    Rarely does a commentary penetrate with the focused power of the writing
    of Israel Shamir. This is a problem for those who wish to keep the
    issues in a maze of fog and explains much of brouhaha surrounding his
    words in ostensive pro-Palestinian circles.

    Heat & Light

    by Joh Domingo

    It is common knowledge that we stand under the blazing sun for hours; it
    will perhaps one day cause cancer if we lack sufficient melanin, but
    otherwise, there are no immediate significant negative effects. Just one
    square meter of the sun burns with the brightness of 232,500 candles.
    One Sq. M of sunlight onto a solar panel instantly generates about 5
    amps of power or 18,000 amps/hour. We are exposed to millions of amps of
    sunlight a day, yet, we can survive a lifetime in the sun, because the
    suns rays are diffused and are relatively easily blocked by clothing,
    umbrellas etc.

    On the other hand, those same 5 amps that are instantly produced by
    sunlight onto 1 Sq. Meter of solar panel can be used to cut diamonds; if
    correctly focused into a laser beam. We would hardly notice the impact
    of 5 Amps coursing through our body, but the same power, properly
    focused, could slice us up like schnitzel.

    That is the power of FOCUS.

    It is commonplace nowadays, for opinion about social issues to
    proliferate, often producing more fog than light. Still, illumination
    about various issues is provided by many commentators. Rarely does
    commentary penetrate with the focused power of the writing of Israel
    Shamir. This is a problem for those who wish to keep the issues in a
    maze of fog and explains much of brouhaha surrounding his words in
    ostensive pro-Palestinian circles.

    Israel Shamir is precise about the nature of the creature afflicting the
    Palestinians - philo-Semitism. It is Jewish Nationalism, and Jewish
    celebration of a matyrological culture that holds: that one cannot be,
    what you are victim of, no matter what you do. Since they cherish the
    notion that Jews are perpetual victims, it follows that everyone else
    are considered perpetual victimizers. Those that miraculously are not,
    are placed in a special category reserved for the very… very few. The
    rest, who pose no immediate threat, are quarantined, to protect against
    agitators that would bring out their true murderous natures.

    This is an extremely alienating concept for those excluded by such
    particularistic notions. It is the Achilles heel of Zionism. A focus on
    this weakness will produce disturbance in the solidarity ranged against
    the Palestinians. Producing division in the forces against you has to be
    the number one priority in any struggle.

    Those that propagate the theory that the Palestinian struggle is part of
    a broader struggle against fascism and Racism, diffuse any specific
    pressure that can be brought to bear on the enemy. It is the opposite of
    common sense; a broader struggle diffuses the impact of the specific
    struggle. It is precisely because the broader struggle regulates
    ideology, that the specific struggle loses support, if they are in
    violation of the dogma of the broader struggle. Also, the broader
    struggle has a broader range of opponents that are automatically
    inherited by the specific struggle, even if the specific strugglers are
    unaware of it.

    Left wing anti-Fascists have limited appeal. Generally, they have
    managed to alienate a broad segment of western society with their
    dogmatic adherence to ideology. They enjoy practically no demonstrable
    public support there, whereas in the developing world, left wing
    activists more closely align themselves with the traditionalist culture
    in their society. Even Union members in the west are more often right
    wing nowadays.

    Let us recap:

    Towards the latter part of 2002, a denunciation of the ‘anti-Semitic’
    imagery in Shamir’s writing was published by Arab/American Ali Abunimah
    and Hussein Ibish on the internet. Their reasoning was along the lines
    that such imagery undermined the Palestinian struggle because it was
    essentially a struggle against bigotry and Racism; and that bigotry and
    prejudice underpinned anti-Semitism. The logic therefore follows,
    according to them; that if one were opposed to Zionist Racist oppression
    in Palestine, one had to be opposing bigotry and prejudice everywhere.

    It would be nice if we could alleviate the Palestinian crisis, and at
    the same time cure Racism everywhere, but neither is going to happen, if
    we employ this logic. Instead, we are going to steadily alienate every
    conceivable source of support, on the grounds that it violates
    principles we supposedly stand for. Already Saudi support is unwanted.
    Baathist became an embarrassment a long time ago, and we can only hope
    Osama Bin Laden has not infiltrated our pristine movement. Islamic
    Fundamentalist are definitely persona non-gratis even though Hamas, an
    Islamist Palestinian Party, occupies center stage in the Palestinian
    struggle against Zionism.

