20.07.2005
The irony of Israel Shamir
Zionism and anti-semitism feed off each other, argues Tony Greenstein
When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Tom Lehrer famously said that political satire had now become obsolete. Likewise with Israel Shamir. Who else could be so lacking in any sense of the absurd that he can act as the apostle of anti-semitism, whilst simultaneously quoting Lenin in his polemics against the Bund, the General Jewish Workers Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia? What Shamir's reply (Letters, July 14) to my article, 'Turning a blind eye to anti-semitism' (Weekly Worker July 8), lacked in substance, it more than made up for in overblown and vacuous rhetoric. Not once did he attempt to rebut or provide an explanation for the main charge that, since his appointment as adviser to Deir Yassin Remembered, the latter has become a nest of holocaust-deniers, anti-semites and other conspiracy theorists. But maybe Israel Shamir's grandmother forgot to tell him that when you're in a hole it's best to stop digging. Apparently Shamir's grandmother had a simple philosophy: namely that matters should be judged according to whether or not they were good for the Jews. It is, of course, the understandable reaction of someone who has lived through the murderous, state-sponsored anti-semitism which Russia's Jews experienced in the late 19th and early 20th century. For reasons that Shamir does not explain, both myself and Jews Against Zionism are also guilty of the same crime. In short we are Jewish nationalists. Unsurprisingly Shamir is unable to understand that this assertion, made without a shred of supporting evidence, is in itself an example of his anti-semitism. If you are Jewish and dare to mention that fact, then by definition you are a Zionist, obsessed with nothing else but fellow Jews. In fact the opposite is true. In my original article I made clear my view that anti-semitism is a marginal prejudice today. Jews are not under threat. Anti-semitism is confined to marginal cranks and fruitcakes like Shamir and his devotees. My reason for opposing the anti-semitism of Shamir, Eisen and Atzmon has little to do with the consequences for Jews. Apart from the fact that I abhor all forms of racism, the primary reason that I oppose Shamir's anti-semitism is because of the effect it will have on support for the Palestinians. To be blunt, there is nothing the Zionists love more than 'proof' that anti-Zionists really are anti-semites. If Shamir did not exist, the Zionists would have to invent him. And it is quite possible that an Israeli intelligence asset would pose as someone with his views. But, as my own late grandmother might have said, apropos Shamir's turgid prose, if you give a man enough rope he's bound to hang himself. Shamir suggests that Jews Against Zionism is akin to the Bund. Leaving aside the obvious absurdity of this historical analogy, the fact is that JAZ does not exclude non-Jews from membership. We do not claim any special privileges or rights. But we do deny Shamir's assertion that Jewish identity - any Jewish identity - is ipso facto a Zionist identity. This is exactly what the Zionists claim. Historically there have been a multiplicity of Jewish identities. Even today, with the Israeli state, Zionism is by no means the sole or only Jewish identity. What Shamir is saying is that to oppose Zionism it is necessary to oppose Jews and Judaism. That is the origin of Shamir's anti-semitism. Shamir's unique talent is to take Zionism's assertions at face value, invert them and then claim them as his own, all in the name of supporting the Palestinians. Zionism was unique amongst Jewish political movements in its reaction to anti-semitism. Zionism began by accepting the fundamental premise of the anti-semites: namely that the Jews did not belong in the countries where they were born and lived. As Zionist novelist AB Yehoshua explained, "On the contrary, the gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-semite must be a Zionist" (Jewish Chronicle January 22 1982). After the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Rabbi Yehuda Amital noted that among religious Zionists "It is felt that, the more overt anti-semitism becomes, the more beneficial it will prove for the Jews, because through anti-semitism the Jews of the diaspora will come to the realisation that they must move to Eretz Yisrael" (ibid April 15 1983). Likewise Theodore Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, quickly realised that anti-semitism "will not harm the Jews. I consider it to be a movement useful to the Jewish character" (T Herzl Complete diaries p10). This is the perverse 'logic' of Zionism - that anti-semitism is good for the Jews. It is also the perverted logic of Israel Shamir, whose reaction to Zionism is the same as the latter's reaction to anti-semitism. The Zionists claim that all Jews are Zionists. Shamir agrees. Therefore it is legitimate to be anti-semitic because only in that way can one oppose Zionism and support the Palestinians. But Shamir is not so much a racial anti-semite as a medieval one. For him "acceptance of christ is the final solution of the Jewish question". Note the deliberate use of the term "final solution". He may espouse different methods, but his aims are no different from his neo-Nazi friends. But Shamir protests that he is wilfully misunderstood - either because of my "dumbness or for more sinister reasons". He denies the allegation that he considers Jews to be "christ killers". If there is one thing worse than someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth, it is someone who cannot even remember what he has written. In his 'Discussion of anti-semitism' Shamir writes: "No study or decon-struction of Jewishness is meaningful, unless one understands that Jewry was born in order to fight christ and christianity." In 'The trefoil and the cross', he argues that "the war on Palestinians is often interpreted as a new attempt of (neo) Jews