however, presupposes Iranian recognition that the United States is a status-quo power as well. At the moment this requires a leap of faith.
I could quibble that Iran might also need nuclear weapons because Israel and Pakistan possess them, but Americans really need a rational voice to counter the ongoing push from Neoconservatives and from far too many members of the American Jewish elite for an attack on Iran. (See The Case for Bombing Iran or http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/The-Case-for-Bombing-Iran-10882.)
[viii] Avnery’s speech below is careful to blame anti-Semitism, to define acceptable allies for Palestinians, and to demand that Sari Nusseibeh join in the struggle against anti-Semitism, but he is far less direct about the nature of the conflict and of the solution.
Despite Avnery’s delusion, Modern Israeli Hebrew (MIH) is fundamentally relexified Yiddish. The vocabulary has some similarity to that of Arabic, but the grammar and the meanings of words have much more affinity to Yiddish, German and Slavic than to any Semitic language including Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew. (See Les origines des juifs actuels [http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/12/les-origines-des-juifs-actuels.html], The Origins of Modern Jewry [http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/10/origins-of-modern-jewry.html], and Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish, Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect, by Paul Wexler [http://books.google.com/books?id=JL7CY2MW63gC&printsec=frontcover].)
Uri Avnery: Lev Kopelev Prize Acceptance Speech
(Instead of my usual weekly article, this time I am posting my acceptance speech on receiving, together with Sari Nusseibeh, the Lev Kopelev prize. The award ceremony took place last week in Cologne, Germany.)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Ambassador of Palestine and the former Ambassador of Israel,
(I am sorry that I am unable to greet the present Israeli Ambassador, since he did not see fit to attend,)
Every time I stand on German soil, I ask myself: What and where would I be now, if Adolf Hitler had never been?
Would I be standing here with Sari Nusseibeh? Would I be an Israeli at all?
I was born not far from here, in Beckum, Westphalia. My grandfather, Josef Ostermann, was the teacher of the small Jewish community there.