    Abunimah and Parry’s missive was widely distributed, and the charge was
    taken up with gusto by elements within the Jewish dissident movement.
    But they imposed a blanket of silence, and never commented publicly
    about it again. Now Shamir suggests that Abunimah is at the forefront of
    a campaign to have the organized Deir Yassin Remembered group stripped
    of its tax-exempt status in the US, because of his presence on its board
    of advisors.

    About two Months ago, Shamir addressed a Book promotion at the House of
    Lords that publicized several books by him and others. The meeting was
    organized under the auspices of Muslim Asian Peer Lord Ahmad. The
    address was published by Shamir on his website and distributed to his
    Newsgroup consisting of about 1500 members. Some members subsequently
    redistributed it to their own newsgroups. It therefore received fairly
    widespread distribution, as does most of his writing.

    Belatedly, an article appeared in the Jewish Chronicle (London) and
    Rupert Murdoch Times, written by a self-confessed Zionist supremacist,
    Stephan (“I am a Jew”) Pollard. (The phrase is not de-contextualized; it
    appears as a fragment on his Webblog.)

    The publication of this piece precipitated an diatribe avalanche on
    Jewish centered pro-Palestinian discussion groups as philo-Semites
    geared themselves up for a campaign to get others to denounce Shamir for
    his ‘anti-Semitism”. They have long denounced him, but realize that it
    has had minimal impact, by Jewish standards. Their argument revolves
    around similar logic of Abunimah and Ibish – anti-Semitism hurts the
    Palestinian cause (ostensibly because it is a form of bigotry).

    Is the fight for justice for Palestinians a fight against bigotry?
    Possibly, but it is light not a laser; precisely because the term means
    so little – ‘bigotry’ that is. It means the opinion of others that does
    not reflect your own opinion. It means intolerance of the opinion of
    others.

    So what is it we don’t like about Zionists? They tend to kill their
    subjects with impunity, herd them into ever decreasing pens … in general
    treat them with despicable injustice. But that is not what Shamir is
    being accused of; he is being accused of refusing to treat White
    Nationalist AKA ‘Nazi’s’, like pariahs – and it is they who are being
    accused of the worst imaginable sins.

    This view, even if one accepts its premise, presents us with a stark
    choice: present reality of naziesque behavior against potential future
    Nazi behavior. It is seldom that any of us react with bigotry against
    Zionist. We argue and debate, we sometimes even call them names; but we
    never try to stifle their discourse. They are tolerated, nay, they are
    mainstream, and it is us who are barely (if at all) tolerated.

    Seen in this light, it is obvious that the least tolerated, are White
    Nationalist, and that anyone who tolerates them is to be despised along
    with them. The rhetoric is thick with innuendo about how Shamir actually
    talks to these people. It is cited as a grave sin that he references
    some of them in his essays, and that his pieces circulate amongst them.
    By doing so, Shamir legitimates discourse with ‘them’. But should
    discourse with them be delegitimated?

    It is pretty clear just who is the bigot here; and it is hard to
    describe Shamir’s behavior as bigotry. Words and concepts seem to have
    been turned on its head and their meaning debased – tolerance is now
    defined as bigotry, and bigotry is averred to be a fight against
    fascism.

    But even these anti-fascist warriors have a remarkable amount of
    tolerance themselves, when it suits them – they link to and quote
    Zionist fascist at will, in support of their actions. By any definition,
    Stephen (“I am a Jew”) Pollard is an anti-Black, anti-White, anti-Arab
    hatemonger and self-described warmonger. But he is quoted at length and
    his words are publicized by these ‘anti-fascists’.

    Likewise, the argument that anti-Semitism hurts the Palestinian cause
    stands on shaky ground. The ‘anti-Fascist’ logic goes: We cannot become
    like Zionist, and anti-Semites discredit the Palestinian cause. The
    implication is that Nazi’s are similar to Zionist, and would hate the
    Palestinians if they were in the Zionist shoes. But it is conjecture and
    assumes much; presuming that every White Nationalist is a Hitler. It is
    pure prejudice and hatred of those with a different outlook. One would
    have to presume that these ‘anti-Fascist’ would advocate the elimination
    of every Palestinian that chooses to live a traditional life, based on
    this display of hatred of those with different values.