and Mammon-worshippers to crucify christ in his land". In his 'Take two - Easter greetings to you from Israel Shamir', he writes: "I say to you, each one of us has to see oneself as if he personally stands on Via Dolorosa, and decides whether the execution will be carried out. If we keep our mouth shut, we deserve to be called 'christ killers'. If we stop it, we shall change history. The scarlet as blood sins of the past will become white as snow" (http://shamir. mediamonitors.net/april152001.html). And Shamir's reaction to Gilad Atzmon's 'Zionists and christ killers' - which states that "perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus "¦" - was that "Gilad Atzmon tries to reach places no man tread before, in the following theoretical and metaphysical treatise". If there is one thing that is incontestable, it is that Shamir himself is certainly reaching for places that not even the worst anti-semites had previously considered attainable. The writings of Shamir are littered with the most obscene and revolting examples of medieval anti-semitism: In 'Bloodcurdling libel (a summer story)' he asks of the Jews: "Did they murder the children in order to save them from christ? Well, not exactly. That would be bad, but the reality was worse. The murder was performed as ritual slaughter followed by the victim's blood libation." And in his dialogue with "our good friend Noel Ignatiev", who is, quite appropriately, editor of Race Traitor magazine, Shamir remonstrates that Ignatiev's obsession with blacks "is distracting you, and your American friends, from carrying out the more important battle against your power elites" (for which read 'Jews'). Indeed Shamir reassures Ignatiev that "I share with national socialists the belief in the existence of 'organic units'" - but he has his differences. The problem is that "National socialism was a quasi-Judaic movement "¦" Once again Shamir is oblivious to irony. Ignatiev, a proud anti-semite, confesses that "I got angry with him [Shamir] - accusing me, of all people, of 'Judaic thinking'." And one should not forget the quaintly titled 'Midas ears', where Shamir observes that "Blankfort's list of 'Jews in media' "¦ enables an understanding of the secret of Jewish charm and it can be compared with a similar extensive list by prof Kevin MacDonald of California State University." MacDonald, besides being a holocaust denier, was one of David Irving's star witnesses when he unsuccessfully sued Penguin Books for libel! But the supreme irony remains Shamir's very own chutzpah. This unreconstructed anti-semite has the effrontery to quote an internal debate between the Bund and Lenin - on autonomy v separatism in the Russian labour movement - when he attacks JAZ and Jewish supporters of the Palestinians. Perhaps he is unaware of the Russian revolutionaries' attitude to anti-semitism. Their view was quite clear: "Complete unity between the Jewish and non-Jewish proletariat is moreover especially necessary for a successful struggle against anti-semitism - this despicable attempt of the government and the exploiting classes to exacerbate racial particularism and national enmity" (RSDLP 2nd Congress, 1903). The Bolsheviks considered that anti-semites did the work of the tsar and the exploiters for them. The idea that there is anything in common between Lenin, a fierce and unswerving opponent of anti-semitism and the shallow anti-semitic conspiracy theories of Israel Shamir is risible. Shamir's grasp of the history of the Bund's relationship with the Russian Social Democratic Party is on a par with the rest of his political understanding. The Bund did not ask Lenin permission to become members of the RSDLP because they were already members! As Lenin wrote, "Hitherto the Bund has been a constituent part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party "¦" (Iskra February 15 1903). It was the Bund who withdrew from the RSDLP in 1903 when their demands were not met, rejoining in 1906, only to leave once again. The differences between the Bund and what became the Bolsheviks were serious issues between socialists. Lenin and the majority rejected the separatist demands of the Bund but accepted that in matters relating to Jewish workers, the Bund had complete autonomy to put out their own propaganda and views. But the dispute has to be placed in perspective: viz, the terrible pogroms and repression that the Jews were experiencing. The Bund made up nearly one-third of the members of the RSDLP when it rejoined in 1906. Far from withering, the Bund was the main political organisation of the Jewish workers in Poland. By 1938 the Zionists had been reduced to one out of 20 council seats, compared to 17 for the Bund. Without the anti-Zionist Bund, there would have been no Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Why should Jews speak out against Zionism? Shamir parodies the fact that there are specifically Jewish organisations which speak out against Zionism and its actions. They range from the liberal Jews for Just Peace, which contains soft-left Zionists as well as non-Zionists, to the explicitly anti-Zionist Jews Against Zionism. Would we have had 'Whites against Apartheid'? he asks. Probably not, but Shamir is wilfully blind to the differences between the South African state, which did not claim to speak on behalf of whites worldwide, and Israel, which calls itself the Jewish state of all the Jewish people, wherever they may live. In South Africa the ANC included whites such as Joe Slovo within its highest ranks (the PLO, by way of contrast, had virtually no Jews in its leading echelons). There are historical reasons for this - not least the strength of the South African Communist Party and the existence of a large black working class. The reasons why Jews should speak out against Zionism, as Jews, is quite simple. The Israeli state claims to speak on behalf of all Jews, wherever they live. It is therefore incumbent upon those Jews who are anti-racist and who support the Palestinians to speak