    And it is about values: theirs, as opposed to everyone else’s. One of
    the primary values of Zionism is the dogmatic belief in the supremacy of
    its own values, and the suppression of anything that opposes it.

    I generally like people; all kinds of people, even Zionists and White
    bigots, and prefer to concentrate only on their positive traits if I
    can. It is impossible for people to hate you, if you like them. That is
    a fundamental law of human nature. A political stand should be made
    against ideologies, and dogmas; not people. Attempts to smear
    individuals violate the principles that govern human interaction, which
    regulate personal relationships, by fostering a culture of suspicion and
    prejudice.

    I have never met Israel Shamir in person, and no doubt will, someday
    soon. I cannot help but feel that an attempt has been made to corrupt my
    impressions to date. Certainly attempts have been made to get me to at
    least be reasonably skeptical about his background and an obvious
    reliance is placed on the use mud that has been flung his way, to this
    end. But throwing mud patty cakes is a sure way of getting yourself
    dirty; I am already discounting the accusers, before I even examine the
    evidence, or lack of it.

    The Swedish Connection:

    While Israel Shamir’s connection to Sweden has been raised as a
    revelation of epic proportions, I found it at most to be merely
    intriguing. Many people live in several different countries, and many
    Israelis have dual nationalities. I have a good cyber friend who lives
    in both the US and Italy. This information doesn’t inform the issue in
    the least, and is entirely irrelevant and personal, whether or not it is
    true. This includes any discussion about Shamir’s relationships with
    women and his children. It should be dismissed out of hand as inapropos.

    It is alleged that Shamir changed his name (in Sweden) to Joran Jermas.
    Indeed Roland Rance, in one of his many screeds against Shamir, suggests
    that he goes under various other names: Schmerling/Robert David/Vassili
    Krasevsky as well. But it is the name Jermas that is purported to be
    verifiable. But it is never verified in any of the screeds against him.
    Jermas is supposed to be an ‘anti-Semitic’ Swedish writer, with the
    name-change occurring in 2000; yet there is no verifiable article or
    piece of writing by him on the net. This is disappointing, for if Shamir
    is indeed Jermas, the writing would probably be just as good. None of
    the other names show up in a search either.

    What does it all mean? Well nothing really, according to Rance; his
    opposition stems from the anti-Semitic writings of Shamir, not Jermas.
    It is Jermas that is sullied by the reference to Shamir, not the other
    way around. Jermas is a cleanskin in the anti-Semitism stakes. Who knows
    why Shamir would want to change his name in Sweden, what does it matter
    if he does? It certainly has little relevance, even if it were true.
    Some of the finest thinkers published material under a pseudonym, as
    well as in their own names. It really strikes me as being a storm in a
    teacup in an obvious attempt to generate heat where none exists.

    By all accounts, verified from the numerous people that have met Shamir,
    he does indeed live in Jaffa, Israel, and is well known locally.
    Information about his military service is also easily confirmed from the
    public record, and we have to assume that MOSSAD would likely have
    checked him out for Roland Rance & Stephen (“I am a Jew”) Pollard long
    ago. There are recorded links to his work translating James Joyce into
    Russian.

    The issue seems to be that Shamir ‘came from nowhere’ in 2001. This is a
    ridiculous manifestation of the prejudice of Anglo society that presumes
    that if someone does not exist in an English version somewhere, they
    must not exist. Shamir himself reveals that he did not write in English
    until 2001. Where were we when he was writing in Russian or many of the
    other language the obviously multilingual Shamir is proficient in? An
    ability to learn languages is an indication of intelligence, and is not
    mysterious as Roland attempts to imply.

    In the end, a personal attack is presented as an attempt to express
    solidarity against Racism and bigotry. Well, I will happily stand with
    those that oppose Racism, but also reject, with disgust, the
    philo-Semitic solidarity expressed by crypto Zionist ‘anti-Fascists’. It
    doesn’t matter how long they believe they have been championing the
    Palestinian cause, they are mere legends in their own lunchtime,
    continuing to shine light, in order to cut a diamond. For diamonds – you
    need lasers.

    Joh Domingo

    Brisbane Australia

    12/04/05