out. There is nothing separatist or Bundist about this. To suggest that it is part of some plot by the United Jewish Appeal to bring lost Jews back into the fold is eloquent testimony to the imbecility of Shamir's conspiracy theories. Holocaust denial Shamir says our criticism of Paul Eisen and his 'Holocaust wars' tract is "unwarranted". It is noticeable, however, that he makes no attempt to refute the charge that Eisen is consciously spreading holocaust denial myths; still less to dissociate himself from them. Instead he asks why we do not take up other examples of revisionism, such as my "ally" Steven Plaut, who denies the Deir Yassin massacre. The problem is that I have never even met Steven Plaut! He is certainly no ally, unless the fact of being (presumably) Jewish means we are automatically in league with each other! Some of us have spent most of our political life attacking Zionists who deny that the Palestinians were expelled in 1948-49 and that there were a series of massacres to 'encourage' them. It is precisely for this reason that we react so strongly to those who purport to support the Palestinians, but who are in reality following their own holocaust denial agenda. What Shamir calls the holocaust narrative is indeed used to justify and perpetuate the suffering and dispossession of the Palestinians. That the Zionists have and are using the holocaust to justify other war crimes is not new. We are well aware that the Zionist movement - which did nothing to stop the fascists coming to power, but instead collaborated with them, even to the extent of providing the names of addresses of Jews whom the SS wished to round up in Hungary - has exploited and used the suffering of the Jews of Europe to further its political project. Writers such as Norman Finkelstein have written extensively on these criminal abuses of the holocaust (see Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering - the holocaust industry Verso 2003). But the difference between them and Shamir is that their starting point is that the holocaust is an historical fact. Shamir and his holocaust revisionist friends deny any such thing. Shamir suggests that when I call him "an ex-Russian/Swedish fascist living in Israel" that this is a "hoodwinking way of saying, 'He is not a Jew'". Let me assure Mr Shamir that this was not my intention. All I was saying was that he is a fascist. I do not care if he is a Jewish or non-Jewish fascist! Jeff Blankfort, another of Shamir's associates, and I have had an extensive correspondence. The problem is that he says different things at different times. When he says that he has read Faurisson, one of the principal proponents of holocaust denial, and that what he says merits further investigation, this raises alarm bells. And when Blankfort writes: "In reference to my suggestion to another activist and close friend here in California, also non-Jewish, this past week, that there are serious questions about the holocaust narrative, he quickly and out of character, responded, 'You mean there was no Auschwitz or Buchenwald?' It was obvious that this was not a subject he wanted to explore", one is left wondering as to the nature of the "serious questions" he wants resolved. Jeff Blankfort, on the one hand, says that he is not a holocaust denier (Letters Weekly Worker July 14) and, on the other hand, questions whether there was a Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry. The problem is that objectively Jeff Blankfort comes very close to being a holocaust denier, but subjectively he is equally sincere in rejecting the idea that he is one. I am happy to accept his assurances that he is not a holocaust denier, but he should be more careful about the company he keeps. Blankfort says that he has "become thoroughly alienated from a heritage of which I was once proud". This is not a problem confined to him. A number of Jews have been so revolted and alienated by what the Zionists have done in their name, and by their misuse of the memory of the holocaust in order to justify the expulsion and massacre of the Palestinians, that they have begun to make common cause with those who deny there ever was a holocaust. And when they discover that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, they take this as proof of the fact that the holocaust did not happen rather than proof of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Zionists. This is a dangerous phenomenon, because it threatens to legitimise, not weaken, Zionism. Questions Shamir ignored It is noticeable that, where Israel Shamir cannot bluster, he simply ignores the more uncomfortable points in my article. For example, there is: (1) no attempt to explain his defence of the blood libel myth that Jews sacrificed non-Jewish children in order to make matzot for Passover; and (2) no attempt by Shamir to explain why he works and collaborates with fascists and openly racist and anti-semitic individuals such as David Duke and Martin Webster and why he calls for their involvement in Palestine Solidarity work. If Shamir seriously believes that neo-Nazis and other assorted racists and anti-semites such as Nick Griffin of the BNP have any contribution to make towards fighting the racism of Zionism then he is simply barking. But, regardless of however many conspiracies Shamir can dream up, people are awakening to the nasty little group of holocaust deniers and anti-semites he inspires who are on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement. Eisen, Shamir, Atzmon and co are the best friends that the Zionists could want. That is why Lea Tsemel and Jeff Halper have resigned as advisers to Deir Yassin Remembered. That is why Norman Finkelstein, Uri Davies and Michael Warshawski, all of whom have long records of support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism, have made it clear that they want nothing at all to do with Israel Shamir and DYR. As Shamir's late grandmother should have told him, the proof of the pudding is in the eating! l
Worker